Quote from: Spendulus on February 16, 2020, 04:56:53 PM

Quote from: Luqueasaur on February 16, 2020, 03:53:03 PM

...
They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.

The point in the above paragraph is essentially what I said in my last post, plus a bit of a clickbaity question to see how you'd answer.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Are we on the same page here?

Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle