>>10614231>I can't understand how would we conclusively know the physical mechanisms when our predictions have been wrong for 20 years
Which predictions based on the physical mechanisms have been wrong?>We know for a fact that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases temperature. We know this because of laboratory testing and can very accurately predict temperatures in laboratory environments.
That's wrong though. You can go outside right now and measure the amount of heat being radiated towards you by CO2 and other gases. The other side of the equation is how temperature reacts to that radiative forcing, but that change is essentially independent of the source of the radiative forcing. So at that point you've already proven CO2 is the primary cause of whatever long term change in temperature you're observing.>I haven't caught up to recent studies. But all of our models in the 00s have been completely debunked with real world data.
Totally false. Where did your get that idea?>So much so that Al Gore was sued (I think by the EU, but could be UN) for being a massive doomsday propagandist twat
LOL first of all this is obviously the type of fake news you would read on Facebook. Second, what does Al Gore have to do with our climate models? Try using your brain and looking at what the scientists are saying instead of parroting what you read on social media. >You should be skeptical of climate change just as any other theory.
You are confusing skepticism with denial. One uses rational inquiry while the other avoids it.>But how much of a effect do we have on this world? And is it to the point we need to enact serious legislation? Probably not
Based on what?