Originally Posted by
Epoch
What I'm saying is this:
1) On a physics level, we know that A (increased percentages of CO2, Methane, other specific gases in an airlike mixture) can cause B (Increased specific heat levels of the gas mixture).
2) On a laboratory level, in samples of air that air studied and subjected to A, we get B.
3) In global computer simulations, when we increase A, we see a projected increase in B.
4) Addressing the issue of pollution through overconsumption and pisspoor efficiency solves many more things than just anthro climate change, and these only serve to benefit us as a whole. It's just that anthro climate change gets hanged on by too many people for the wrong reasons when it's one facet in a much larger problem. So, if we find ways to reduce A, then then we reduce B, and we consequently reduce the risk of a whole lot of problems.
Not saying pollution isn't a problem but laboratory results don't take into account plants, algae and nature in general because a laboratory is specifically designed to eliminate such variables. These variables need to be accounted for when making these kinds of tests.
As for computer simulations...they are nothing more than educated guesses and just like anything else the designer can and does tend to affect the outcome to suit his argument. this does not make it good science or even remotley accurate but if you can get one other person from your community to agree and sound the alarm it doesn't take much to get more to follow suit. Ater it has been preached for so long people overlook testing procedure and simply begin with the wrong conclusion and move forward from there in all tests etc.
I have seen it first hand in environmental science dealing with geomorphology and hydrology since alll they have to go on is 100 year flows and beyond that point it is mostly (not always) hearsay and passed on accountings. If it is taken as truth it can and does skew the final datum.