rdmcandie wrote:
We can't "prove" it since we don't have a supply of planets to run experiments on. We can make an overwhelmingly convincing argument for it using the available data. Which is what we do with every other macro-level theory so it's nothing new or controversial about it.
We can't even run an experiment on our own planet to proove one way or another that we have caused the planet to change.[/quote]
Yeah, as I said, this is the case with every macro-theory. We also can't replicate tectonic plate shifts or observe an organism for a hundred million years. But we can use the wealth of available evidence to create credible and accepted theories for geological changes and evolution. Likewise for everything we know about astronomy. I'm not sure why you're expecting (or demanding) this macro-theory to be different.
Quote:
I asked earlier if anyone had any sources of information that detailed the climate changes from other periods of history. We have hard data support of a few hundred years.
Sure. Go look it up. Geological records, ice cores, arboreal data, etc.
Quote:
That is what makes it naive, assuming we have had such a major impact on the ecology of our planet without documented support is naive.
I'd suggest that the "We widdle things couldn't possibly have affected the big ole earth!" is considerably more naive.