Climate Change, do you believe humans cause it?

bobblepuzzle · 24-01-2011 01:28AM

Clap clap macca

bobblepuzzle · 24-01-2011 01:30AM

Dudess wrote: »

While I wouldn't jump to the conclusion of "Oh noez, climate change!" whenever there are unusual weather patterns, I find it heard to believe that atmospheric conditions would be exactly the same as they are now without all of the emissions caused by humans burning various fuels, deforestation etc.

There are documented cases of a marked change in atmospheric conditions following a marked change in human activity - e.g. the United States after the influx of European settlers.

Apologies, but that is bull**** right there... the climate has been up or down over serveral millenia, and the past few decades have been no exception... have you seen the data?

m@cc@ · 24-01-2011 01:31AM

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

lmfao

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

Clap clap macca

What age are you?

Is this what qualifies a retort?

Dudess · 24-01-2011 01:32AM

It's a theory though, I'm not claiming it's fact - unlike yourself and others who don't believe in it.

bobblepuzzle · 24-01-2011 01:32AM

m@cc@ wrote: »

What age are you?

Is this what qualifies a retort?

Well before you deleted your post, the second one was very valid...

smk89 · 24-01-2011 01:33AM

Mr Cawley wrote: »

In relation to global warming, Earth has always heated up and cooled down in cycles over thousands of years, due to the nature of the earths' orbit and tilt.

Pollution is not responsible for these cycles

Pollution is not global warming

Climate change, as the name implies, means it is constantly changing.

250 years ago over a million irish people died in a big freeze lasting months!

A lot of money to be made on apocolytic views, fact.

edit: send money now for the real truth about climate change.

Yeah it has always changed, but never this fast or this much in such a short period. In 2050 it will be 3x the levels ever seen in 400k years. Here
The thing I always find annoying is people who don't believe were the cause always point out the flaws in global warming studies. On its own thats fine, its part of science to acknowledge the flaws but they bring nothing new to the table, no evidence or studies.

bobblepuzzle · 24-01-2011 01:34AM

smk89 wrote: »

Yeah it has always changed, but never this fast or this much in such a short period. In 2050 it will be 3x the levels ever seen in 400k years. Here
The thing I always find annoying is people who don't believe were the cause always point out the flaws in global warming studies. On its own thats fine, its part of science to acknowledge the flaws but they bring nothing new to the table, no evidence or studies.

The evidence points to a natural cycle...

antidark777 · 24-01-2011 01:41AM

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

With all due respect, what has that got to do with climate change??

Read what i said again, im just saying that while i acknowledge the profiteering going on because of the fear mongering the climate-change business has started, i dont think some of their points should be ignored.

Just to expand on that. Our impact on the earth, while it may be small in the grand scheme of things, should not be ignored. While we may try to undo the harmful effects generated from decades, if not centuries, of polluting the atmosphere, you have to note that out current generation will not see the effects of such change.

Implying that its out of our hands and that we have no effect on the earth at this present time is just passing the buck as it were

Killer Pigeon · 24-01-2011 01:42AM

Ohhh, by the looks of the poll this could be quite a contentious thread.

Monty Burnz · 24-01-2011 01:45AM

Can those who think it is a myth explain what happens to the 30 odd million tonnes of CO2 that are pumped into the atmosphere every year by human activity?

smk89 · 24-01-2011 01:51AM

bobblepuzzle wrote: »

The evidence points to a natural cycle...

The line is practically vertical upwards. How is that natural? The only time that can happen is if an asteroid hit the planet. And thats only co2, methane has increased 150% in 200 years

Oranage2 · 24-01-2011 01:52AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can those who think it is a myth explain what happens to the 30 odd million tonnes of CO2 that are pumped into the atmosphere every year by human activity?

Well CO2 increases the growth rate of plants and trees so if anything it has helped the enviorment

D1stant · 24-01-2011 01:53AM

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can those who think it is a myth explain what happens to the 30 odd million tonnes of CO2 that are pumped into the atmosphere every year by human activity?

