General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.

So we've been getting a lot of off topic stuff in the Recycle or Die thread, which has led to it being closed twice now, so i decided we needed a more focused thread in which much of that off topic debate can find a clear focus.

I have followed much of the debate and science on the subject over the last few decades and it became an important topic in my life as i started to understand the basic problem of where we are and how we got here and where we are heading in relation to the man made rise in CO2 levels we currently have. In that context i can't dispute the vast majority of the science that has been telling us (for a while now), that this era's fast rise in CO2 levels has been down to man's activities.

So as per the thread title, yes i do think man made climate change is real, and even likely to be civilization threatening if not dealt with asap (like over the next 20-30 years).

I offer a few links to back up why i'm off the opinion i am on the topic:


The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

The fact that greenhouse gases emitted by humans are changing the global climate system is scientifically undisputed. Climate researchers often look to the future with their models and try to calculate how the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will affect various climate variables such as temperature or precipitation.

Scientific consensus on climate change is the consensus of climate scientists regarding the degree to which global warming is occurring, its likely causes, and its probable consequences. Currently, there is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%[1]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[2][3] and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[4]
I offer those three sources as the basic framework that explains why man made climate change (also known as AGW for short) is real, as they cover some of the basic scientific data to support the notion that AGW is indeed a scientific fact. Not a personal opinion or distorted truth, but a real genuine fact and one much of the rational world is starting to take note off in earnest.

We now have Exxon-mobile in court over it's role in covering up what their own scientific studies into man made climate change had revealed to them over 50 years ago; the short story is that many of the big oil corporations knew their products (derived from burning fossil fuel) would lead to a global rise in CO2 levels and chose to bury that info, and worse create a narrative to confuse the global understanding on the issue, which is where the majority of man made climate change denial comes from.

We have the leading financial markets and business people start to want to divest from fossil fuels, and some are even issuing stark warnings about the need to totally remove fossil fuel from our lives (as to para-quote the CEO of Morgan Stanley, "what use is an economy when there is no world to have it in")

We have a growing student and social movement that is seeing people prepared to go to prison to force governments to respond to the threats of AGW to our socities.

We have the 'scientific consensus' as given in that wiki link to describe the basic common agreement across most of the scientific disciplines in relation to the acceptance that AGW is real and a real danger to all our lives.

We now need the action, from ourselves and our governments and corporations, to ensure that this historic CO2 rise in earths history is not going to be the symbol of our future extinction.

So this thread is 100% about what side of the argument you fall into and why, it is upto to each of us to prove our opinion on the subject. Can you?

Edit: a couple more links to explain the subject:

1. Global Warming & Climate Change Myths


2. Climate warnings from the distant past

 
Last edited:
If you’re worried change your life, however as long as the technology is where it’s at right now, the masses won’t change and if you force them it will lead to riots pretty fast.

Remove petrol fuel and if you don’t have an alternative you a going to be in a very dark place pretty fast.
 
Real or not, we need to get off our dependence on fossil fuels, so let's start now. That said, it won't be easy. Too bad somebody clever can't suck the carbon out of the air and reconstitute it into a form of natural gas and even a liquid combustible like gasoline. Scientists need to step away from the political podium and focus their attention on giving us ANSWERS for HOW to get off of fossil fuels.

And then there are all the other issues that get pushed aside, like the pollution of our environment with plastics and heavy metals, the destruction of forests and natural habitats, the greed-driven consumerism that leads to this waste in the first place, etc.
 
Its definitely a real and urgent problem. I'm an old fart so I've seen climate change in my lifetime.

Examples would be climate instability in that we get shorter bursts of more extreme weather now I've done a lot of outdoor work so I've seen that change. Insects not dying off due to warmer winters leading to an increase in their population (been good for bats that one). Lack of persistent snow in winter meaning the population don't know how to drive on it anymore which causes issues we didn't used to get. Decline in wildlife further up the food chain from species targeted by industrial pesticides (that ones just pollution). The coldest months now happen weeks later than they used to that's now as regular as clockwork. Insect species moving further North due to the increase in average temperature. Stone buildings effected as a result of acidic rain, in that medieval castles/churches went from having mortar in the cracks to having a webwork of protruding mortar as the exposed stone was dissolved. Decline in habitat/species in my favourite snorkelling holiday destinations.

The thing that really convinced me was working aboard a ship though, you don't need to look at your watch to know when lands over the horizon because you can see and smell the massive skanky yellow blur that indicate a return to "civilization".
 
When one in 10/20/50/100/200/1000 year events are happening every other year I don't think you need to think about it.

Real or not, we need to get off our dependence on fossil fuels, so let's start now. That said, it won't be easy. Too bad somebody clever can't suck the carbon out of the air and reconstitute it into a form of natural gas and even a liquid combustible like gasoline. Scientists need to step away from the political podium and focus their attention on giving us ANSWERS for HOW to get off of fossil fuels.
If you put your tin-foil hat on, you know that all the alternatives already exist but it's in the interest of the people that have money to squeeze all they can from the dead dinos before they "discover" alternatives. :p
 
Its definitely a real and urgent problem. I'm an old fart so I've seen climate change in my lifetime.
Lol, yes me too! For me it was mostly the change in weather patterns over recent years vs previous decades, and more related to the ozone hole perhaps, but being able to go shirtless on a hot summer day for hours without need of sun-screen (which you just can't do these days).

