what are you trying to prove, ultimately.

nevermind

i forgot what i tried to point out

exactly

i believe i meant that main stream research should be taken with high skepticism

and it is

thats why the scientific method exists

well you guys were talking about climate science i doubt any scientific method was used there

it was

fine show me

what scientific method they used to prove humans cause global warming

guess what, they cant

in order for them to properly use the scientific method there, they would need to replicate a copy of the earth without humans and see if global warming happens

this is what a scientific method is, and just like many other fields of studies, climate science is very inaccurate simply because its near impossible to use the scientific method

https://climate.nasa.gov/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

so you mind explaining

NASA is already a discredited witness. any judge would throw out all their evidence in court

how did they discover man-made climate change

what methodology was used to come up with this conclusion

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

im asking you

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

yes. this is an organization we can trust....

even if i trust nasa, whats the scientific method used

in the post he linked about human causes

In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

this is what they said

yep

basically the consensus said that its probably humans

in what world is that a scientific method

@Советский стив#0561 so from what i understood in the article about human caused climate change, they basically said that since co2 increased and apparently the earth became warmer, therefore humans caused the climate change

basically correlation equals causation

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1 Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

glad to see some are actually trying to do something...

i dont think people realize how much co2 is produced by nature itself

i mean did any global warming believer look into the volcanoes for example