Does everyone believe Global Warming, now called Climate Change, is man made?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 12:29 PM GMT
    I tend to not believe big government, big business, big anything. Climate Change, by humans, seems silly to me. I remember the big Climate Cooling scare of 1976. The world was cooling, according to all major scientists. Now we have global warming. The next BIG SCARE. Yes, I understand that the planet warms and cools. It has done so repeatedly. Most scientists say that we are actually between ice ages. So it makes sense that we cool, we warm, we cool. Science shows that. What science says we, as humans, are causing THIS warming? Definitively?

    I just find it so presumptious of humans to think THEY decide what the earth does. It does what it does and it does what it always has done.

    Thoughts?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 1:01 PM GMT
    The globe is warming at an accelerated pace likely due to manmade emissions. The globe was cooling in the 1970s due to pollution which was decreasing the amount of sunlight getting to the earth. The introduction of anti-pollution devices (e.g. the catalytic converter) solved that problem. Now we have a new one.

    The earth does go through periods of warming and cooling that take place over thousands of years. Man has simply accelarated the process's speed many times over.

    Nobody knows for sure how much the earth will warm up due to the feedback processes that are in place (re-absorption of carbon dioxide) but the worse case scenarios are pretty scary. Ironically those parts of the world that are already the most desperate (e.g. Africa, Bangladesh) and pollute the least will likely suffer the most. Severe drought in Africa, severe flooding in Bangladesh.

    I am a bit of a pessimist when it comes to tackling global warming. Unless China, India and other large developing countries are on board, then I am not optimistic that the problem will be effectively addressed.

    Regardless of whether you think global warming is overhyped or not, there are other very good reasons to get away from dependency on carbon fuels, not least of all is the increasing demand and decreasing supply of them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 1:33 PM GMT
    I appreciate your well reasoned answer, but I disagree with the examples. Africa was an oasis 3,000 years ago, then became a desert, in Northern Africa, not due to any man made influences. The Jet Stream shifted, which is proven and not anything to do with Man, and changed that area. Other areas flood. As they always have. And they always will. Live in low lying areas and you will be prone to flood. Always have.

    Show me what humans have done to change things. That is all I ask. What humans have done to change Global Climate. I state that the world changes, climate changes, hot and cold, and no on has ever shown how humans affect that. Ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 2:24 PM GMT
    Global warming is considered "climate change" now, notice that? By their own admission, the scientists that believe in climate change say that man contributes only 3% of the CO2 in the climate. One burp of a volcano spews more crap into the atmosphere than 100 years of fuel-inefficient automobiles. What the fear-mongers are concentrating on now is the polar flip... where the magnetic poles switch, it's due in 2012. Same goes for Yellowstone park. Yellowstone is a huge volcano that explodes every 200k years and it's been 220k years. I'm imagining that in 2012 the polar flip will trigger Yellowstone and we'll all die and the globe will warm and the cockroaches will rule!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 3:41 PM GMT
    Ilovetobicycle said...the polar flip... where the magnetic poles switch, it's due in 2012.


    I'm aware of magnetic reversal, but who has authoritatively predicted it will happen exactly in 2012? And some theories contend it's a slow process, taking decades.

    It's true the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing in strength in recent years, but even that isn't proof alone that a complete reversal is due anytime soon. Truth is, this is all theory, based on the magnetic record left in rocks, and what we surmise about the action of the Earth's core, studies which do not provide a discrete timeline for such an event in the future.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 3:48 PM GMT
    I thought the polar flip was a hot new hairdo.

    The earth is cooling, has been for millennia. Do whatever you want, we are cosmologically so insignificant that even our hubris will never be noticed or heard.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 4:04 PM GMT
    Triggerman askedShow me what humans have done to change things. That is all I ask. What humans have done to change Global Climate. I state that the world changes, climate changes, hot and cold, and no on has ever shown how humans affect that. Ever.


    This short communication in Nature is a pretty good argument that humans do things that have a measurable impact on the climate.

    [Edit: I see that animanimus beat me to the post]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 4:04 PM GMT
    its beyond pollution or CO2 emissions... the entire solar system is heating up and NASA is well aware of that... ice on some of Jupiter's moons are melting. The accelerated rate cannot be fully explained...

    http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 11, 2009 4:18 PM GMT
    If it's so ovbvious to see the severity of land and water pollution we produce, why can't triggerman make the obvious conclusion that we're doing the same thing to our air?
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jan 11, 2009 4:35 PM GMT
    I guess I'm missing the point as to why it's important to definitively determine whether climate change caused by humans. If climate changes are undesirable, we as humans should do what we always do and change our environment.
    I don't see what harm can be done by becoming more aware of the uniquely valuable resource known as Earth.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    Jan 11, 2009 4:54 PM GMT
    Humans are the only life form on earth that changes the environment to suit their preferences to such a radical degree. The earth is a complex organism and there are no simple answers. We aren't the only reason why there is climate change, but you can't dismiss the impact of our actions.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 4:54 PM GMT
    The balance of evidence indicates that human activity is accelerating global warming. There is still much discussion about the extent of the human impact and how bad global warming will get, but to do nothing and hope the alarmists are wrong seems to be taking risk tolerance to a whole new level.

