By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Do you think humans are helping cause Climate change?

 

Are humans the leading factor in our changing climate?

Of course we are. 73 55.30%
 
Probably. 17 12.88%
 
Probably not. 12 9.09%
 
Absolutely not. 23 17.42%
 
I have no idea. 6 4.55%
 
I wanna change apms climate ;) 1 0.76%
 
Total:132
Andrespetmonkey on 25 April 2012
killerzX said:
bouzane said:
Anybody who points to the cyclic changes in climate that occur naturally as a grounds for dismissing the notion of human driven climate change is grossly misinformed on the subject. The change that has occurred in the planet's climate over the past century is far too great to be accounted for by the natural cycle that the geological records indicate. The level of ignorance displayed by some people is truly saddening, we are dismantling an entire planet for a pile of trinkets and garbage. Once the sulphur being placed in the atmosphere by China's use of coal starts to be settle then we will see a much greater rise in global temperatures, only then may the masses take action. At this point it is far too late to combat climate change though. Oh well, at least humanity will get what it deserves.


please go ahead, live in a hut, and use your on feces to grow you food (though the gasses you give off by doing so will polute the earth)

 

i will continue to live the 1st world live style that i have grown accustomed to and deserve. i will drive my truck because i like it, i will by as big of a house as necessary. i will be my cheap and rather tastey in organic food, i will continue to use plastic bags because it is convienient.

i will live a happy life with with the luxuries that an American citizen should have. i will die living on a planet that will be in virtually the same condition as when i was born. and the alarmist will come and go, and will get ridiculed over and over as they are proved wrong time and time again.

hows that ice age going for you? err its now global warming... er climate change... err

A lot of these things don't only have an effect on the climate you know. I think that's a very ignorant (not to mention entitled) worldview to have. There are many other environmental impacts these things have. 

On topic: As a person who is fairly neutral as to whether humans are the leading cause, I think we should act as if it is true anyway. Because if we don't, and we're wrong, we're screwed. And we need to quit fossil fuels one day or the other, they aren't renewable, they aren't realistic in the long-term, they will run out.



My Music

Around the Network
dr3b on 25 April 2012

I will stick with science and say we are. The billions of tons in pollutants we create are unnatural and are bound to have adverse effects. Just like people who live in a heavily indutrialized area have higher cancer rates, heavy industy serves as a source of illness for the earth.



bouzane on 25 April 2012
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:

that is a fictitious number, there are literaly thousands of scientists that disent from that opinion, and thousands of others, that disagree to but do not publicly say so out of fear of loosing their jobs.

guess what 30 years ago it was a "consensous" that we were headed for an ice age. where did that go.

and there has been scandal after scandal of scientist conspiring, lying, and massaging numbers, and falsely reporting numbers, that i really cant take anything they say seriously.

also, in order for us to fix and reverse course from the global warming they preach about, we would have to completely shut down our economy, revert back to pre-industrial revolution, kill 100's of millions of people, if not billions. we would have to go into a stone age to reverse course. so theres no point, we are all doomed, may as well make the best of it.

 

anyway, in 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now when the earth is still perfectly normal, and global warming still hasnt attacked us, we will all be laughing (at least i will) at this rediculous hysteria. but according to al gore we only have 3 years 276 days before the earth turns into a frying pan. we will see whos right.

Let me guess. You watch fox news....or wait, wait.. you read drudge report.

Oh yes, how could I have been so blind to the one or two sources that are telling the complete truth, right under my very nose!??

And no, we wouldn't have to kill billions of people. There is already work in action to change what's going on. This involves solar power, wind energy, tidal energy (guess who's also against these alternative energies), and lots of other changes. Each change is a slice of the pie, a pie that solves the problem. However, people who are against global warming conspiracies are also against every one of these solutions.

i watch and read all news sources, that includes fox from time to time, i try to get my news from every where and see how networks and sites are reporting suff.

my turn.. let me guess you get your news from msnbc... or wait, wait... John Stewart.

as for the bolded... the democrats. yes the dems, its usually always them that, are stiking down proposals to have green energy. cant have swinds farms miles off the coast... might abscure peoples views. cant have solar fields in the middle of the desert. 

furthermore if you believe those are the solutions, you are sorely naive and mistaken, those arent at all practical or effiecient. they are an incredible waste of time and energy. Something that is clean that should be used, that greenies hate for some reason in Nuclear power. we should be investing in this, but again regulations keep us from doing so.


