176 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Debate has raged across these boards for at least 5years at this stage as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. I am curious to know what is the general sentiment on this issue after all the shouting has settled down.

Br Cornelius

[Kasey2601]

I think the change in climate is due to humans, but not entirely on us. I think climate changes and evolves over time, but what we spew into the atmosphere 24/7 accelerates these natural changes.

[Coffey]

Well evidence has been shown that huge oil companies etc was funding the whole "research", so I really don't know what to think. Nobody has clear answers or data from what I can find. So I'm on the fence really.

[stevewinn]

its proven green houses gas

Br Cornelius, on 06 February 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Debate has raged across these boards for at least 5years at this stage as to the reality of anthropogenic climate change. I am curious to know what is the general sentiment on this issue after all the shouting has settled down.

Br Cornelius

the debate as been going on since the 1950's - as for the last five years, the same arguments are made in every thread as the last one. your not curious you just want to debate it some more. being your topic of choice on these boards.

green house gases have been proven to absorb heat. which can in practice heat up the atmosphere. - the trouble is science not being an exact art is unable to say or even predict what is going to happen tomorrow, next week or next year, to date they have been wrong in their short term predictions. when asked why did it not happen they are faced with questions their models cannot answer, so as a result they now discontinued with the short term predictions - and now we have predictions on timescales of a hundred years, very convenient. so we now have to take them at their word. because on these hundred year times scales we can never hold them to account. but never mind that fact which is always side stepped.

over to you Br, go off, google search, copy and paste a load of graphs - links and we can be on page 10 in no time. -

[freetoroam]

Climate change is not new to the Earth, but think we are causing a more toxic climatic change than what nature would do alone.

But saying that, if nature decides to bring on a huge tsunami or massive hurricane and whips many of us out, we can not blame humans wholly for that....thats nature.

As for the atmosphere we are breathing...man has contributed to that and i do not think using the natural waves is as safe as they make out.

Edited by freetoroam, 06 February 2013 - 06:37 PM.

[and then]

I think humans add to the issue.  I also believe that cyclical climate changes are equally responsible if not more so.  The politics and money surrounding this issue is going to forever hamper any unbiased or believable research.  It's like every thing else that becomes political - people stop listening and start shouting.

[Coffey]

and then, on 06 February 2013 - 06:36 PM, said:

I think humans add to the issue.  I also believe that cyclical climate changes are equally responsible if not more so.  The politics and money surrounding this issue is going to forever hamper any unbiased or believable research.  It's like every thing else that becomes political - people stop listening and start shouting.

Exactly, completely agree.

[Br Cornelius]

stevewinn, on 06 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

its proven green houses gas


the debate as been going on since the 1950's - as for the last five years, the same arguments are made in every thread as the last one. your not curious you just want to debate it some more. being your topic of choice on these boards.

green house gases have been proven to absorb heat. which can in practice heat up the atmosphere. - the trouble is science not being an exact art is unable to say or even predict what is going to happen tomorrow, next week or next year, to date they have been wrong in their short term predictions. when asked why did it not happen they are faced with questions their models cannot answer, so as a result they now discontinued with the short term predictions - and now we have predictions on timescales of a hundred years, very convenient. so we now have to take them at their word. because on these hundred year times scales we can never hold them to account. but never mind that fact which is always side stepped.

over to you Br, go off, google search, copy and paste a load of graphs - links and we can be on page 10 in no time. -

The debate here has been raging for about 5years.

Not interested in debating the points in this thread - its all been done to death. I would genuinely like to gauge the feelings of what I generally consider to be a intelligent bunch of people.
All I will say is that my acceptance of AGW is based on the sound understanding of the basic physics of greenhouse gases and the evidence of Paleoclimatology. Short term predictions in a chaotic climate system are indeed difficult and that is why it is the averaged trend which should guide us. So far there are few issues with the predictions. If your not prepared to get down and dirty with the details of a debate - don't get huffy with those who are

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 February 2013 - 07:30 PM.

[OverSword]

I agree with the position that humanity has an affect on the climate.  I do not accept that we are the main driver of climate change, so I can't answer the poll question as asked.

[Little Fish]

the title says "the reality of AGW ?"
the actual question is "the science of anthropogenic climate change".
i'm confused about the question so i won't vote.

it is also meaningless since without quantifying it you don't distinguish between "harmless AGW" and "dangerous AGW" which is where the opinions differ.

if you are asking whether one accepts that man has a measurable effect on global temperature, then I would ask that you show the empirical science and then I'll agree with you.

Edited by Little Fish, 06 February 2013 - 08:29 PM.

[Apcpro]

All you have to do is look at the cycles of cold and hot over the past millions of years to see that the Earth does it's own thing.  We are still on a warming trend at the moment.  Could gases from our industrial period add to this?  Maybe.  But there is so much FUD and politics and power snatching that I don't think we could ever get a clear indication.

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 06 February 2013 - 08:27 PM, said:

the title says "the reality of AGW ?"
the actual question is "the science of anthropogenic climate change".
i'm confused about the question so i won't vote.

it is also meaningless since without quantifying it you don't distinguish between "harmless AGW" and "dangerous AGW" which is where the opinions differ.

if you are asking whether one accepts that man has a measurable effect on global temperature, then I would ask that you show the empirical science and then I'll agree with you.

We've been through this to many times before. No evidence could convince you that man could significantly effect the climate and as I said this is not the place to debate the issues - its just a poll of opinions.

Its a lot of a fudge for people to say that its a matter of man effecting climate but climate also moves in cycles - that was never in dispute among the climate scientists.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 06 February 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[redhen]

Ozone depletion is still a concern since the alarm was raised that chlorofluorocarbons were the culprit. Man can definitely effect the planet's atmosphere. Climate change is not a stretch of the imagination for me.

[AsteroidX]

Climate change is caused by many factors we are but one of the influences. The thing is our influence can be controlled to have a desirable environment.

[Bavarian Raven]

Quote

I think the change in climate is due to humans, but not entirely on us. I think climate changes and evolves over time, but what we spew into the atmosphere 24/7 accelerates these natural changes

This,
You need a "yes, but only to a certain extent" answer to the poll (a middle option, lol)

~

Edit: as an aside. I am about to finish my degree in Environmental Sciences and this debate is one that bugs me. You are (seemingly) never allowed to take the middle ground. It a "you're with us, or you are against us" argument, which just further divides the issue imho and makes the whole situation worse.

Edited by Bavarian Raven, 07 February 2013 - 12:06 AM.