Are human activities influencing the climate?

B0jangles

I have a new hypothesis to propose:

There is inverse relationship between the knowledge an internet poster has about any given topic and how loudly and aggressively they will defend their opinion (and their right to have that opinion) of that topic.

Sam Quentin

YES...And that's why we(the general public)shouldn't have to bare the cost of trying to save/protect the environment for future generations blah blah blah!? When we have governments and scientists in certain parts of the World doing the opposite.... So enough with your electric cars etc etc.. Keep 'cheap' diesel and petrol and bring back BIG smoky industry ok... 😠ohhhh yeah and bring back coal and get all those coal mines up and running yeah......

Potatoeman

Zillah wrote: »

Evolution is one of the best supported theories in the world. You only think otherwise because you have no idea what you're talking about. Scientific theories, by definition, have been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. If your theory doesn't have overwhelming evidence in its favour then it is not a scientific theory, it is only a hypothesis.

Still blows my mind that people who don't understand science feel they're in any position to argue with people. You literally don't know what you're talking about. Have you read any actual books on evolution? Can you tell me what the best evidence for it is? Do you know anything substantial about fossils, genetics, and the tree of life? You don't, so why do you think you're in any position to form an opinion on evolution?

I never said I didn't believe evolution just said it needs to be proven with the missing link. Don't let that stop you having a little rant though.

seamus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnX0-TayVjk

B0jangles

Potatoeman wrote: »

I never said I didn't believe evolution just said it needs to be proven with the missing link. Don't let that stop you having a little rant though.

Do you understand what you are asking for when you ask for 'the missing link'?

seamus

Potatoeman wrote: »

I never said I didn't believe evolution just said it needs to be proven with the missing link.

No, it doesn't. Even using the term "missing link" illustrates that you don't understand the theory, never mind understand how to prove it.

Zillah

Potatoeman wrote: »

I never said I didn't believe evolution just said it needs to be proven with the missing link. Don't let that stop you having a little rant though.

There is no missing link, that's why I'm 'ranting': you've no idea what you're talking about, the idea of a missing link is nonsense perpetuated by religious conservatives with an agenda. There is an extremely impressive series of fossils showing a vast amount of the natural history on this planet. Genetics alone proves evolution ten times over.

Again, evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; that is obvious to anyone who actually understands it.

Why do I need to explain to you that you don't know what you're talking about? You know better than I do how little you actually know about the topic. You know you don't understand it, you know you haven't read any books on it.

You don't know anything about science, why do you have strong opinions on something you don't know anything about?

RobertKK

Humans no doubt are affecting the climate, but it is a minor influence compared to the major influence which is sun activity.

LordSutch

I voted minor influence, which I guess makes me a climate change denier.

My opinion is that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon, hence the climate of planet earth changes naturally, and always has done since the beginning of time! And now surprise-surprise, its changing again :eek:

Admittedly with a little help from ourselves, but I would never say that "we alone are responsible" for climate change > as that would be untrue in my opinion .....

The climate is changing again and we have contributed (percentage unknown).

buried

Not a great look to see whales dying on the shorelines due to the fact their stomachs are filled with plastic, is it?. We are due the end times. We treat this place like a absolute toilet kip. The universe might be coming to clean it up. End of October meteor shower maybe, some nice bit of stoney Karma from the Taurid meteor stream. Why not? It happened before. Nice 8 mile long meteor go to smack bang straight into this planet. That'll sort everything out real nice. Can't treat this place like a dirty toilet forever. Existence for everything seems to include its awareness for RESPONSIBILITY. But apex humanity doesn't give a monkiestwat about it's responsibility for the planet we can only exist on. If your not being responsible for yourself in your own micro environment - You are totally f**ked. Why should it be any different for us as a species, collectively? It isn't IMO. Somethings got to give. We could we be real f**ked, real soon.

Academic

An old but still useful article from Scientific American on the meaning of "theory" in science, rebutting any number of sadly persistent misconceptions that apparently are still current:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

marcus001

elefant wrote: »

And so, what, 97% of scientists have been bought off by the side with more clout than the oil industry?

Checks out.

I believe in climate change, but the 97% thing always bugs me because I know it's based on an extremely flawed survey.

Creative83

marcus001 wrote: »

I believe in climate change, but the 97% thing always bugs me because I know it's based on an extremely flawed survey.