I don't know who brought up the Democrats but it is true that they have done very little to address the issue. I can also agree with nuclear power being the most worthwhile solution, the opposition to nuclear power is disheartening. Fun fact, nuclear power adds less radioactive contamination to the atmosphere than coal (which is by far the biggest contributor of green house gases as well).



badgenome on 25 April 2012
d21lewis said:
I saw a documentary in the 80's where aliens came to earth and there was this huge conspiracy. They had these factories that didn't even produce anything. They pumped out climate changing gas. I'm not one to believe everything I see in documentaries but I think this one was the real deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arrival_%28film%29

Of course. Charlie Sheen was behind it all along.

But you're wrong that those factories weren't producing anything. They were producing WINNING.



killerzX on 25 April 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:
killerzX said:
bouzane said:
Anybody who points to the cyclic changes in climate that occur naturally as a grounds for dismissing the notion of human driven climate change is grossly misinformed on the subject. The change that has occurred in the planet's climate over the past century is far too great to be accounted for by the natural cycle that the geological records indicate. The level of ignorance displayed by some people is truly saddening, we are dismantling an entire planet for a pile of trinkets and garbage. Once the sulphur being placed in the atmosphere by China's use of coal starts to be settle then we will see a much greater rise in global temperatures, only then may the masses take action. At this point it is far too late to combat climate change though. Oh well, at least humanity will get what it deserves.


please go ahead, live in a hut, and use your on feces to grow you food (though the gasses you give off by doing so will polute the earth)

 

i will continue to live the 1st world live style that i have grown accustomed to and deserve. i will drive my truck because i like it, i will by as big of a house as necessary. i will be my cheap and rather tastey in organic food, i will continue to use plastic bags because it is convienient.

i will live a happy life with with the luxuries that an American citizen should have. i will die living on a planet that will be in virtually the same condition as when i was born. and the alarmist will come and go, and will get ridiculed over and over as they are proved wrong time and time again.

hows that ice age going for you? err its now global warming... er climate change... err

A lot of these things don't only have an effect on the climate you know. I think that's a very ignorant (not to mention entitled) worldview to have. There are many other environmental impacts these things have. 

On topic: As a person who is fairly neutral as to whether humans are the leading cause, I think we should act as if it is true anyway. Because if we don't, and we're wrong, we're screwed. And we need to quit fossil fuels one day or the other, they aren't renewable, they aren't realistic in the long-term, they will run out.

i dont think you fully appreciate or understand that gravity of what you are sayin with this statement. if you did you would not be saying it.

 

as for the first part, i am entitled to what ever i buy and want to use. im not entitled to other peoples property, nor are other people entitled to tell me how to lead my life. if i want to drive a truck that gets 18 mpg because it is the car i can afford and the car i want. then i should be able to drive it. if i want to buy normal inorganic food, because it tastes good, and is significantly cheaper than organic food, then i should be able to buy it. if i want to use plastic bags because it is easier more convienient, and i am repulsed by the idea of reusing an "organic" bag over and over because of the germs then i should use plastic. if i want to buy a 4000 sq ft home because i plan on having a family (i know thats fround upon in the climate change community), then i should be able to own it. i am entitled to buy with my own money the products that i want. other people should not be entitled to my property in the name of carbon credits and climate change.



Around the Network
Wagram on 25 April 2012

I wouldn't say the leading factor, but we sure are contributing.



theprof00 on 25 April 2012
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:

that is a fictitious number, there are literaly thousands of scientists that disent from that opinion, and thousands of others, that disagree to but do not publicly say so out of fear of loosing their jobs.

guess what 30 years ago it was a "consensous" that we were headed for an ice age. where did that go.

and there has been scandal after scandal of scientist conspiring, lying, and massaging numbers, and falsely reporting numbers, that i really cant take anything they say seriously.

also, in order for us to fix and reverse course from the global warming they preach about, we would have to completely shut down our economy, revert back to pre-industrial revolution, kill 100's of millions of people, if not billions. we would have to go into a stone age to reverse course. so theres no point, we are all doomed, may as well make the best of it.

