How convinced are you that human activities are a significant cause of changes to the Earth's climate and long-term weather patterns?

@hertoy But those previous changes were not at all random nor results of factors unknown to actual scientific knwledge.
Never ever previous human activity had a scale capable of twist Nature patterns.
But we´ve reached that point.

@CharlieZ I disagree

@hertoy Of course, it´s your privilege.
The objects of agreement and disagreement are, in this thread, our opinions.
Material reality is indifferent to what we both may say. And is, always, the ultimate arbiter, only constrained by it´s own causal relationships.
So, just to understand a little better your point: do you have access to scientific consistent data and models? Or is yours a "common sense reasoning" based opinión?

@CharlieZ I read a article by a Phd in atmospheric science & climate change and his research indicates man made climate change is a myth. He also founded the weather channel & left when he felt it became too political. Some of his arguments regarding natural changes included volcanism, Earths wobble, the Suns variable output, and even our position within the Milky Way itself. Mars weather fluctuates without human intervention as did the Earth for billions of years.

@hertoy

- Is that article includded in an indexed publication known as part of the Scientific community net of communiction of research papers?
Or was published only by news media (no matter if a normally serious one) as a periodistic article, even if in a "scientific diffusion / education" column?

- Includes formal refferences / links / access to the massive amount of sistematic meassures / data necessarily associated to a scientific research / paper of the kind?
Or are the kind of unsupported refferences to isolated examples?

- Are those meassures / data a statisticallly significative sample and had been seriously tested? Are part of a mathematical inference model?
Or just an educated guess, based on contingent information?

- Is the author of the article part of the working team that researched the published data / conclutions? Is him, at least a researcher, and not only a graduated profesional in the field, as good as he may be?
Or is his a personal opinión but a second hand one?


Hertoy, I have not an "a priori" cognitive prefference for one conclution or the opposite.
But, as a part, myself, of the scientific community in my own fields (though not atmospherical ones) I rely on serious scientific communication and not on media less specific articles.

Let me say that there is an impressive collection of independent international research, with data open to peir review that cover about 45 years, pointing to human incidence on climate.
I´ve never seen nothing remotely near this on the opposite conclutions.