It falls as snow

eightyfish · 24-01-2011 01:54AM

The scientific consensus is 100% in agreement that global warming is accelerated by human activity. That's not to say that there are other factors also involved. Any "debate" about the scientific consensus is either generated by the media, putting across the notion that there are two sides to every argument even though, among the people who make the study of this sort of stuff their careers, there is not - or well funded groups with an interest in spreading disinformation about global warming (US Republicans for example).

New Scientist have a good section on their website summing up the topic.

bnt · 24-01-2011 01:55AM

Questions like this bring out the language pedant in me, because "believe" is a loaded word. I think, based on available evidence, that it's probable that mankind is affecting the climate. i.e. the odds are greater than 50%. Why? Because global climate is a non-linear system: we don't put out all the energy that would be required to change the climate - that would be impossible - but the Earth has an external energy source that provides the heat: the Sun. Just as you can steer an oil tanker with your little finger, a little atmospheric tweak by mankind can make a real difference. The average changes in temperature we've seen in the Polar regions are not subjective.

But I don't believe that. It's not an ideological position. I could be wrong, and it wouldn't bother me: it's more important to know than to be right. I've learned to associate the word "believe" with religion - since it implies that you don't need evidence to back your position, as is the case with religion - and to me it's all about the evidence. I'm not going to argue with anyone about this, I'm just going to sit back and watch as it all falls apart - if I live to see it. The Earth will be fine - it's survived worse than anything mankind could throw at it - but it's mankind that's screwed in the long term, and that won't even need climate change to happen. :rolleyes:

Aviation pioneer Burt Rutan thinks anthropogenic climate change is a fraud - but even so, I agree with him that dealing with climate change, regardless of the cause, is an Engineering problem. It doesn't have to be a disaster, but people need to wise up e.g. stop building houses on flood plains or unstable slopes, and people won't be killed by floods. If your town / region / country can't safely handle the number of people in it: stop breeding!

enfant terrible · 24-01-2011 02:00AM

eightyfish wrote: »

The scientific consensus is 100% in agreement that global warming is accelerated by human activity. That's not to say that there are other factors also involved. Any "debate" about the scientific consensus is either generated by the media, putting across the notion that there are two sides to every argument even though, among the people who make the study of this sort of stuff their careers, there is not - or well funded groups with an interest in spreading disinformation about global warming (US Republicans for example).

New Scientist have a good section on their website summing up the topic.

The Republicans get blamed for everything on boards.

D1stant · 24-01-2011 02:04AM

Human involvement is a myth to sell Al Gore DVDs and speaking tours.

Everything we emit soaks into the Universe

Supposing if over the last 2 million years 50 Trillion 'people' have lived. Each one farting 10,000 times. Thats.. thats.. thats a pile of farty smells. Not to count asll the baser beatsies

Yet O'er olde Finglas tis as fresh and as crisp as ever

QED

TanG411 · 24-01-2011 02:07AM

I think the sun is going further away, like the way you pull yourself away from a fire to keep cool, except the heat source is the one doing the pulling, so we have to follow it.

We, as a people, must push our precious earth closer to the aforementioned sun, and keep warm through natural means.

eightyfish · 24-01-2011 02:08AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

The Republicans get blamed for everything on boards.

Rightly so

Oranage2 · 24-01-2011 02:11AM

People are idiots and will believe anything and everything we're told with out any real evidence!

Firstly people believed the world was flat!
People believed in religion
People voted for the Nazis
Now people believe in man made global warming!

In the future we'll believe the wind and sun 'reserves' are scarce
We'll believe that GM foods are the only food we should eat
we'll believe etc...