-------------------

So no real proof from the skeptics yet, so i will carry on with the proof from the science showing AGW is a real concern :)

1. It is the SPEED OF CHANGE in CO2 levels in the post industrial period that is the key.

The Earth has had as high and higher levels of CO2 in it's past (going back 3 million years and further) that were not related to the current man made climate change (AGW) issue. These historic high levels had a range of natural drivers that took place over much, much larger time-spans, which gave life time to adapt to the changes (mostly). The biggest concern with the current situation is that the levels have shot up faster than at any other point in the historic record after life evolved on this planet.

That speed of change is seen as a primary driver for the extreme weather events we are all witnessing more frequently these days, it also is unknown territory in terms of species adaptation. Will the wildlife manage to cope with such fast rises in CO2?

One great example is the fact that plants thrive and grow faster with more CO2 to 'feed' on, which is true, but what is less known is that many plant species can not cope with the speed that CO2 levels are advancing under AGW, and in fact rather than seeing a boom in plant life and virility, we are seeing a decline in viable plant growth due to that problem. A few species seem to do ok, but you are looking at a very small spread of plant species that seem like they will do well in the fast growth CO2 levels we are pushing, and that will have knock on effects on overall biodiversity that we rely on to feed the world etc.

And extreme weather, and the mess it creates in the usual 'seasonal' nature of plant life growth and the connected nature of animal cycles, is a growing problem for the worlds farmers. We are seeing more crops spoiling than at previous times, or just flat out no harvests (in the uk we had the issue recently with Spanish lettuce, peppers and strawberry crops failing on mass, thus making them hard to source for our super-markets).

So yes i can agree with the Skeptics (of AGW) that the earth indeed has had higher rates of CO2 in the past and the life carried on, BUT life did not have to deal with the speed of change we are seeing in our modern post industrial era, and things are not looking good already due to the small changes we have already been under. It looks much worse if you look forward a hundred years or so with no action to deal with the speed of CO2 change we are driving.
 
There will not be any significant changes during the next decade, unless some new wonder technology can replace petrol, huge populations in India and China will not change that fast and my guess is that we don’t want to either if we can’t get a replacement.
 
I would like to suggest our primary focus should be on reducing pollution and not climate change.

I know some people need a bigger reason than "doing the right thing," and find climate change to be that reason.

But while the climate of the planet is immensely complex, the harmful effects of pollution is simple to prove and bad no matter what the climate is doing.

Simply put, man made pollution leads to all kinds of illnesses and death for not only humans, but for most forms of life.

I'd also propose that our second focus should be sequestering as much of the extra CO2 we've released into the atmosphere as we can.

We know that the globe has gone through hot and cold cycles, and some unpredictable events (like volcanic eruptions, etc) can also have an effect.

With the in mind, I think it would be great if we could develop technology to turn the millions of dry oil wells into CO2 storage depots in case we are ever faced with another ice age, even if it's a small one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

Finally, and I know most don't want to hear this, but it has been proven that the current climate models being used (like the one in the below article) are not accurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

These models (which have been in use for many years) show a chart rising and rising, but actual temps are not tracking with those models.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=climate+models+vs+reality

If the actual temperatures over the last several years DON'T match those predicted by the models, then obviously we need new models?

Using models that are not accurate ACTUALLY DAMAGE our efforts to get the world to reduce pollution emissions.

We should all demand that more accurate models be developed and used, as well as an demand an explanation of why these old disproven models are still being promoted?

TLDR; Climate is complicated, but the effects of Pollution is not, so let's focus on reducing pollution which is simple to prove, and something most everyone can agree on.
 
Last edited:
Good idea with this thread, but
When one in 10/20/50/100/200/1000 year events are happening every other year I don't think you need to think about it.


If you put your tin-foil hat on, you know that all the alternatives already exist but it's in the interest of the people that have money to squeeze all they can from the dead dinos before they "discover" alternatives. :p
It was dead trees, not dead dinos ;)

We do have some alternatives, but there are a few "issues" with those:

We haven't built them yet. Before we have at least a certain amount of alternative stopping usage of fossil fuels would be quite a lot more devastating than the climate change they cause. We need energy to feed the global population, and we cannot do that with the currently available alternatives. Don't get me wrong! It's dead serious, literally, that we start building those alternatives now and not in 10-50 years. You can't build wind turbines etc. without energy, and the energy we have now is fossil based. That's one of the Catch-22's we're looking at.

