Are humans responsible for global warming?
Poll: Are humans responsible for global warming?
Total Members Polled: 272
Discussion
Local effects have been known for a long time.
Global effects from humans with established causality (or not, in fact) are not seen in the data.
Like the GMTV website question, to make it easy to answer removes the subtlety but the answer as intended i.e. as portrayed in the media and by politicians, has to be 'no'.
Global effects from humans with established causality (or not, in fact) are not seen in the data.
Like the GMTV website question, to make it easy to answer removes the subtlety but the answer as intended i.e. as portrayed in the media and by politicians, has to be 'no'.
Eric Mc said:
I'm still in the Case Unproven camp - so can't really answer Yes or No.
This is the nub of it.I often use a religious analogy in that there is not a single person on earth that can absolutely, without doubt prove either the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. All man can do is assess what is known and taught, then make a personal decision that is nothing other than faith.
It seems too that the same applies to climate change. It has, in many ways, become almost a religious "faith".
The one problem with any faith is that it has the propensity to foster extremism at its outer edges and its this element that tends to get the attention which has manifested itself into policies and taxation that, if the problem is real, really do little to tackle it.
With respect, gentlemen, you are looking at this the wrong way.
There is no human signal visible in global climate data with established cause and effect to human activity of any kind including emissions of tax gas.
So at present, whereas local effects of human activity can be seen from land use land cover (LULC) changes whether rural or urban and from the urban heat island effect (UHIE) the use of the term 'global' in either warming or cooling - or indeed global climate change - means that the answer to the question is, in both scientific and practical terms, no.
If you wish to argue about the presence of an invisibly small signal, that's an abstract discussion not a scientific one as there is no data to test the idea. Also when you look at the armageddonist package in which climate change is being delivered, you also look to the fouorth power law, the overall negative feedback the atmosphere shows, and the Beer Law for tax gas, and realise that the chances, at this stage, of any signal appearing is extremely small indeed, as vanishingly small as the human signal. To go off on a global control freakery taxfest on this basis is total madness. Any conversation with the precautionary principle would have the princilpe laughing its socks off and unable to reply. Except to say don't waste so many trillions of dollars on something you can do nothing about as you didn't cause it in the first place.
There is no human signal visible in global climate data with established cause and effect to human activity of any kind including emissions of tax gas.
So at present, whereas local effects of human activity can be seen from land use land cover (LULC) changes whether rural or urban and from the urban heat island effect (UHIE) the use of the term 'global' in either warming or cooling - or indeed global climate change - means that the answer to the question is, in both scientific and practical terms, no.
If you wish to argue about the presence of an invisibly small signal, that's an abstract discussion not a scientific one as there is no data to test the idea. Also when you look at the armageddonist package in which climate change is being delivered, you also look to the fouorth power law, the overall negative feedback the atmosphere shows, and the Beer Law for tax gas, and realise that the chances, at this stage, of any signal appearing is extremely small indeed, as vanishingly small as the human signal. To go off on a global control freakery taxfest on this basis is total madness. Any conversation with the precautionary principle would have the princilpe laughing its socks off and unable to reply. Except to say don't waste so many trillions of dollars on something you can do nothing about as you didn't cause it in the first place.
From the Climate Cat thread:
Climategate Email said:
Without trying to prejudice this work, but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about <100 year
extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f
k-all about what
the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know fk-all).
The people behind this junk realise and admit they know sweet f-a with ANY certainty about NH temps >100y, it's too hilarious for belief.extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we
believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f
k-all about what the >100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know
with certainty that we know f
k-all).StevieBee said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm still in the Case Unproven camp - so can't really answer Yes or No.
This is the nub of it.I often use a religious analogy in that there is not a single person on earth that can absolutely, without doubt prove either the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. All man can do is assess what is known and taught, then make a personal decision that is nothing other than faith.
It seems too that the same applies to climate change. It has, in many ways, become almost a religious "faith".
The one problem with any faith is that it has the propensity to foster extremism at its outer edges and its this element that tends to get the attention which has manifested itself into policies and taxation that, if the problem is real, really do little to tackle it.
nonegreen said:
StevieBee said:
Eric Mc said:
I'm still in the Case Unproven camp - so can't really answer Yes or No.
