/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14670707
>There is no evidence that mankind releases significant volumes of co2.

>>7586579
There are basically three links in the chain of reasoning:
- Human greenhouse gas emissions directly effect atmospheric greenhouse gas levels
- Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels have a large effect on global temperature compared to other natural or artificial contributions
- Atmospheric greenhouse gas levels are increasing at a previously unseen rate

I think the first point is pretty obvious, but there's a measurable correlation in any case.

>>7475591
Atmospheric CO2 levels (Green is Law Dome ice core, Blue is Mauna Loa, Hawaii) and Cumulative CO2 emissions (CDIAC). While atmospheric CO2 levels are usually expressed in parts per million, here they are displayed as the amount of CO2 residing in the atmosphere in gigatonnes. CO2 emissions includes fossil fuel emissions, cement production and emissions from gas flaring.

>>5810181
>1:3 to 1:5 ratio of science to bullshit.
>/sci/ is hardly representative of the real world.

Yeah,
The real world is worse.

>>5354851
>I find the evidence boring
Well maybe if I slapped some tits on it you'd pay attention. The evidence is there.
It has been directly observed that human activity causes the increase in atmospheric CO2. The record for how much carbon fuel we use goes back a long way, and the causative role is obvious.
>Show me something interesting, perhaps!
See related pic.
>there is no amount of evidence you could use to convince me!
I do not feel the same way. I understand the purpose of debate, but this attitude is exactly what's wrong - certainty is seen as the yardstick to judge truth. Such attitudes reward and encourage stupidity and submission. Science is the antithesis of this.