    Think of all the decisions you make every year about what risks you are willing to tolerate? Home fire insurance, life insurance, wearing a seat belt, drinking and driving, safer sex. We decide to err on the side of caution because something bad may happen. I personally view global warming the same way. The worse case scenario may not happen, but it is prudent to take steps to minimize the risk. And along the way some very useful technologies can be put into place to make human societies more sustainable in the long run.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 5:44 PM GMT
    It's so good to see that you're all experts in Climatology all of a sudden!

    This topic has been discussed already in great depth -- try rereading what was said before for a debunking of the bollocks that you're talking, Triggerman.
  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jan 11, 2009 6:22 PM GMT
    SurrealLife said
    We decide to err on the side of caution because something bad may happen. I personally view global warming the same way. The worse case scenario may not happen, but it is prudent to take steps to minimize the risk. And along the way some very useful technologies can be put into place to make human societies more sustainable in the long run.


    I think this goes beyond a "worst case" scenario. We are upsetting a very delicate balancing act that nature has developed over centuries and which is the basis for population and food supply patterns. Whether the earth warms one degree, four, or ten, we will be upsetting the model on which our civilzation is built, and for someone, someplace, there will be consequences.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 6:29 PM GMT
    Not no, BUT HELL NO! It's a natural cycle. Don't even get my started. I could write a book. I think it's a pompous attitude to think that we could control the climate...especially being the industrial revolution only started a 150 years ago. Give me a break. Humans are not the issue here! They have no hand in this at all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 7:07 PM GMT
    There was a program recently on the History Channel about the so-called "Little Ice Age" which lasted from roughly 1200-1850. One of the more surprising insights came at the end, when a climatologist who was interviewed for the documentary was asked why it ended so abruptly in the decade 1845-55 after lasting over 600 years. Previously, most scholars thought (as Triggerman says) that it was just one of those cyclical things. In fact, the climatologist reported, scientists are now coming to the idea that the Little Ice Age ended because of the very first man-made warming effects of the then-new Industrial Revolution.

    This may have been going on for much longer than we think.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 7:46 PM GMT
    So, pre snowboarding, I went through the sheer PURGATORY of trying to find old threads on RJ to find the three you need to read Triggerwank:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/13850/

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/130846/

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/63978/


    Go on, do it.

    If you're really enthusiastic in understanding the science (as opposed to being a loudmouthed wanker), you could try reading the scientific consensus

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/assessments-reports.htm

    If you order the hardback version, it is really useful as

    1) a cute doorstep
    2) to sit on if you're quite short.
    3) an *amazing* spanking tool for punishing dumb Republicans. (they really love it too)

    [[sidenote to Ursa: mon cher, it seems we're having the same discussion as we did a year ago from the third link I posted above..... deja-vous, ce n'est pas?]]

    Also where is fastprof, who actually is a climatologist?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 7:47 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidI tend to not believe big government, big business, big anything. Climate Change, by humans, seems silly to me. I remember the big Climate Cooling scare of 1976. The world was cooling, according to all major scientists. Now we have global warming. The next BIG SCARE. Yes, I understand that the planet warms and cools. It has done so repeatedly. Most scientists say that we are actually between ice ages. So it makes sense that we cool, we warm, we cool. Science shows that. What science says we, as humans, are causing THIS warming? Definitively?

    I just find it so presumptious of humans to think THEY decide what the earth does. It does what it does and it does what it always has done.

    Thoughts?



    The fossil record indicates the weather is...well the weather...ever changing and unpredictable. Global "warming" is just another aspect of the ego-centricity of Baby Boomers. Since there was a lull in hurricane activity from the 1960's -1990's baby bloomers declare increased activity as abnormal. New Orleans was not inundated in Katrina because everybody knew in the old days that only a fool would build something in the historic flood plain because of the "weather".

    As for the argument that it is accelerating check out the latest archeological
    finds in the English channel,... whole villages are being excavated underwater . The English channel is relatively new and we are in the warming age that flooded it but there is a chaotic procession of warming age, ice age ,mini ice age, warming . etc, etc. So stupid that people think we command nature. The interesting part is the psychology behind people's "need" to have global warming. It seems it is similar to the middle ages when people needed to believe in a life controlling evil force..the devil and everything and everybody got tied to this myth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 7:57 PM GMT
    For people who think it's not real

    How could you believe that humans have no effect on the climate? Scientists have drilled for ice cores to test the concentration of co2 and found we have drastically raised it with out pollutants. Yes the Earth naturally warms and cools, but we have accelerated the warming to such a degree we risk falling down a slippery slope. There is a tipping point.
  • FredMG

    Posts: 988

    Jan 11, 2009 8:16 PM GMT
    The whole idea whether or not to "believe in global warming, or climate change" is, I think the epitome of the problem.

