What… at a loss for words now?
Ryder Spearmann

Oh sorry I missed your response.

I laid out the case of what is the scientific understanding about climate change in the very first post of our discussion; I’ll cite it again;

Maybe it was not explicitly clear, when we talk about climate change as scientists, we usually refer to the scientific consensus on the issue; meaning that we take the sum, or at least a summary, of the findings of scientists that are corroborated and/or not really disputed by most scientists.
However, this sometimes makes our statements and proclamations very detail-orientated and spiked with many caveats about the margins of uncertainties.
The scientific consensus is that the climate is changing because of humanity’s actions, also known as “human caused climate change”. The changes to climate caused by humans are usually attributed to the enrichment of CO2, a heat trapping gas, in the atmosphere of our planet.

If you want to read again the full argument, please refer to my initial post.

Maybe you missed it somehow or did not read it properly; but my long answer was not saying “climate change is real and do with that what you want”; I laid out roughly what we know and what the predictions are. Obviously, one cannot predict all effects with scientific accuracy, because we scientists can not study the whole world and predict for each family individually how climate change is going to affect their lives. For some families, it might be catastrophic; loosing their livelyhood because of displacement (draught in arid areas or flood in coastal regions), for other families, it might not change a thing.

I do not know how to make this any more understandable, I am not using mystery words that are up for interpretation.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Philipp Markolin’s story.