Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 3 votes

Do you accept the reality of AGW ?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ? (50 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you accept the science of anthropogenic climate change ?

  1. Yes (31 votes [60.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 60.78%

  2. No (20 votes [39.22%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 39.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#16    little_dreamer

little_dreamer

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,225 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Deep South

  • We did not understand it all, but somehow we survived.

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:48 AM

I would say - probably so.

I am another anonymous face in the crowd. I am just another tiny wheel in the machinery of the world I live in.

#17    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,874 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:48 PM

I must agree with Lady Kasey.  It seems that climate change does occur naturally, but humans must have some role in effecting that change?


#18    Child of Bast

Child of Bast

    Queen of the UM Asylum

  • Member
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • The Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
    Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers.But I'll tell you a secret: all the best people are."

Posted 07 February 2013 - 01:51 PM

I just LOVE how in the area of the environment, the studies science offers are "questionable", but you go to an area like the paranormal and science is rock solid and questioning those scientists is like questioning god.

'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde

#19    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,390 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:23 PM

Some people think that science is a pick and mix affair - pick the bits you like and toss away everything else.
MID was the prime example of that - a NASA engineer who resolutely refused to accept what his own climate department were saying :w00t:

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#20    Child of Bast

Child of Bast

    Queen of the UM Asylum

  • Member
  • 4,754 posts
  • Joined:17 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Female

  • The Mad Hatter: "Have I gone mad?"
    Alice: "I'm afraid so. You're entirely bonkers.But I'll tell you a secret: all the best people are."

Posted 07 February 2013 - 02:37 PM

I'm learning that quickly, Br. :)

'A phantom,' said my Uncle Mycroft, who had just materialised, 'is essentially a heteromorphic wave pattern that gains solidity when the apparition converts thermal energy from the surroundings to visible light. It's a fascinating process and I'm amazed no one has thought of harnessing it - a holographic TV that could operate from the heat given off by an average-size guinea pig.' ~ First Among Sequels, Jasper Fforde

#21    Rafterman

Rafterman

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,014 posts
  • Joined:27 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upstate

Posted 07 February 2013 - 03:05 PM

I seem to fall in with most commenting in this thread - yes, climate is changing as it always has, but there does seem to be a human impact that we need to be mindful of and address.  And I guess the degree of that impact is really what's under debate.

I work with a lot of smart people and they have differing opinion on the matter and all make strong cases for their side.

I just wish that politics didn't play into the discussion and that it could be "just about the science".

"You can't have freedom of religion without having freedom from the religious beliefs of other people."

#22    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,534 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:26 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 06 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

the debate as been going on since the 1950's -
Just a thought here:  the current temperature excursion began in 1977.  In the late 60s and early 70s, there was a slight dip in temperatures.  I don't know just who coined the term "global warming" or when, but I'll bet it was after that.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#23    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,534 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:30 PM

View PostLady Kasey, on 07 February 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

I just LOVE how in the area of the environment, the studies science offers are "questionable", but you go to an area like the paranormal and science is rock solid and questioning those scientists is like questioning god.
That's how you tell real science from the pseudo-science:  there is ALWAYS uncertainty.  Scientists will nearly always hedge.  If someone starts taking an absolute position, you can be pretty sure it's religion, not science.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#24    Michelle

Michelle

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,391 posts
  • Joined:03 Jan 2004
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Tennessee

  • Eleanor Roosevelt: Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:50 PM

I don't think there are enough options in the question to give an honest answer.


#25    Professor Buzzkill

Professor Buzzkill

    Integrity is all we have

  • Member
  • 2,579 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:White Cloud

Posted 07 February 2013 - 11:58 PM

View PostMichelle, on 07 February 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

I don't think there are enough options in the question to give an honest answer.

In the absence of a proper question i voted no. I don't accept that humans are the be all and end all of climate change. I would like to see alot less polution, especially from the developing countries, but CO2 would be low on the list of polutants that i would target. You dont get a smog cloud big enough to cover Europe, like the one we are seeing in China/Korea/Japan at the moment, from CO2 alone.

Edited by Professor Buzzkill, 07 February 2013 - 11:58 PM.


#26    MysticStrummer

MysticStrummer

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 776 posts
  • Joined:15 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Texas

  • The great path has no gates. Thousands of roads enter it. When one passes through this gateless gate, he walks freely between heaven and earth.

Posted 11 February 2013 - 06:33 PM

View PostProfessor Buzzkill, on 07 February 2013 - 11:58 PM, said:

In the absence of a proper question i voted no. I don't accept that humans are the be all and end all of climate change. I would like to see alot less polution, especially from the developing countries, but CO2 would be low on the list of polutants that i would target. You dont get a smog cloud big enough to cover Europe, like the one we are seeing in China/Korea/Japan at the moment, from CO2 alone.

The "reality of AGW" doesn't say humans are the sole cause, so you could have voted yes. Only hardcore deniers pretend that climate scientists don't know about natural cycles. I don't know of anyone who says CO2 is the only pollutant to blame either.

Ummon asked : "The world is such a wide world, why do you answer a bell and don ceremonial robes?" ~ Zen Flesh Zen Bones

#27    Goblin-5

Goblin-5

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 416 posts
  • Joined:26 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada

  • There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

Posted 11 February 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostMysticStrummer, on 11 February 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

The "reality of AGW" doesn't say humans are the sole cause, so you could have voted yes. Only hardcore deniers pretend that climate scientists don't know about natural cycles. I don't know of anyone who says CO2 is the only pollutant to blame either.

CO2 may not be the only pollutant, but it is the one getting the most press. Methane is significantly more of a problem and there is a LOT of methane in peat bogs and undersea. Hence anything that causes warming will also cause more Methane to be released thus triggering a feedback loop.

That said, ice core data clearly shows that the earth undergoes periods of cooling followed by warming and these shifts take place very rapidly (centuries) in geological terms. What is the main forcing behind these events (since humans and the industrial revoloution were not around then), is uncertain. Currently we are in a warming period, but the fact that we are pumping GIGAtonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere cannot be seen as anything but harmful. I would favour anything that reduces this massive insult to the planets atmosphere, but the fact remains that as the earths population increases, there is a need for more resources which means more CO2 generation. Reduce the population and maybe, just maybe you would reduce the CO2 output. However this will take decades at least and while the earth has seemingly paused in its warming trend, we simply have to do something to reduce the CO2 output ASAP. Common sense if nothing else would dictate that.


#28    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 February 2013 - 10:55 PM

Well of course we are contributing. But I don't support the idea that this change in climate is necessarily a bad thing. It could just be that, change.


#29    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,428 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 12 February 2013 - 01:02 AM

Ya,  i think greenhouse gases, predominately C02, are having an effect.   When was the last time All of the Glaciers in the Northern hemisphere were melting at the rate they are melting NOW?   ... and sea ice was in the shape it's in now?    You don't need a degree to notice glaciers melting.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#30    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,357 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 15 February 2013 - 03:29 AM

Someone mentioned reducing rates especially in developing countries.  I cannot agree that developing countries can be targeted in that way or they will not develop.  Developed countries have to take the bulk of the burden because they can and because they were allowed to develop without interference.  Although I think China is developed and needs to start reducing their emissions.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users