 

anyway, in 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now when the earth is still perfectly normal, and global warming still hasnt attacked us, we will all be laughing (at least i will) at this rediculous hysteria. but according to al gore we only have 3 years 276 days before the earth turns into a frying pan. we will see whos right.

Let me guess. You watch fox news....or wait, wait.. you read drudge report.

Oh yes, how could I have been so blind to the one or two sources that are telling the complete truth, right under my very nose!??

And no, we wouldn't have to kill billions of people. There is already work in action to change what's going on. This involves solar power, wind energy, tidal energy (guess who's also against these alternative energies), and lots of other changes. Each change is a slice of the pie, a pie that solves the problem. However, people who are against global warming conspiracies are also against every one of these solutions.

i watch and read all news sources, that includes fox from time to time, i try to get my news from every where and see how networks and sites are reporting suff.

my turn.. let me guess you get your news from msnbc... or wait, wait... John Stewart.

as for the bolded... the democrats. yes the dems, its usually always them that, are stiking down proposals to have green energy. cant have swinds farms miles off the coast... might abscure peoples views. cant have solar fields in the middle of the desert. 

furthermore if you believe those are the solutions, you are sorely naive and mistaken, those arent at all practical or effiecient. they are an incredible waste of time and energy. Something that is clean that should be used, that greenies hate for some reason in Nuclear power. we should be investing in this, but again regulations keep us from doing so.

Source for that? The same happened in Cape Cod here in Massachusetts, but little do people know that Cape Cod has a large republican population.

No, I agree, nuclear power is the best, but I don't see which republicans are the ones who are against it.

However, where I disagree, is that alternative energies are what propelled clean car technology. We can't have a nuclear car now can we. No.

Lastly, the idea that green tech and global warming is a scam bent on destroying the USA is a completely ridiculous and short-sighted theory in itself. The entire world demands green technology, and if we were the ones spear-heading the way and producing everything, why, we'd make a fortune! It's understandable that you lambast global warming. If you had any idea how illogical the arguments against it are you'd be completely for it!



killerzX on 25 April 2012
bouzane said:
killerzX said:
theprof00 said:
killerzX said:

that is a fictitious number, there are literaly thousands of scientists that disent from that opinion, and thousands of others, that disagree to but do not publicly say so out of fear of loosing their jobs.

guess what 30 years ago it was a "consensous" that we were headed for an ice age. where did that go.

and there has been scandal after scandal of scientist conspiring, lying, and massaging numbers, and falsely reporting numbers, that i really cant take anything they say seriously.

also, in order for us to fix and reverse course from the global warming they preach about, we would have to completely shut down our economy, revert back to pre-industrial revolution, kill 100's of millions of people, if not billions. we would have to go into a stone age to reverse course. so theres no point, we are all doomed, may as well make the best of it.

 

anyway, in 5, 10, 20, 50 years from now when the earth is still perfectly normal, and global warming still hasnt attacked us, we will all be laughing (at least i will) at this rediculous hysteria. but according to al gore we only have 3 years 276 days before the earth turns into a frying pan. we will see whos right.

Let me guess. You watch fox news....or wait, wait.. you read drudge report.

Oh yes, how could I have been so blind to the one or two sources that are telling the complete truth, right under my very nose!??

And no, we wouldn't have to kill billions of people. There is already work in action to change what's going on. This involves solar power, wind energy, tidal energy (guess who's also against these alternative energies), and lots of other changes. Each change is a slice of the pie, a pie that solves the problem. However, people who are against global warming conspiracies are also against every one of these solutions.

i watch and read all news sources, that includes fox from time to time, i try to get my news from every where and see how networks and sites are reporting suff.

my turn.. let me guess you get your news from msnbc... or wait, wait... John Stewart.

as for the bolded... the democrats. yes the dems, its usually always them that, are stiking down proposals to have green energy. cant have swinds farms miles off the coast... might abscure peoples views. cant have solar fields in the middle of the desert. 

furthermore if you believe those are the solutions, you are sorely naive and mistaken, those arent at all practical or effiecient. they are an incredible waste of time and energy. Something that is clean that should be used, that greenies hate for some reason in Nuclear power. we should be investing in this, but again regulations keep us from doing so.


