You say "I really doubt we humans can affect climate changes in any way." This is a common sentiment. I see a lot of people saying things like this. "The Earth is just too big." "Humans are insignificant." And so forth. What causes you to say this? Have you actually run the numbers? I've not found anyone expressing that sentiment who actually has anything like a quantitative basis for it.
Why are you even trying to put a factual basis on your doubt, then? Why talk about natural cycles and all that, if your actual source for doubt is divine?
You say you can still experiment and prove divine wisdom. Can you experiment and disprove divine wisdom? In your eyes, is it possible even in theory that it could somehow be proven that human activity is in fact affecting the climate? Because if you've already decided on the outcome and are just casting around for support, what you're doing is not experiment, it's just an exercise in cognitive bias.
as per the article i mentioned
You didn't link to this article, so it's content is not useful, and it's likely it didn't say what you imply.
You can still experiment and prove divine wisdom
No you can't.
Faith explains the "why", science explains the "how". And there certainly is support in Scripture to take good care of the Earth, following a more generic pattern of being good stewards of what God has entrusted us with.
This is why Laudato Si is nudging the faithful into action.
However, a lot of people are still around who don't agree with that approach, and still stick with the "how" as described in their holy texts. Exhibit A, above.
For example, many years ago they published an article[1] saying that a recent conference led by John Bolton[2] came to the same climate-denying conclusion as an earlier conference led by Bjorn Lomborg.[3] The Economist claimed that Bolton's results were independent corroboration for Lomborg's, saying the "conclusions were strikingly similar".
The Economist omitted a few things that made the similarity less striking: 1) The Economist co-sponsored Lomborg's conference; 2) Lomborg co-chaired Bolton's conference; 3) Bolton's conference was in fact marketed as the sequal to Lomborg's (Lomborg's was "Copenhagen Consensus 2004", Bolton's was "Copenhagen Consensus 2006", and a third was planned); 4) Former Economist writer Clive Crook co-chaired Bolton's conference.
I pulled those details from an email I sent to The Economist at the time. The article author responded professionally, but dismissed my concerns.
[1] "How to save the world: Bolton v Gore", June 22nd 2006 http://www.economist.com/node/7086861
[2] Bolton is a prominent US diplomat, whose career included being Ambassador to the United Nations, and a very outspoken neo-conservative.
[3] Lomborg is a leading climate denier, trotted out as a academic expert. His PhD is in political science and, at least at one point, he taught statistics at a business school. (My anecdotal observation is that few climate deniers have expertise in climate science.)
This post looks like a cut-and-paste from a political blog.
If data doesn't educate your actions you may find tech to be a hard industry to navigate.
Didn't Feynman say that the real measure of science is experiment?
Show me the experiments otherwise we have merely observations and conjecture.
They might be right, but at the moment we've established hypothesis and nothing more.
Many things are observable but the difference between correlation and causation are somewhat more subtle.
Please note, I'm no denier and think that we should reduce our emissions as they have secondary benefits, fully acknowledge that there is a slight raise in global temperature but to assign a cause is a little premature.
Add to that the incidental political involvement, funding and the 'facts' (of incidentally we have none, nor many viable theories) leads to a logical conclusion that "mu" (neither yes or no) is a better stance to take.
What are you proposing we should do? Should we just ignore the whole thing until it's proven?
Its what I'm not saying that is important. I don't proclaim an answer nor an idealism, merely cautious scientific thought that suggests the methodology needs to be considered. In any other field the lack of rigorous proofs would be laughed off the table.
We don't know the dynamics of the system. All we know is that for the data we have so far, the models work pretty well. We have no idea whether, in 200 years, these trends would lead to a 20 degree average temperature increase, a 0 degree increase or a 20 degree decrease by activating some unanticipated alternate environmental dynamic that plunges us into an ice age.
CO2 emissions as the cause of the recent temperature trend is plausible, and the results could be catastrophic, so I'm all for reducing emissions and taking every other practical measure we can to avoid the risk[1]. That's not the same as, "Anthropogenic global warming is settled science, deniers are morons, and if we don't do something now Earth in 100 years will be hell."
[1] I think the problem is, we can't agree as a society, or globally, how much we should do to mitigate it. We could spend lots of money directly, on solar power, nuclear power, electric car subsidies, etc. We could impose tremendous costs on CO2 emitting industries through regulation. But we can only speculate, based on a simplified economic model and assuming long-term accuracy of some environmental model, what the ultimate cost/benefit would be.
Deniers are morons. That's not the same as saying that there's no room for debate. There's always room for debate. But it's also a fact that the loud public face of the deniers is a bunch of politically motivated faith-based science illiterates peddling terrible rationalizations. Now, the fact that one side is full of idiots doesn't make the other side correct. But neither does the lack of complete definitive proof for one side mean that the other side isn't full of idiots.
And I've never seen anyone say that the Earth will be hell in 100 years. I have seen a lot of deniers say that this is said, in order to discredit climate change. What's actually said is that there will be a lot of disruption and chaos from changes, but of course there will always be lots of nice places to live, climate-wise. They just may not be where they are today.
On what basis, exactly? Would you be convinced if climate scientists critiqued your unit testing approach?
No, there is not. Some guy writing a book 800 years ago, who was not a scientist and who was not even writing on any scientific subject be more accurate that a modern scientist writing on the subject they have spent years studying. It just boggles the mind that an adult in modern times would believe any of that scripture nonsense.
If the scripture was inspired / written / influenced etc. by divine entity, or if it was made up completely by humans, how would you tell the difference?
Science is written by man, and scripture was written by man. What is the basis for your faith in the latter's validity?
Indeed, the scripture I'm familiar with from a Christian heritage seems to imply the opposite.
Genesis 1:26 (ESV): Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Isaiah 24:5 (ESV): The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant.
Jeremiah 2:7 (ESV): And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination.
It would seem that even if one reasons from religious scriptures, "Man can defile that which God creates" is a pretty clear theme.
We're not "significantly" screwing with the climate. That's not the issue. The issue is just how sensitive our civilization is to such a small temperature change.