The 97% thing was plucked from thin air... I think it only relates to the IPCC but has been morphed to represent the worlds scientists which is a total fraud. It also changes depending on what publication your looking at... sometimes it's 96%, other times it's 98%...

lazybones32

If we were to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, what would the climate change to? How long would it take to come to its new definition of normal? Is this 100% guaranteed?

We are not dealing with something as predictable as a mathematical equation but computer models are the current authority regarding climate change. The situation is nowhere near as simple as it is presented.

LordSutch

Solar flares . . . .

just saying like.

marcus001

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

The 97% thing was plucked from thin air... I think it only relates to the IPCC but has been morphed to represent the worlds scientists which is a total fraud. It also changes depending on what publication your looking at... sometimes it's 96%, other times it's 98%...

There's a range of opinions on climate change amongst climate scientists ranging from humans have no effect, to humans have some effect but not significant, to humans have a large effect etc. Its nowhere near as unanimous as people make out.

I stand somewhere in the middle, but I like a lot if scientists rate other forms of pollution as more dangerous than CO2 emissions. I'm more concerned with the amount of plastics going into the sea for example than I am about the temperature changing because the temperature has changed before many many times, we have to learn to adapt to changing temperatures if we're going to survive as a species, but we've never dumped so much **** into the oceans though.

The 97% thing was based on a prescreened sample of climate scientists. The irony, or not, is that the survey itself has no scientific value, it was designed to get a particular result yet climate change fundamentalists, the very people who claim that science is on their side, cite it without a clue as to where the figure comes from.

lazybones32

LordSutch wrote: »

Solar flares . . . .

just saying like.

Or the St. Stephen's day earthquake, 2004, which was so powerful that it moved the magnetic poles by 4 inches...that couldn't have any effect on climate, could it? The Earth itself was altered that day.

applehunter

http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/09/969051-actress-jennifer-lawrence-thinks-deadly-hurricanes-mother-natures-wrath-electing-trump/

Creative83

It all seems like a new religion...

Zerbini Blewitt

Anyone who still thinks that there is even a smidgin of a debate in the scientific community about human caused climate change (AGW) – a debate that was over 20 years is either


A) Very VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)

Or

Very VERY VERY VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)


But let the AH “debate” continue (aka spoofing about US derived billionaire / oil executive seeded talking points).

I’m sure great insight will be delivered (snigger :D :rolleyes:).

Creative83

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Anyone who still thinks that there is even a smidgin of a debate in the scientific community about human caused climate change (AGW) – a debate that was over 20 years is either


A) Very VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)

Or

Very VERY VERY VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)


But let the AH “debate” continue (aka spoofing about US derived billionaire / oil executive seeded talking points).

I’m sure great insight will be delivered (snigger :D:D:D :rolleyes:).

This tripe is typical of true believers to try and shut down debate

Zerbini Blewitt

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

This tripe is typical of true believers to try and shut down debate

I'm not a climate scientist or any scientist, so I was not involved in the AGW debate of 25 years ago.

Are you a climate scientist?

marcus001

Ooh all caps and emojiis. This will be a good post...

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Anyone who still thinks that there is even a smidgin of a debate in the scientific community about human caused climate change (AGW) – a debate that was over 20 years is either


A) Very VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)

Or

Very VERY VERY VERY stupid (because they believe the propaganda of oil billionaires)


But let the AH “debate” continue (aka spoofing about US derived billionaire / oil executive seeded talking points).

I’m sure great insight will be delivered (snigger :D :rolleyes:).

Aaaaanndd its nonsense

Zerbini Blewitt

marcus001 wrote: »

Ooh all caps and emojiis. This will be a good post...



Aaaaanndd its nonsense

Says the Nobel Prize winner for Climate Science 2017

I know this is AH. Not an actual scientific debating arena.

Do you have such awareness :rolleyes:

Atlantic Dawn

And the solution to the world climate warming cooling we cant factually back up warming or cooling changing will be Irish people driving around in circa car average cc of 1.6 litre getting rid of their cars and returning to living in caves while the Americans in cars of an average of 2.5 litres plus laugh at us, yes makes sense.

Creative83

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

I'm not a climate scientist or any scientist, so I was not involved in the AGW debate of 25 years ago.

Are you a climate scientist?