This is the nub of it.I often use a religious analogy in that there is not a single person on earth that can absolutely, without doubt prove either the existence or non-existence of an afterlife. All man can do is assess what is known and taught, then make a personal decision that is nothing other than faith.
It seems too that the same applies to climate change. It has, in many ways, become almost a religious "faith".
The one problem with any faith is that it has the propensity to foster extremism at its outer edges and its this element that tends to get the attention which has manifested itself into policies and taxation that, if the problem is real, really do little to tackle it.
Eric Mc said:
I'm still in the Case Unproven camp - so can't really answer Yes or No.
Whilst the level (if any) of human reponsibility will always be unequivocally unproven, are you happy about the amount of attention and money thrown in the direction of this subject?Edited by richardxjr on Monday 7th December 13:18
I don't really know whether we do or don't have a major impact, but if we do, then all these pointless taxes and things aren't going to get round the elephant in the room fact that there are simply too many humans.
On radio 4 this morning, Ed Milliband was trumpeting the fact that the UK has reduced carbon emissions by 20% since 1990. If carbon emissions have no impact on the state of the planet, then that's a meaningless figure. If they do have an impact on the state of the planet, then the fact that the world's population has increased by 27% in the same amount of time it has taken for UK emissions to reduce by 20% is surely more concerning?
If Brown were to say we were killing Iraqis to help the world reduce carbon emissions and safe the polar bears, do you think he might get re-elected?
On radio 4 this morning, Ed Milliband was trumpeting the fact that the UK has reduced carbon emissions by 20% since 1990. If carbon emissions have no impact on the state of the planet, then that's a meaningless figure. If they do have an impact on the state of the planet, then the fact that the world's population has increased by 27% in the same amount of time it has taken for UK emissions to reduce by 20% is surely more concerning?
If Brown were to say we were killing Iraqis to help the world reduce carbon emissions and safe the polar bears, do you think he might get re-elected?
Tony*T3 said:
Greg_D said:
PH is in my opinion, FAIRLY representative of the man on the street.
Greg
Do you really believe that?Greg
you're poll is overly symplistic. The answer must be yes (but to an unknown extent) based on that level of simplicity.
The answer has to be NO. Turn the sun off and see what heppens, then tell me who/what is responsible for global warming.
I can't answer Yes or No.
Perhaps we do but by a tiny margin that has little affect to the natural events going on.
I think the arrogance of man to think that it can make a lasting different to the climate/mother nature scares the hell out of me.
It seems that flawed solutions based on flawed data will, funnily enough, be flawking bad news!
Perhaps we do but by a tiny margin that has little affect to the natural events going on.
I think the arrogance of man to think that it can make a lasting different to the climate/mother nature scares the hell out of me.
It seems that flawed solutions based on flawed data will, funnily enough, be flawking bad news!
Tony*T3 said:
Greg_D said:
PH is in my opinion, FAIRLY representative of the man on the street.
Greg
Do you really believe that?Greg
I will concede that PH is a little light on workshy, thick scum of the earth bottom dwellers; but let's be honest, we aren't too bothered about their opinion, because frankly they probably couldn't even spell CO2 let alone have a coherent opinion either way.
Greg
don4l said:
Maybe there should be a "Don't know" or "Undecided" option added to the poll.
It would be interesting to see how many people are open minded about this.
Don
--
or rephrase the question along the lines of "Has the post-industrial rise in atmopsheric CO2, due to anthropogenic emissions, caused a significant change in the Earth's climate"It would be interesting to see how many people are open minded about this.
Don
--
However, at the end of the day, a poll is not a meaningful way of determining whether it has or has not, just the views of the sample population on whether it has or not.
the don't know or undecided option should certainly be there.
ludo said:
don4l said:
Maybe there should be a "Don't know" or "Undecided" option added to the poll.
It would be interesting to see how many people are open minded about this.
Don
--
However, at the end of the day, a poll is not a meaningful way of determining whether it has or has not, just the views of the sample population on whether it has or not. It would be interesting to see how many people are open minded about this.
Don
--
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff