All the cares and concerns since the dawn of mankind were not taken care of until it involved some sort of profit! Most will complain and voice their concerns, but as long as their 401 or other such investment is making money for them. They don't have a leg to stand on. I personally have investments in the petroleum industry. I don't care what I have to pay for a gallon of gas, because I'm not the only one buying a gallon of gas; And when the others do, the return on my investment goes up. As far as giving a dam about the next generation, I follow the workings of the Christian God. Not the religion portion just the God, where as he/she/it didn't give a darn and destroyed what he/she/it had manufactured. IF a GOD doesn't give a darn about what he's/she's/it's done; Then why should I.
General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.
- Thread starter Zak Gordon
- Start date
- Status
The Earth's climate changes in cycles over geologic time. The planet has warmed and cooled many times over its history. I do believe humans have influenced the speed at which the planet is warming. It does not matter who is to "blame" for the increase in world-wide temperatures, what matters is how we react to it. Humanity's reaction to climate change will determine whether our species deserves to survive.
OK. I don't wish to be considered as a punctuation psycho, but. Apart from the title, I cannot see another question mark, in this post. So, this is more of a statement, than a question. Plus. Where I would place a question mark, looks like a loaded question.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:
Evidence
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...climate.nasa.gov
How can man-made climate change be proven?
If observed climate variables such as temperature or precipitation change over time, it raises the question as to whether human influence plays a role. To investigate this, scientists are applying a method for estimating causal relationships.phys.org
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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?
This part: "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)."
However: Taking the title, "Is man made climate change real or not?" Then I would use the same theory to answer the, is there alien life beyond this world, question. Mathematically, there has to be and if you look at the numbers, the same has to apply to man's potential influence on the planet's weather pattens. How? Is up for debate. Like it or not, humans have been creating excess gasses, of all kinds, for 1,000s of years and for the last 500 years, it has been increasing at tremendous rates. We know. It is a matter of fact. Some of those gasses, do, change the way, the planet deals with, things like heat, from the sun. There wasn't a major change, with regards to the release of CFCs; for nothing. Those that understood its effects, were genuinely scared. Something 'had' to be done and it was. We are just seeing the benefits now, decades after the release of CFCs was banned.
Human activities, have to have had an influence.
Now I'll read this thread and see what the regulars, have to say about each other.
Putting aside the natural events, such as Volcanoes, Meteor strikes etc.. I for see civil unrest, as being the major threat, to western societies. These things go through cycles, but the cycles are getting tighter and for more reasons. What we see in, say, South America, where food issues and those in control, attempting to suppress; rather than taking positive actions, to resolve the issues the populous have. We will see much more of, in the more civilised parts of the world Food will always go to the highest bidder and so the poor, will revolt and some of the better off. Will encourage it to happen. I have said before: I for see, citadels and wastelands.
As a young man I never wanted to have children. Now, much older, I regret that life choice. I understand, that given the right foundations, a child can grow up. Not just to survive, whatever it may have to confront; but to do more than, just hold its own.
Could have sworn there was about seventy pages of this stuff in another thread around here. I don't even think that one is locked yet.
Anyway, yes, it is my belief that anthropogenic climate change is real. The correlation between human activities and the current warming trend are indisputable and the evidence for causation is growing more robust every day. Certain details that would lead to a comprehensive understanding may still need to be uncovered, but the idea that we are not the prime driver of this deviation from past patterns has been exceedingly far fetched for quite some time. So yeah, I looked at the evidence I am capable of interpreting, talked to those I trust who are capable of interpreting more, weighed it against the paltry contraindicators...and came to a conclusion that largely mirrors the consensus of the scientific community.
The mechanisms of climate change are not irrelevant. Without having an idea as to what our contribution has been, we cannot make rational decisions about what, if anything, is to be done. Even deciding to do nothing but ride out the storm still depends on being correctly informed about how long and serious any hardships will be. Whatever you're acting against, your struggle will go much better if you know what "it" is.
Almost any change in average global temperature will have a corollary effect on atmospheric water vapor content and we are already well into a positive (though probably not a runaway) feedback loop. CO2 has, fairly aptly, been referred to as the "thermostat" for all this.
As for no going back, that depends on the time scale one is looking at. Certain unfortunate events, say a major nuclear exchange, could even prompt a rapid reversal.
Anyway, yes, it is my belief that anthropogenic climate change is real. The correlation between human activities and the current warming trend are indisputable and the evidence for causation is growing more robust every day. Certain details that would lead to a comprehensive understanding may still need to be uncovered, but the idea that we are not the prime driver of this deviation from past patterns has been exceedingly far fetched for quite some time. So yeah, I looked at the evidence I am capable of interpreting, talked to those I trust who are capable of interpreting more, weighed it against the paltry contraindicators...and came to a conclusion that largely mirrors the consensus of the scientific community.
The mechanisms of climate change are not irrelevant. Without having an idea as to what our contribution has been, we cannot make rational decisions about what, if anything, is to be done. Even deciding to do nothing but ride out the storm still depends on being correctly informed about how long and serious any hardships will be. Whatever you're acting against, your struggle will go much better if you know what "it" is.
Almost any change in average global temperature will have a corollary effect on atmospheric water vapor content and we are already well into a positive (though probably not a runaway) feedback loop. CO2 has, fairly aptly, been referred to as the "thermostat" for all this.
As for no going back, that depends on the time scale one is looking at. Certain unfortunate events, say a major nuclear exchange, could even prompt a rapid reversal.
Climate change was coming whether we liked it or not.
Pumping co2 into the atmosphere did not help, it was coming regardless.
The next ice age will come, maybe in 100,000 yrs instead of 10,000 yrs
Brexit caused it, blame them, or maybe hillary.
Pumping co2 into the atmosphere did not help, it was coming regardless.
The next ice age will come, maybe in 100,000 yrs instead of 10,000 yrs
Brexit caused it, blame them, or maybe hillary.
So now that we all agree on manbearpig, what are we going to do about it? Or would you rather watch another episode of "When should I start to worry"?
Quoted for truth.The second part, however, I do agree with fully. Climate changes are inevitable and has been happening since the planet first got its atmosphere. And it has always been fine.
We are definitely influencing the changes in a big way, but hoping that we're going to revert them is silly.
Instead we should focus on discovering how are WE going to adapt as a society.
My favourite quote about climate change is one from Jim Jefferies: "We don't have to save the planet, we have to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care and will be glad once we're gone."
It is a term used by both sides of the debate to demean the other, so it seemed appropriate to claim it as term we all understand the context off. This thread will actually be about removing 'belief', using the science, and hopefully showing people that are still caught up in the 'Is it real or not?' confusion to understand that debate is actually mute and it is time to move on and 'act' according to the best data we have available to us. That is IF we want to pass on a livable world to our kids and grand-children off course (the other thread is about cataloging that change due to AGW).
-------------------------------
Well this thread is still waiting for the proof that AGW is not real/fake etc.
I've seen a few opinions that border on the non committal line around "it is not that bad etc", or trying to be clever and throw out the scientific evidence given for AGW being real, as being not what the thread is about etc (Talarin! really?) but as yet no actual proof or links to studies/reports that prove the whole AGW concern is some kind of conspiracy theory from the worlds climate scientists/simply factually wrong.
To help those that might want to counter the premise here are the pointers to aim at (i'll keep it simple and short):
1. CO2 levels in the post industrial period have RISEN FASTER than at any other period of the geologic record
2. This rise has been firmly linked to mans activities, mostly based around fossil fuel extraction and use, directly and indirectly.
Have at it
Last edited:
I've heard and read a lot of people claiming that sustainability is something we should strive for. That makes sense, because in it's simplest form sustainability means to continue to exist. The closest you get to an actual indication of what it means to live sustainably is to look at our carbon emissions. We know roughly how much CO2 humanity can emit into the atmosphere if the "plants" should be able to convert it back to oxygen, meaning that we sustain the CO2 level in the atmosphere. That number is somewhere around 2 tons per capita. Looking at the list of CO2 emissions per capita, a country like the US in 2014 had a CO2 emission per capita of 16.5 tons per year. That is 8 times too high to be sustainable. If you look at the countries that are around 2 tons per capita you find India.
List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita - Wikipedia
I did not suggest that we should do that, nor did I suggest that I think it's realistic. I simply stated that if we want to continue to exist, those numbers are an indication of what we need to do. AFAIR I also wrote that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Did man create the Statue of Liberty?
Semantics - Wikipedia
To answer your two questions:
Some of us don't believe in god. You are welcome to believe anything that rocks your boat, but there is one clear distinction between science and religion. Science is a tool that man created to seek knowledge about reality, thereby making it possible to predict future events, and it works. Religion cannot do that. Therefore to any non believer, any sort of religious explanation of climate change is similar to saying that Santa Claus did it.
Man is a result of ~4 billion years of evolution. That started roughly 500 million years after the Earth and other planets formed out of debris from the creation of the Sun. The Sun came to be because the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago created a lot of hydrogen and helium that curvature of spacetime causes to gather in giant clouds leading to stars being born. That happens to this day and is welly documented, as is the rest of the story.
You could be clever and ask who caused the Big Bang, the so called first mover, and point towards god, but that doesn't solve the "mystery", because my next question would be: Who created god then?
Now back to the subject
I thought he had stopped smoking.
(Yes, I know, I'm sorry I don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way)
I got it.View attachment 149001
(Yes, I know, I'm sorry I don't contribute to the discussion in any meaningful way)
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.
That was a fun film. Back when they knew how to make good bad films.
Honestly, its true. Walking on the road ia pretty much a death sentance.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.
- Status