We need to have someone(s) sit down and make a plan, and we need to have others go through that plan very carefully. There is NO plan right now. It's almost only empty words, promises and intentions being repeated over and over. The "Great Leap Forward" was an example of a plan that seemed "good" on paper, but because it wasn't critically evaluated, it caused famine and death to millions. One of the reasons why there is no plan is probably that when the politicians ask the scientist they are being told that science can't do magic, and we are bound by the laws of nature. There is no cold fusion or perpetual motion that we just need to go and discover. Also science is overruled by economists saying that we need to continue growth, or else... (Cue Beethoven's 5th)

Many of the solutions simply doesn't scale. All the car manufacturers are almost exclusively aiming for EVs with lithium batteries, but you don't have to be a geologist to understand that we simply don't have a lithium reserve big enough to replace all the current cars with EVs. Remember that a company exist on the premise of earning money. You do that by matching the customers needs, not by saving humanity. "If they want EVs, we'll give them that" until lithium runs out. If they told us that it wasn't really possible in the long run on a global scale they would quickly run out of investors.

The climate is far from the only problem we face. There's a whole list of them: Food security, energy, lack of water, minerals being depleted, pollution, biodiversity loss, land use, ozone depletion, and running out of phosphate rock to name a few. If we don't find a solution to all of those, it is highly unlikely that we will become 12 billion people in 2100.

The main issue we have is the population size that has gone above the carrying capacity. That is taboo for several reasons. One being that you can't solve it quick enough without birth control, abortions, child policies or even killing people. Especially the latter is no go to most of us. There is also the fact that the population is rising in the poorer parts of the world, while a lot of the resources are used in the rich countries. No matter where people stand when it comes to politics, it's pretty clear to most people that this is not "fair". Therefore we chose not to talk about it.

The solution is that we all agree to lower our personal consumption of resources, including energy. That would cause a considerable reduction of quality of life for many people, especially in the rich part of the world. A rough estimate would be that if we all agreed to share the resources we have while trying to save humanity and civilization, an average american would have to reduce their consumption down to 10% of what they consume now. Said in another way, 9 out of 10 times, you would have to leave the money or the credit card in your pocket. I'm so sorry, but I simply don't find that very likely to ever happen. You rarely hear those numbers from any politician. I wonder why. Could it possibly be that we wouldn't vote for someone telling it as it is?

Well, Mother Nature's iron fist it is then. You can get away with a lot of egoism and breaking the laws of the social contracts, but there is no one that has found a way to bend the laws of nature. Not even slightly. Even the very rich need food to survive, and by far the most of them wouldn't know how to get it, if the shop or the restaurant was closed or just empty.

TL/DR: Humanity is facing potential "extinction" and most of us haven't got an attention span allowing us to get to the end of a tweet. Now go back and read! ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't like the word "belief", because it suggests blind faith.
That is a religion thing. "That, which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

If you "believe" something based on actual demonstrable data, it's not belief, it's a fact. :)
That being said, the data can be interpreted in various ways to support your narrative, depending on how honest you are, so I did see people using the same climate change graphs to demonstrate that the climate change is NOT a thing, which I find kind of amusing.
 
I don't like the word "belief", because it suggests blind faith.
That is a religion thing. "That, which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

If you "believe" something based on actual demonstrable data, it's not belief, it's a fact. :)
That being said, the data can be interpreted in various ways to support your narrative, depending on how honest you are, so I did see people using the same climate change graphs to demonstrate that the climate change is NOT a thing, which I find kind of amusing.
Let's say that Joe wants to cross a road and he sees a truck approaching. Joe could chose to believe that the truck isn't there if he doesn't look at it and cross the road, using the exact same arguments some philosophers use to argue that the Moon isn't there when nobody is watching it. That would quickly remove Joe from the gene pool, and probably increase the average IQ of the global population slightly.

Similar methods of arguing using hypothetical "doubt" is used by deniers to discredit climate scientists and their message to the global population. I have experienced several times in the scientific community, that we follow the rules of science so strictly that we forget to use common sense. That is among scientists that have no doubt about the severity of the situation we're in. Even with that limitation to scientific work, there is no significant doubt in the scientific community. Global warming is real, and it's caused by humans.
 
Let's say that Joe wants to cross a road and he sees a truck approaching. Joe could chose to believe that the truck isn't there if he doesn't look at it and cross the road, using the exact same arguments some philosophers use to argue that the Moon isn't there when nobody is watching it. That would quickly remove Joe from the gene pool, and probably increase the average IQ of the global population slightly.

Similar methods of arguing using hypothetical "doubt" is used by deniers to discredit climate scientists and their message to the global population. I have experienced several times in the scientific community, that we follow the rules of science so strictly that we forget to use common sense. That is among scientists that have no doubt about the severity of the situation we're in. Even with that limitation to scientific work, there is no significant doubt in the scientific community. Global warming is real, and it's caused by humans.
The problem with Joe crossing the road blindly is that the truck would probably stop to let him pass, further enforcing Joe's belief that it wasn't real. :LOL:
People like Joe can be really frustrating to deal with.
 
The problem with Joe crossing the road blindly is that the truck would probably stop to let him pass, further enforcing Joe's belief that it wasn't real. :LOL:
People like Joe can be really frustrating to deal with.
I dunno about that. if I've learned anything from watching American TV and movies it's that if you walk on the road in America you will be mowed down with extreme prejudice. :p
 
Top Bottom