Perhaps it is a bit of professional deformity, but as a science philosopher I am always very cautious about the use of the word ‘ proof ‘.In mathematics we can speak of a proof, but in science we speak better of clues. Something is never 100% fixed, but certain things may seem very likely due to the large amount of clues.
In This case, we can still argue with a rather high certainty that man is the main cause of current climate change.If we accept that [mathCO_2 [/math in the atmosphere prevents a part of the heat from returning to space, a proposition that we may adopt with very high probability, then the argument is quite simple: we burn materials that Contain carbon and when burned there is [mathCO_2 [/math free.Since the Industrial Revolution, We have been burning much more carbon-containing materials. This thus causes more [mathCO_2 [/math in the atmosphere, which causes less heat to escape and warms up the earth.
There are other factors that also provide further warming, such as methane emissions ([mathCH_4 [/math) by livestock.Methane, like CO_2, occurs naturally, but the amount of methane has risen enormously due to the intensification of the livestock industry. Methane is a particularly potent greenhouse gas that stops 25 times more heat than [mathCO_2 [/math.
If you take it all together, you can still argue with a security-related probability that man makes a significant contribution to the current climate change.Whether or not he is the only cause is harder to determine, because that requires the exclusion of other causes. In any case, we can argue that the climate would be less strong without polluting human activity.
One can ignore that of course all as some climate negationists do.Ignore like “No one has never landed on the moon”: It’s all just fake. There are still gradations: “Jaja The climate is changing, but man is really there for nothing between”. The truth is probably in the fact that man does something that is strengthened or weakened by the environment. I give some examples: in a warming up against the Arctic, methane-clathrats release additional methane and it disappears more difficult by the sun. Tropical forests also give off methane but also take it up again. This measurement clearly suspects methane leakage in the industrial areas. On 21 July the boilers in the northern hemisphere do not work, they are not the chimney emissions for that intake.
The CO2 “disappears” in a part of the oceans, but its pH is becoming more and more acidic.
OK, it’s just “ecology” but we’re also a part of nature… One can thus cut down a branch that one sits on. Admitted that one is not necessarily dead if one falls from the branch. There are also uncertainties and intrigues, such as the gas companies and ecologists tend to overestimate CH4 emissions of cows, rice cultivation and water dams, one does not know exactly and it comes out well. There is little doubt about CO2 emissions from fossil fuels: this corresponds to a world trade. The assumption that an electric car is “zero emission” is also a kind of negationism from the other side: there is indeed CO2 from the battery fabrication and CO2 in the electricity production and then possibly more emissions of particulate matter due to tyre emissions because The vehicle usually weighs heavier. The fact that batteries cost a lot is a sign on the wall that there is still a lot of CO2 emissions involved. In part, one now has an actual “energy shift” of oil and gas to coal (China) and lignite (Germany). Why are the roofs of houses not full of PV? Because one can produce more than one consumes and gets nothing?
If I understand correctly, there is climate change.A portion caused by natural phenomena against which nothing can be done and a part caused by man. Etna volcano blows hundreds of tonnes of CO2 into the air every day.