I am not... neither am I a "Global Warming" Journalist... the latter only appearing in newspapers & TV news in the last two decades... you think either are going to even consider the argument that there may not be a problem?

Of course not! Their livelihoods depend on this.

marcus001

I find its quite common nowadays that people particularly those without a good education or just people who are not very bright in general try to argue very strongly for the scientific consensus on various topics as a way of overcompensating for a lack of actual intellect of their own.

Its a way for them to feel intellectually superior over someone by taking up a position where they can always point to an authority or group of predetermined "smart guys" (climate scientists in this case) to back up their opinion without requiring any actual knowledge or understanding on their part. You'll find these people often know the least about the topic when challenged.

Sometimes they like to use anti-vaxxers or creationists as a foil for their self aggrandising fantasy.

It stands to reason that the people who know the least about something like evolution are often the ones who spend the most time defending it.

Junkyard Tom

Science only works if you believe in it.

Nabber

if the temps dip at all, or if they don't consistently increase, then anthropological warming is man made theory failing it's own hypothesis?

Surely?

Creative83

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Science only works if you believe in it.

That's true... which is why a lot of scientists believe that the "consensus" on human influenced climate is absolute bull****.

Zerbini Blewitt

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

And the solution to the world climate warming cooling we cant factually back up warming or cooling changing will be Irish people driving around in circa car average cc of 1.6 litre getting rid of their cars and returning to living in caves while the Americans in cars of an average of 2.5 litres plus laugh at us, yes makes sense.

you need to stop reading the propaganda and talking point canards of US oil companies (i.e. the sh*te websites you read online).

I could twist the whole thing around and say:

lets increase our fossil fuel burning 100-fold in the next 100 years. Since it's all a big scientific scam, lets enjoy burning as much fuel and emitting as much CO2 as we possibly can. There's no real consequences. Only leftist pussies believe that nonsense.

Are you on for that 'experiment'?

Atlantic Dawn

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

you need to stop reading the propaganda and talking point canards of US oil companies (i.e. the sh*te websites you read online).

I could twist the whole thing around and say:

lets increase our fossil fuel burning 100-fold in the next 100 years. Since it's all a big scientific scam, lets enjoy burning as much fuel and emitting as much CO2 as we possibly can. There's no real consequences. Only leftist pussies believe that nonsense.

Are you on for that 'experiment'?

Look at historical records, in the 60's and 70's there was fear of global cooling killing everyone on the planet. Waffling about topics that can attach taxation is the new fashion.

Creative83

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Look at historical records, in the 60's and 70's there was fear of global cooling killing everyone on the planet. Waffling about topics that can attach taxation is the new fashion.

Great point, convenient excuse to slap carbon taxes on... even though it has no merit whatsoever.

It's also a great excuse to keep 2nd & 3rd world countries from bettering themselves... we in the west have the audacity to tell them they can't burn oil or coal under the guise of climate change

Zerbini Blewitt

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Look at historical records, in the 60's and 70's there was fear of global cooling killing everyone on the planet. Waffling about topics that can attach taxation is the new fashion.

This is one of (many of) the most debunked pieces of misrepresented science sprayed out by the US oil industry propaganda machine.

I don't mean to be unkind but you've been played.

Read the science on this and on the main AGW question. Please!

In the meantime you are coming across as a wind-up robot i.e. exactly what the oil industry executives wanted of individuals in the 1970's, today and 100 years time.

Do you want to be & remain a patsy for the oil industry - why?

Creative83

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

This is one of (many of) the most debunked pieces of misrepresented science sprayed out by the US oil industry propaganda machine.

I don't mean to be unkind but you've been played.

Read the science on this and on the main AGW question. Please!

In the meantime you are coming across as a wind-up robot i.e. exactly what the oil industry executives wanted of individuals in the 1970's, today and 100 years time.

Do you want to be & remain a patsy for the oil industry - why?

Do you want to remain a patsy for the alarmist climate change community?

Atlantic Dawn

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

This is one of (many of) the most debunked pieces of misrepresented science sprayed out by the US oil industry propaganda machine.

I don't mean to be unkind but you've been played.

Read the science on this and on the main AGW question. Please!

In the meantime you are coming across as a wind-up robot i.e. exactly what the oil industry executives wanted of individuals in the 1970's, today and 100 years time.

Do you want to be & remain a patsy for the oil industry - why?

