I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Aivar Usk: 


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. 

One needs to distinguish science, knowledge of natural matters, from action to address phenomena.

Say, there is a big ozone hole over Antarctica, and it is getting bigger and starting to affect some inhabited parts of the planet in South America because of the intensity of the ultraviolet radiation. We know CFCs affect ozone. We don't actually know that anthropogenic CFCs are causing the ozone hole, but we do know that whatever CFCs are up there won't be helping close it.

We can wait until we know. The hole will likely carry on getting bigger and bigger in the meantime. Or we can agree not to emit CFCs into the atmosphere any more. No more Freon in fridges.

The hole starts reducing. And still is. 

The trick is to devise the interventions and put them into practice.

Say, someone presented to our 19thc medical practice with a growing lump in his belly. We can say “well, we don't really know what causes such lumps; let's wait until science tells us a bit more.” Or we can cut it out. If we did the latter, with appropriate antiseptic practices, the patient would have had a greater chance of surviving for longer. 

I'm glad you agree that global warming is real and some of it is likely to be anthropogenic. What do you propose to do about it? We are already a few decades down the line. We can carry on dithering until we “know” enough scientifically to please all those who want certainty. Or we can do straightforward stuff now. As we did with the ozone hole. It is perfectly “fair” to ask people for their best guesses. 

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

First, not all greenhouse gases are CO2. Second, what “temperature” are you talking about? There are lots of them. Third, missing correlation does not necessarily exclude causation; an effect might well be lost in the noise generated by confounding factors. 

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; 

Um, are you saying that greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat in the biosphere? 
 

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, 

I am glad we agree that the issue is real.

What would you actually propose to do about it, and why?

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. 

…….

 

 To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; 

Don't you need to know the reduction in burned fossil fuels in 2020? Where did you find that figure, and is it trustworthy? Do you know, for example, how much China burned? 

Aivar Usk: 


Science has no answers to all questions yet, therefore the request "if you don't think those causes are linked to anthropogenic global warming, then you owe us some other causes and some reasoning from those causes to the drastic phenomena which are being observed" does not seem fair at all. 

One needs to distinguish science, knowledge of natural matters, from action to address phenomena.

Say, there is a big ozone hole over Antarctica, and it is getting bigger and starting to affect some inhabited parts of the planet in South America because of the intensity of the ultraviolet radiation. We know CFCs affect ozone. We don't actually know that anthropogenic CFCs are causing the ozone hole, but we do know that whatever CFCs are up there won't be helping close it.

We can wait until we know. The hole will likely carry on getting bigger and bigger in the meantime. Or we can agree not to emit CFCs into the atmosphere any more. No more Freon in fridges.

The hole starts reducing. And still is. 

The trick is to devise the interventions and put them into practice.

Say, someone presented to our 19thc medical practice with a growing lump in his belly. We can say “well, we don't really know what causes such lumps; let's wait until science tells us a bit more.” Or we can cut it out. If we did the latter, with appropriate antiseptic practices, the patient would have had a greater chance of surviving for longer. 

I'm glad you agree that global warming is real and some of it is likely to be anthropogenic. What do you propose to do about it? We are already a few decades down the line. We can carry on dithering until we “know” enough scientifically to please all those who want certainty. Or we can do straightforward stuff now. As we did with the ozone hole. It is perfectly “fair” to ask people for their best guesses. 

Regarding "(a) these gases are there in much higher quantity than in previous years" - then why is there no consistent correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature? Missing correlation excludes causation.

First, not all greenhouse gases are CO2. Second, what “temperature” are you talking about? There are lots of them. Third, missing correlation does not necessarily exclude causation; an effect might well be lost in the noise generated by confounding factors. 

Regarding "(b) um, the gases “trap” heat in the biosphere" - CO2 effect cannot be described that simply; 

Um, are you saying that greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat in the biosphere? 
 

Regarding "(c) the effect you expect from that is indeed present" - this is most likely true, 

I am glad we agree that the issue is real.

What would you actually propose to do about it, and why?

I undertook a simple test to see whether the experiment offered by the nature last year - reduced anthropogenic CO2 output due to COVID-19 - proves that such limiting would show up in measured athmospheric concentrations. 

…….

 

 To an engineer, this is an indication that the proportion of the CO2 entering the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels is significantly smaller than expected; 

Don't you need to know the reduction in burned fossil fuels in 2020? Where did you find that figure, and is it trustworthy? Do you know, for example, how much China burned?