Top | Newest First | Oldest First
It all depends how you define "significant". The Earth has wild weather swings between heat periods and ice ages and not only does it's weather patterns change but even it's land masses move around. By comparison man made change is insignificant. If you mean significant for the wellbeing of humans and the weather they have been used to in the last few centuries then yes the evidence of man made weather change is well documented but also overrated when contrasted to the natural weather evolution. There are other things to focus on like toxicity and deforestation, weather is probably the least of our polution related problems.
Doomflower · 36-40, M
It has been being studied for decades. I am as sure human activities are causing significant changes to the climate as I am that germs cause disease or that Pluto is not a planet.
Yes, the earth goes through cooling and warming phases but the evidence shows that what is happening now is not that normal cycle. It is more extreme and those extremes are being driven by human activities. We have reports going back to the 70s on this. It's not a debate. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. People who deny climate change are ignorant and/or in denial.
Humans won't be able to destroy the planet completely. Just ourselves. Let the deniers deny. The faster humans make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves the more time it will have to heal when we are gone. Maybe an intelligent species will develop.
Yes, the earth goes through cooling and warming phases but the evidence shows that what is happening now is not that normal cycle. It is more extreme and those extremes are being driven by human activities. We have reports going back to the 70s on this. It's not a debate. The scientific consensus is overwhelming. People who deny climate change are ignorant and/or in denial.
Humans won't be able to destroy the planet completely. Just ourselves. Let the deniers deny. The faster humans make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves the more time it will have to heal when we are gone. Maybe an intelligent species will develop.
Lackwittyname · 51-55, M
View 2 more replies »
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hertoy Of course, it´s your privilege.
The objects of agreement and disagreement are, in this thread, our opinions.
Material reality is indifferent to what we both may say. And is, always, the ultimate arbiter, only constrained by it´s own causal relationships.
So, just to understand a little better your point: do you have access to scientific consistent data and models? Or is yours a "common sense reasoning" based opinión?
The objects of agreement and disagreement are, in this thread, our opinions.
Material reality is indifferent to what we both may say. And is, always, the ultimate arbiter, only constrained by it´s own causal relationships.
So, just to understand a little better your point: do you have access to scientific consistent data and models? Or is yours a "common sense reasoning" based opinión?
hertoy · 70-79, M
@CharlieZ I read a article by a Phd in atmospheric science & climate change and his research indicates man made climate change is a myth. He also founded the weather channel & left when he felt it became too political. Some of his arguments regarding natural changes included volcanism, Earths wobble, the Suns variable output, and even our position within the Milky Way itself. Mars weather fluctuates without human intervention as did the Earth for billions of years.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@hertoy
- Is that article includded in an indexed publication known as part of the Scientific community net of communiction of research papers?
Or was published only by news media (no matter if a normally serious one) as a periodistic article, even if in a "scientific diffusion / education" column?
- Includes formal refferences / links / access to the massive amount of sistematic meassures / data necessarily associated to a scientific research / paper of the kind?
Or are the kind of unsupported refferences to isolated examples?
- Are those meassures / data a statisticallly significative sample and had been seriously tested? Are part of a mathematical inference model?
Or just an educated guess, based on contingent information?
- Is the author of the article part of the working team that researched the published data / conclutions? Is him, at least a researcher, and not only a graduated profesional in the field, as good as he may be?
Or is his a personal opinión but a second hand one?
Hertoy, I have not an "a priori" cognitive prefference for one conclution or the opposite.
But, as a part, myself, of the scientific community in my own fields (though not atmospherical ones) I rely on serious scientific communication and not on media less specific articles.
Let me say that there is an impressive collection of independent international research, with data open to peir review that cover about 45 years, pointing to human incidence on climate.
I´ve never seen nothing remotely near this on the opposite conclutions.
- Is that article includded in an indexed publication known as part of the Scientific community net of communiction of research papers?
Or was published only by news media (no matter if a normally serious one) as a periodistic article, even if in a "scientific diffusion / education" column?
- Includes formal refferences / links / access to the massive amount of sistematic meassures / data necessarily associated to a scientific research / paper of the kind?
Or are the kind of unsupported refferences to isolated examples?
- Are those meassures / data a statisticallly significative sample and had been seriously tested? Are part of a mathematical inference model?
Or just an educated guess, based on contingent information?
- Is the author of the article part of the working team that researched the published data / conclutions? Is him, at least a researcher, and not only a graduated profesional in the field, as good as he may be?
Or is his a personal opinión but a second hand one?
Hertoy, I have not an "a priori" cognitive prefference for one conclution or the opposite.
But, as a part, myself, of the scientific community in my own fields (though not atmospherical ones) I rely on serious scientific communication and not on media less specific articles.
Let me say that there is an impressive collection of independent international research, with data open to peir review that cover about 45 years, pointing to human incidence on climate.
I´ve never seen nothing remotely near this on the opposite conclutions.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
I know it´s not feasable.
But would be interesting to conduct a massive sociological research:
The correlation between people´s personal believes about this and their political choices.
We´ll probably know for sure what it´s intutivelly evident.
Anti / pseudo Science "schools of thought" (religious, political, philosophical) are "de facto" ideological allies of economic interests that need to hide and deflect the effects of certain activities over climate.
But would be interesting to conduct a massive sociological research:
The correlation between people´s personal believes about this and their political choices.
We´ll probably know for sure what it´s intutivelly evident.
Anti / pseudo Science "schools of thought" (religious, political, philosophical) are "de facto" ideological allies of economic interests that need to hide and deflect the effects of certain activities over climate.
indyjoe · 56-60, M
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the things we have done has had some effect on it...but I do not believe it is as drastic as is believed. I believe that the biggest part of it is natural...our planet has been through drastic changes since it's very beginning and some of it with "catastrophic" effects. I believe this is mostly just another one of those changes and we just happen to be among those to be seeing it. We are actually having less of an impact now than we were 30 plus years ago because of all of the regulations and laws that have changed or restricted those things. I know that there are going to be people to challenge me on this and I will ignore it because I am not wishing to argue and debate it...I am just answering a question.
Lackwittyname · 51-55, M
@SheCallsMeCrushDaddy True, the earth will be fine, just uninhabitable, but earth will remain in an altered state to start all over while we rush to Mars, and die in transport
* Sorry, edit to uninhabitable
* Sorry, edit to uninhabitable
@Lackwittyname then, im gonna make damn sure i live it up right till that time.
ChloeYoung · 18-21, F
Doomflower · 36-40, M
@SW-User does that short piece of binary mean anything? I swear I have seen that same pattern somewhere.
SW-User
@Doomflower Maybe. I just started typing 1s and 0s lol
SW-User
I'm very convinced about it. There's decades of evidence that supports and basically all of the scientific community is in agreement that we're a large part of the cause of the climate changing.
The issue is figuring out how to effectively mitigate and perhaps even reverse it somewhat in a way that is cost-effective and also realistically doable. Then getting everyone to agree to follow along with it.
The issue is figuring out how to effectively mitigate and perhaps even reverse it somewhat in a way that is cost-effective and also realistically doable. Then getting everyone to agree to follow along with it.
smileylovesgaming · 31-35, F
With every action, there is a reaction.
ninalanyon · 61-69, T
Very.