> The bigger problem with posts like this is that they fail to appreciate a very simple truth: Either humans are affecting the climate or they don't
These are tautologies:
* Human have affected the climate or they have not.
* Humans either do affect the climate or they don't.
But this is not:
* Either humans are affecting the climate or they don't
You may have meant something different, but it is common flaw in reasoning about climate. Just because the smaller increases in CO2 levels so far have had a small impact on the climate so far, does not mean that future larger increases in CO2 will have no effect forever.
To avoid future language mistakes I'll be writing in dutch from now on :)
So what I meant to say was:
There are only two possibilities:
- we have an effect on the environment
- we do not have an effect on the environment
Since it is trivially simple to prove that we have are having an effect on the environment the remaining task is to measure how our effect on our environment translates into an effect on the climate and what direction and magnitude that effect is.
I hope that is more clear to you, sorry for causing you distress :)
These are tautologies:
* Human have affected the climate or they have not. * Humans either do affect the climate or they don't.
But this is not:
* Either humans are affecting the climate or they don't
You may have meant something different, but it is common flaw in reasoning about climate. Just because the smaller increases in CO2 levels so far have had a small impact on the climate so far, does not mean that future larger increases in CO2 will have no effect forever.