The author raises objections to the hypothesis that man burning fossil fuels is causing climate change that were raised in the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, the 90s and researchers looked at each objection and found that none could account for the observed change in the environment.
For example, the sun is not increasing its energy output enough.
The sun is not moving closer or hitting the earth more in the northern hemisphere enough.
There are not enough volcanoes to cause the warming,
The earth’s core is not undergoing higher nuclear reactions to warm the earth.
The earth has not been hit by more objects from space to cause warming.
And on and on through all the proposed alternative reasons.
The author simply raises the objections but fails to report the research that excludes those factors as causing the changing environment.
We do not completely understand past periods of warming and cooling, but we do know that
1) they never happened as fast as the earth is warming over the past two centuries – fossil fuel burning has been increasing for four centuries
2) they coincide with major events like massive volcanoes or big meteor or comet impacts, none of which have occurred at the scale required for over five centuries
Why doesn’t the author actually do original research to prove that something other than burning fossil fuels is causing the problem, something that no scientist has ever thought to study in the past century?? Maybe nothing the author can think of hasn’t already been researched and excluded???