    Observing that the climate is changing from the past is the result of scientific measurements. Evidence indicates that this is the cumulative effect of hominids (from Homo Erectus on through to us) adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. This can be extrapolated from data obtained from everything from coral reefs, lake sediments, glacial deposits and faunal remains.

    "Believing" is an act of faith, and should be reserved for religion, fairy tales and you chances at winning the power-ball; i.e. things that there's no rational explanation for or any evidence to prove the existence or out come thereof.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 8:28 PM GMT
    Triggerman saidI tend to not believe big government, big business, big anything. Climate Change, by humans, seems silly to me. I remember the big Climate Cooling scare of 1976. The world was cooling, according to all major scientists. Now we have global warming. The next BIG SCARE. Yes, I understand that the planet warms and cools. It has done so repeatedly. Most scientists say that we are actually between ice ages. So it makes sense that we cool, we warm, we cool. Science shows that. What science says we, as humans, are causing THIS warming? Definitively?

    I just find it so presumptious of humans to think THEY decide what the earth does. It does what it does and it does what it always has done.

    Thoughts?


    Triggerman,

    With all due respect... what research have you done on this subject? Cite your sources... no Wikipedia please!

    And you say you have a hard time understanding Humans may be to blame for climate change? Just because YOU have a hard time understanding this complex process doesn't mean it can't be true.

    But I feel there is nothing wrong with scientific objections... rather than flat out saying anthropogenic climate change cannot be true--solely due to the fact that if anthropogenic climate change is true, we'd have to adjust our lifestyles in order to save the livelihood of future generations and that’d be bad for business and the economy.

    What is odd... almost every single outspoken opponent of anthropogenic climate change has some ties to big oil or big business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 8:29 PM GMT
    gayblaketx saidNot no, BUT HELL NO! It's a natural cycle. Don't even get my started. I could write a book. I think it's a pompous attitude to think that we could control the climate...especially being the industrial revolution only started a 150 years ago. Give me a break. Humans are not the issue here! They have no hand in this at all.


    The question is whether human activity is altering the climate, not controlling it. I don't think it is pompous to look at what is happening around the world and wondering "is human activity the reason?"

    Forty percent of the Arctic's year-round ice has disappeared since 1985, with 14% in the 2004-05 period. What has changed since 1985? The rapid industralization of some of the most populous countries on earth, especially China and India. Much of China's expansion has been fuelled by coal which is the most polluting of carbon fuels.

    As yet nobody has come up with an explanation that is better than the greenhouse gas effect on why the polar ice cap has melted so quickly.

    What will the consequences be if carbon emissions are not controlled? Who knows. I am just glad I will not be around to find out the answer.

  • styrgan

    Posts: 2017

    Jan 11, 2009 8:54 PM GMT
    gayblaketx saidNot no, BUT HELL NO! It's a natural cycle. Don't even get my started. I could write a book. I think it's a pompous attitude to think that we could control the climate...especially being the industrial revolution only started a 150 years ago. Give me a break. Humans are not the issue here! They have no hand in this at all.


    That's right!!! You're a "weather anchor" - great basis for believing you over the consensus of 95 percent of climatologists.

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 11, 2009 9:01 PM GMT
    Where is Fastprof to offer some much needed scientific weight?

    I believe that we humans have been effecting Earth in many ways. Over production of livestock, shifting metals from one location to another, and emissions are all altering Earth. I'm not certain how we can ever figure out the full extent of the consequences of our actions on this planet.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 11, 2009 9:42 PM GMT
    Let me point out the conservative political agenda concerning global warming/climate change:

    If conservatives were the least bit the wildlife enthusiasts who hunt with a passion for their right to bear arms and enjoy the outdoor sport, then it would be a cinch that the same passion and concern for environmental affairs, INCLUDING global warming/climate change, would coincide with these supposed wildlife enthusiasts. After all, conservative Teddy Roosevelt was the first President to establish a government-sanctioned protected habitat known as Yellowstone.

    But the underlying factor of any conservative agenda is dollars and cents in which lies the socioeconomic differences that divide America. The bottom line is that curbing our impact on environmental issues is viewed strictly by conservatives as overhead costs. To recognize climate change/global warming is to accept increased costs and government regulation. BUT NOT SO FAST!!!! This brings us to the new debate: How much of this climate change/global warming is caused by man versus how much is naturally occurring. This new question came about as conservatives saw the writing on the wall on this debate that had been brewing for 35+ years and had to pitch a curve ball to extend the debate and delay action.

    So here's my swing, triggerman: Who cares about the global warming/climate change debate at this point? For the sake of economics, reduction of waste is directly proportional to increased efficiency and that equates to more dollars and cents for your pocket as well as mine. If you aren't motivated for the environment, then get motivated for your wallet. That's how conservatives listen and act. But all this stalling is not only wasting time, it's wasting money.