Many people on this issue talk past each; there’s no “debate” unless the points raised are addressed. The reply “everybody knows,” etc., is not a rebuttal to a debatable point. In short, it’s a political issue to most of us b/c politicians campaign on it and make absurd promises to do something about it. It’s tantamount promising to make changes to the weather. Stop thunderstorms, or similar.
People do not understand “science.” It’s the job of scientists to question explanations of phenomena, even of ostensible facts themselves. Theories consistent with observations are usually accepted until something new comes along that’s inconsistent with a theory’s prediction. For centuries scientists “accepted” Newtonian physics even though it was known that the theory could not account for variations in the orbit of planet Mercury. Something was not quite right. Eventually, Einstein replaced Newtonian theory with General Relativity. BUT, it took a specific prediction (hypothesis) from Relativity that could be tested. In this case, the bending of light rays from distant stars that passed near our Sun.
In comparison, the “Theory” of the causes of climate is hardly more than political sloganeering. Yes, the climate appears to be changing, getting warmer perhaps. Why? We don’t know and won’t know until it falls under the domain of the scientific method, if it ever does. One of the most basic principles of scientific inquiry is understanding that correlation is not direct evidence of causation. Yes. Data show correlation between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures historically, but what of it? It’s not even clear from the plots which is leading the other. This is a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years’ history. Not a 20th-century novelty. Close inspection has even raised the point that rising global temperatures are in advance of rising CO2 levels. Makes sense. Warming ocean water at the surface would raise evaporation of CO2 from ocean waters into the atmosphere.
“The Method” says an explanation with the fewest number of postulates is to be preferred over those requiring additional ad hoc postulates. Including anthropogenic CO2 with respect to interpreting the above correlation in present times would be an ad hoc postulation. Scientists sometimes call this “Special Pleading.” From the objective viewpoint, the “Theory” of the causes of climate change today is untested. Is probably is untestable. It amounts to Special Pleading and if left an orphan in the environs of true scientific inquiry and having to meet the commonly applied rigor, would die an innocuous explanation. But it lives on because of global politics, etc. I could continue but I feel a Bot coming on!