Hurricane Charlie 1986, why was nobody waffling about CO2 emissions then?

Zerbini Blewitt

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Hurricane Charlie 1986, why was nobody waffling about CO2 emissions then?

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

Do you want to remain a patsy for the alarmist climate change community?

Can you clarify if you believe

a) that AGW/ACC is all one big exaggeration and there is nothing to worry about burning unlimited fossil fuels (i.e. what the fossil fuel industry propagandists want you to believe & have spent $millions & millions for decades on propaganda - the evidence for this is : rich men want to be richer & F*ck the planet) which has zero evidence. Repeat............ ZERO

or

b) mankind is screwed (esp poorer countries) unless we reduce burning fossil fuel (what the the scientific community in this arena have said for over 25 years with the evidence for this growing every year- i.e. comparatively poorer academics)

Atlantic Dawn

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Can you clarify if you believe

a) that AGW/ACC is all one big exaggeration and there is nothing to worry about burning unlimited fossil fuels (i.e. what the fossil fuel industry propagandists want you to believe & have spent $millions & millions for decades on propaganda - the evidence for this is : rich men want to be richer & F*ck the planet)

or

b) mankind is screwed (esp poorer countries) unless we reduce burning fossil fuel (what the the scientific community in this arena have said for over 25 years with the evidence for this growing every year- i.e. comparatively poorer academics)

Put me down for everything supplied by climate change wafflers in the same way that I would doubt information supplied by a psychic with a deck of fancy cards in their pocket.

Zerbini Blewitt

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Put me down for everything supplied by climate change wafflers in the same way that I would doubt information supplied by a psychic with a deck of fancy cards in their pocket.

Lol, by all means continue with your 'scientific' 'debate'.

Your points are nonsense. Your understanding of the underlying issues is pathetic. Your wider contextual awareness of this faux [layman] debate is laughable. You are arguing for scientific ignorance - implying any education you received is a waste of money.

A total 100% failure on every level.

But at least the oil men (& their propaganda officers) will make more money selling their fossil fuel & of course F*ck this planet - who cares

:rolleyes:

Atlantic Dawn

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Lol, by all means continue with your 'scientific' 'debate'.

Your points are nonsense. Your understanding of the underlying issues is pathetic. Your wider contextual awareness of this faux [layman] debate is laughable. You are arguing for scientific ignorance - implying any education you received is a waste of money.

A total 100% failure on every level.

But at least the oil men (& their propaganda officers) will make more money selling their fossil fuel & of course F*ck this planet - who cares

:rolleyes:

Look at history to educate your future, don't believe the hype

RayM

I don't believe human activities are influencing the climate. 97% of the world's climate scientists are wrong and I, a man on the internet, am right.

Fr_Dougal

All depends on the scale you reference:

marcus001

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Can you clarify if you believe

a) that AGW/ACC is all one big exaggeration and there is nothing to worry about burning unlimited fossil fuels (i.e. what the fossil fuel industry propagandists want you to believe & have spent $millions & millions for decades on propaganda - the evidence for this is : rich men want to be richer & F*ck the planet) which has zero evidence. Repeat............ ZERO

or

b) mankind is screwed (esp poorer countries) unless we reduce burning fossil fuel (what the the scientific community in this arena have said for over 25 years with the evidence for this growing every year- i.e. comparatively poorer academics)

You're some man for the false dichotomy. This is not how someone with a university education argues.

Zerbini Blewitt

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

All depends on the scale you reference:

Endlessly debunked and explained in detail why the changes now cannot be explained without man's fossil fuel/agri influence.

Whats missing is the speed of change & detail that doesn't fit in this graph.

But of course you're just repeating endless oil man propaganda, with endless graphs to come after this one.

Of course you don't realise that what your posting is oil man propaganda. All from English language US websites & similar. You think it's scientifically legitimate (tee hee). You also think its not complete bollocks (tee hee).

Oil man propaganda =/= science no matter how long you've been reading it.

And yes, I get it - it's hard to admit in public that you've been taken for a schmuck for years....but....c'est la vie

This thread had potential if you all could have discussed the level of impact we're having on the actual climate.

It's hard to quantify or prove that climate events are related to climate change and it could have been interesting. Instead, it's a typical shltshow.

Gbear

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Science only works if you believe in it.