I don't know who brought up the Democrats but it is true that they have done very little to address the issue. I can also agree with nuclear power being the most worthwhile solution, the opposition to nuclear power is disheartening. Fun fact, nuclear power adds less radioactive contamination to the atmosphere than coal (which is by far the biggest contributor of green house gases as well).


im 100% supporter of all forms of energy, especially nuclear. if the form of energy can exist without subsidies and bailouts in a free market system. it deserve to exist, and should be used. there should not be forms of energy that are shoved down our thought, that are not economically viable at this time. the market will dictate when and if these forms of energies should be used.



Andrespetmonkey on 25 April 2012
killerzX said:
Andrespetmonkey said:
killerzX said:
bouzane said:
Anybody who points to the cyclic changes in climate that occur naturally as a grounds for dismissing the notion of human driven climate change is grossly misinformed on the subject. The change that has occurred in the planet's climate over the past century is far too great to be accounted for by the natural cycle that the geological records indicate. The level of ignorance displayed by some people is truly saddening, we are dismantling an entire planet for a pile of trinkets and garbage. Once the sulphur being placed in the atmosphere by China's use of coal starts to be settle then we will see a much greater rise in global temperatures, only then may the masses take action. At this point it is far too late to combat climate change though. Oh well, at least humanity will get what it deserves.


please go ahead, live in a hut, and use your on feces to grow you food (though the gasses you give off by doing so will polute the earth)

 

i will continue to live the 1st world live style that i have grown accustomed to and deserve. i will drive my truck because i like it, i will by as big of a house as necessary. i will be my cheap and rather tastey in organic food, i will continue to use plastic bags because it is convienient.

i will live a happy life with with the luxuries that an American citizen should have. i will die living on a planet that will be in virtually the same condition as when i was born. and the alarmist will come and go, and will get ridiculed over and over as they are proved wrong time and time again.

hows that ice age going for you? err its now global warming... er climate change... err

A lot of these things don't only have an effect on the climate you know. I think that's a very ignorant (not to mention entitled) worldview to have. There are many other environmental impacts these things have. 

On topic: As a person who is fairly neutral as to whether humans are the leading cause, I think we should act as if it is true anyway. Because if we don't, and we're wrong, we're screwed. And we need to quit fossil fuels one day or the other, they aren't renewable, they aren't realistic in the long-term, they will run out.

i dont think you fully appreciate or understand that gravity of what you are sayin with this statement. if you did you would not be saying it.

 

as for the first part, i am entitled to what ever i buy and want to use. im not entitled to other peoples property, nor are other people entitled to tell me how to lead my life. if i want to drive a truck that gets 18 mpg because it is the car i can afford and the car i want. then i should be able to drive it. if i want to buy normal inorganic food, because it tastes good, and is significantly cheaper than organic food, then i should be able to buy it. if i want to use plastic bags because it is easier more convienient, and i am repulsed by the idea of reusing an "organic" bag over and over because of the germs then i should use plastic. if i want to buy a 4000 sq ft home because i plan on having a family (i know thats fround upon in the climate change community), then i should be able to own it. i am entitled to buy with my own money the products that i want. other people should not be entitled to my property in the name of carbon credits and climate change.

Meh, probably wrong about the entitled part. Just your attitude seemed to give off that vibe to me.

Definitely not wrong about my other point though. 



My Music

SecondWar on 25 April 2012
Andrespetmonkey said:

A lot of these things don't only have an effect on the climate you know. I think that's a very ignorant (not to mention entitled) worldview to have. There are many other environmental impacts these things have. 

On topic: As a person who is fairly neutral as to whether humans are the leading cause, I think we should act as if it is true anyway. Because if we don't, and we're wrong, we're screwed. And we need to quit fossil fuels one day or the other, they aren't renewable, they aren't realistic in the long-term, they will run out.

If only more people realised that and acted accoridngly (yes, killerzX and my brother, I'm looking at you). The problem is the supposed 'solutions' often cause different problems, which creates multiple other issues as different camps have different responses to them. As renewable energy sources are not as proven as fossil fuels, they have major logistical problems which allows people who disagree with the concept of global warming to slander them. I feel in a few decades time, this short-sightedness could come back to haunt the planet.