Dave! · 24-01-2011 02:18AM

I've tried wrapping my head around the science but have never really been able to understand the evidence completely. Considering my ignorance on the topic, it would be arrogant of me to dissent from the scientific consensus (and there is an overwhelming consensus) on the issue. So I'm gonna go with 'yes' until such time as the scientific community begins to change their opinion.

Accusations of conspiracy and corruption to follow...

Oranage2 · 24-01-2011 02:24AM

Dave! wrote: »

I've tried wrapping my head around the science but have never really been able to understand the evidence completely. Considering my ignorance on the topic, it would be arrogant of me to dissent from the scientific consensus (and there is an overwhelming consensus) on the issue. So I'm gonna go with 'yes' until such time as the scientific community begins to change their opinion.

Accusations of conspiracy and corruption to follow...

Well the 'Science' is basically stating that the world's temperature has risen since the industrial revolution and thats what they're saying is evidence of man made global warming!!! so a hundred year study and forgetting the other 4.55 billions years is now what is considered 'science'.

Dave! · 24-01-2011 02:28AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well the 'Science' is basically stating that the world's temperature has risen since the industrial revolution and thats what they're saying is evidence of man made global warming!!! so a hundred year study and forgetting the other 4.55 billions years is now what is considered 'science'.

hmmm... I sense that you're not giving me the full picture here...

I'm familiar enough with the evidence to know that you're building a strawman there. I've no interest in getting into a debate on the topic, so I'll let you thrash it out with someone else.

ejmaztec · 24-01-2011 02:31AM

FearDark wrote: »

Hmm... Do u think cows are really to blame though?

Yep, it's definitely bullsh1t and cowfarts causing the problem.

Kill them all - burger sale of the century.

enfant terrible · 24-01-2011 02:31AM

bnt wrote: »

I'm just going to sit back and watch as it all falls apart - if I live to see it.

I think you will, humans have been predicting the end of the world since we could communicate with each other.

We will outlast this doomsday prediction too.

smk89 · 24-01-2011 02:38AM

Oranage2 wrote: »

Well the 'Science' is basically stating that the world's temperature has risen since the industrial revolution and thats what they're saying is evidence of man made global warming!!! so a hundred year study and forgetting the other 4.55 billions years is now what is considered 'science'.

The ice cores allow 400k years of climate to be seen and if you accept estimates we have 500 million years. But on behalf of the scientific community I would like to apologise for not having the equipment to draw you a 4.55 billion year graph

Einhard · 24-01-2011 02:43AM

I take it so, that all the people who disbelieve the overwhelming majority of independent scientists who argue for anthropomorphic climate change, also question and disbelieve their doctors when given a diagnosis in the clinic? Or refuse to accept what NASA might say about the solar system. Or refute the consensus of geologists that the earth is 14 billion years old? Or pick apart and dispute the views of the seismoligical community on the cause of earthquakes? If not, why not? I mean, they're only independent experts in their field, while you have no expertise at all, but have time on your hands and an ability to use google, and a tendency to accept only that which might boost your fantasies whilst ignoring everything else.

If nothing else, the climate change farrago at least proves that a little knowledge can truly be a dangerous thing. At least the over 50% of those who voted against the proposition can take comfort in the fact that they stand alongside the likes of George Bush and JIm Corr in their beliefs. Truly illustrious company.

PS: If someone mentions the medieval ice age I think my head will explode.

KeithAFC · 24-01-2011 02:45AM

Humans don't cause it. Its just a natural process. The planet is basically cleaning itself out. Let it get on with it.

Oranage2 · 24-01-2011 02:46AM

smk89 wrote: »

The ice cores allow 400k years of climate to be seen and if you accept estimates we have 500 million years. But on behalf of the scientific community I would like to apologise for not having the equipment to draw you a 4.55 billion year graph

I take it smk you're some sort of enviormental engineering/science student? The real world is going to be tough on you!!!

D1stant · 24-01-2011 02:48AM

Sigh. Acid rain anyone? or just Acid:cool:

Climate Change, do you believe humans cause it?

Comments