Which is why when you get on a plane, you're handed out leaflets to encourage faith in gravity and aerodynamics.

Did you know that 73% of plane crashes are caused by skeptics asking whether or not planes can really fly?

It's like when Wile E Coyote looks down after running off the edge of the cliff. If you don't look down you'll be just fine.

Gbear

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread had potential if you all could have discussed the level of impact we're having on the actual climate.

It's hard to quantify or prove that climate events are related to climate change and it could have been interesting. Instead, it's a typical shltshow.

So a new account comes up with this OP:

Well it's hurricane season again and the usual scaremongering is well and truly underway.

I don't believe we are having anywhere near the the kind of influence on climate as is constantly suggested. Just far too many processes and conditions involved that anything us humans are doing is small fry in the great scheme of things.

Now there is now a whole multi-billion dollar industry out there... on par with the oil industry... with peddling the existence of human influenced catastrophic climate change.

...and you think we're about to embark on an adventure in good faith questions about science?

Someone who was legitimately open minded but ignorant about climate change would ask a question along the lines of "I don't understand what the relationship is between climate change and adverse weather events. Is there a strong link between them? How accurate is the idea that climate change is directly contributing to events like Hurricane Irma and the severity of such events".
That suggests you're not prejudging the answer to your question based on an argument from ignorance; an argument that assumes climate change or an element of it is impossible because the person doesn't understand how it works.

Instead, you see the bolded parts in the quote above, very clearly demonstrating an agenda, either with the intent to troll people (because the surest way to do that is to pin your ignorant colours to the mast without any attempt to obfusticate your position and then deny reality to people who are arguing in good faith), or someone who is totally ignorant about climate change but also has bought the politicisation of it pushed from the right wing for the benefit of businesses who'd lose out if we phased out fossil fuels, and, as such, is using this not as an opportunity to learn, but rather an opportunity to stand on a soap box and preach unsupported ignorant bull****.

LordSutch

mini_Sapphire wrote: »

Are human activities influencing the climate?

YES, but the question is, by how much?

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.

The climate has always been cyclical since before the Romans harvested grapes in the ancient vineyards at Hadrian's wall (in the North of England).

Ice ages come & go, hot periods too. The planet & its climate have always been in a state of flux, since before the dinosaurs walked the planet with massive volcanoes spewing out massive amounts of noxious prehistoric fumes!

The climate was, and always has been changing, even long before mankind arrived (to make his mark on the atmosphere)!

I do believed we contribute to climate change, but I don't agree that we cause it.

Gbear

Gbear wrote: »

So a new account comes up with this OP:



...and you think we're about to embark on an adventure in good faith questions about science?

Someone who was legitimately open minded but ignorant about climate change would ask a question along the lines of "I don't understand what the relationship is between climate change and adverse weather events. Is there a strong link between them? How accurate is the idea that climate change is directly contributing to events like Hurricane Irma and the severity of such events".
That suggests you're not prejudging the answer to your question based on an argument from ignorance; an argument that assumes climate change or an element of it is impossible because the person doesn't understand how it works.

Instead, you see the bolded parts in the quote above, very clearly demonstrating an agenda, either with the intent to troll people (because the surest way to do that is to pin your ignorant colours to the mast without any attempt to obfusticate your position and then deny reality to people who are arguing in good faith), or someone who is totally ignorant about climate change but also has bought the politicisation of it pushed from the right wing for the benefit of businesses who'd lose out if we phased out fossil fuels, and, as such, is using this not as an opportunity to learn, but rather an opportunity to stand on a soap box and preach unsupported ignorant bull****.

We are seven pages into this thread. Are you telling me it still couldn't have turned into something more than it is?

Zerbini Blewitt

LordSutch wrote: »

YES, but the question is, by how much?

Climate change is a natural phenomenon.

.....

I do believed we contribute to climate change, but I don't agree that we cause it.

The present & future effect humans are having on the climate is clearly understood and is (as good as) 100% certain.

The science on this is settled – humans have to make massive changes to burning fossil fuels, agiculture and land use. If we don’t the planet will become as good as uninhabitable.

So your doubt, hunch or opinion is completely & hopelessly wrong. It’s that simple…it is at the level of having a feeling that gravity doesn’t exist or the earth is flat and expecting to be taken seriously.

This question is not debatable in even the most miniscule way.