Humans have caused 1.5 °C of long-term global warming according to new estimates

Shoot, the thousands of scientists who have researched climate change since the 1970s must have never taken the very first class in statistics. They must be embarrassed now that you told them about this.

Sorry but this is wrong. You have been misinformed.

No. The greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a lab. It requires complications to create mechanisms that deny the world outside the lab the evidence found within it.

We have no idea how to quantify the short-term effects. But increase the CO2 concentration in an insolated gas and its temperature will go up.

The problem is with the word prove. You’re right that absolute proof probably isn’t possible. Unfortunately epistemology and science is a little more nuanced than that. Absolute proof isn’t what matters

How about you start by backing up your claims?

Prove that people have been "brainwashed by legacy media or politicians" on this.

That shouldn't be a problem for anyone grasping colloquial semantics. At any rate: falsify the hypothesis that climate change isn't influenced at all by human activity. Establish a causal relationship. Show me the studies. I'll wait.

That doesn't seem like it applies here. The argument is that "expert consensus has consistently said a thing", which is a very reasonable stance to take.

The default would be to assume the scientific consensus is correct, then being evidence/reasons to show when it's not.

Ad hominem

If you were really interested in answers you could look at the experiments of John Tyndall in 1859 that demonstrated what gases most absorb and retain radiant energy. He identified CO2 as one of the most important ones.

> falsify the hypothesis that climate change isn't influenced at all by human activity. Establish a causal relationship. Show me the studies. I'll wait.

Prove me please that you are able to read them not just tell some ignorant bs or I will not bother giving you that links. I'll wait for at least writing down the full set of rules by which it is possible to persuade you that the study is valid. Can it be a pdf on arxiv or Elsevier publication, or yellowpaper publication or anonymous blogpost? Do you have some requirements about who is (not) allowed to fund the scientists? What climate scientists do you respect, at least three persons? How do you understand "entropy" word in the context of climate?

> There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/

How the hell can you not realize that quoting someone making an unsubstantiated claim (within that quote) is not evidence? HN never ceases me to amaze me... Point me to evidence that establishes a causal relationship between human activity and climate change. Climate is changing alright, but is this phenomenon anthropogenic? I won't bother rephrasing it again in this thread; I think my demand is extremely easy to grasp as is, at least for most people.

It's simple chemistry. It was predicted to occur by nerds way back in the 1800s, if we continued to add CO2 to the atmosphere, which we did. You would know this if you had read the content of the link I provided you with.

I do not believe that you are arguing in good faith, or maybe your are just not capable of doing so?