Not contribute – humans cause global warming in 100% Yes, very much Yes, to some degree Yes, only a bit No, it's a 100% natural process There's no global warming see voting resultssaving...
7 opinions, 3 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
60
User voted Yes, only a bit.
5 votes
Jul 27, 2015

In good science, you publish everything. If your theory, assumptions, data, data collection, models, code, etc is good then you wait and see if anyone can shoot it down. If they can't then odds are your theory is good.

Using the standard of good science let's look at AGW (anthropogenic global warming) climate change, global warming or whatever they are calling it now.

Do we know how the data was collected? In many cases no.
Is the data accessible to everyone? No.
Can CRU show it's data, how it was collected, or how it was combined? No.
Has the government checked the weather station to see if they meet the standards, no. In fact when other people have checked they have found most of them out of compliance in some form.
Does the IPCC use only peer reviewed data. No.
Does the IPCC require contributors to release their data for review? No.
Does the IPCC published math work out? No. Using CO2 alone we should be 5 degrees warming and that if you ignore all the other greenhouse gasses.
Did the CRU stop using some tree ring data once it started to show a decline in the 1960s? Yes, they continued to use data before 1960, but stopped once it showed a decline, they called it the divergence problem. Given that we have less then 300 years of real temps. to compare with tree ring data, and that we have (some) tree ring data that doesn't match, doesn't that prove that at lease some tree ring data is unreliable? After all about 20% of the data doesn't match. So how does anyone know it hasn't happened in the past?
Can the models be set back more than a few hundred years and arrive at today's climate? No.

Now IF AGW is as bad as they say it is, it is criminal if they don't release everything. But as we have seen time and time again. If you don't agree, your life and or your job is threatened, you're called a denier.

Why is it that in every other case in science it's up to those proposing a theory to prove it, yet when it comes to AGW those proposing it don't? Why do the skeptics have to disprove it? That's not the way good science works.

If this as those pushing AGW have said settled science then why have they predicted the current conditions? Have had no real warming in over 10 years, for a settled science there are still a lot of questions they can't answer.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Jul 27, 2015

Humans contribute to global warming. There are far too many factors to say that there is one sole cause for the rapid warming that has been taking place the past few thousand years.

subscribe
100
2 votes
Jul 27, 2015

It is naive to assume Humans have no influence in a global scale. We have conquered our planet, planes fly in the air, ships travel across the ocean and cars drive over land. We are very much the curators of our planet and our actions influence our environment. We carve mountains for granite, we unearth mineral deposits that were formed over millions of years and most importantly we release by products through our actions that do affect our planet.

Fukushima releases thousands of gallons of nuclear waste into the pacific, BP Unleashed millions of gallons of oil into the gulf of Mexico, our oceans are acidifying, temperature is slowly increasing, fracking causes small tremors that add to the stress of tectonic plates, and so much more.

What is up to debate is to what extent our influence exactly is but to say we have no influence is rather naive.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes, very much.
2 votes
Oct 10, 2015

Yes. Not being a scientist or having the ability or resources to absolutely determine an answer myself, yes is the only reasonable conclusion at which I can arrive. This is a matter for science, but is often heavily influenced by ideology.

I have read some of the science behind anthropocentric climate change and, not being a scientist, it is heavy reading. I could never read or understand all of it, so I must determine the probability of one group or the other being correct.

Many in the public are familiar with only the most visible evidence, like melting polar ice caps. The most significant evidence that indicates the earth is warming and that human activity is contributing or causing it is derived from data that has been accumulated in the last 150 years and data from millennia ago left in ice cores, fossils, the earth's crust, etc. From that, scientists can analyze past climate conditions, the makeup of the atmosphere, the temperature, the length of seasons, the type of plants and animals that existed or became extinct, etc.

To understand and interpret this data it requires scientists from all different disciplines working together: climatology, geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, physics, paleontology, and all the subgroups of specialties within these disciplines. Then, it requires review by other scientists in these fields. It is highly collaborative, very expensive, extremely labor intense, and been going on for decades.

When I read a rebuttal to anthropocentric climate change written by one, two, or a small group of scientists, I immediately examine their credentials and the broadness of their study. I have not yet been impressed. When I see a list of individual scientists that oppose climate change, it is evident they have not worked collaboratively across all necessary disciplines. Equally unimpressive.
techinsider.io/global-warming-denier-studies-not-replicable-2015-9

When I hear a politician, businessman, or religious leader challenge the human element in global warming, I laugh. I would not go to any of them if I needed brain surgery, and I certainly don't want to trust the future of my children or grandchildren to them on this matter.

subscribe
-2
2 votes
Jul 27, 2015

I'm 100% sure that humans do not CAUSE global warming, but I'm also positive that our influence is very significant in that matter.

There are five gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect:

  • water vapor - it increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms. Although the warmer the atmosphere is the more clouds it creates, and clouds do cool the atmosphere down.
  • carbon dioxide - it's released to Earth's atmosphere mostly through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions. The humanity increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration by a third since Industrial Revolution began.
  • methane - gas produced through natural processes and human activities (e.g. decomposition of wastes, agriculture, manure management). Much more effective than carbon dioxide, but also less abundant in the atmosphere.
  • nitrous oxide - is a gas produced mostly by soil cultivation (!)
  • chlorofluorocarbons - greenhouse gases that are now highly regulated for their ability to destroy the ozone layer. They are entirely of industrial origin.
Climate change is entirely natural process. It occurs cyclically since the formation of our planet, as do the ice ages, and it was responsible for the rise and fall of many ancient civilizations (e.g. Mayan civilization). We must not forget that Earth’s climate has been stable for the past 12,000 years. It was inevitable - it could occur now or in the nearest future.

Although the rapid climate change is very dangerous (it warms the oceans and melts glaciers), we must not forget that without the greenhouse effect there would not be any life on Earth. Planet Mars has a very thin atmosphere, and although there is a lot of carbon dioxide in it, it lacks water vapor and methane. Mars' surface is mostly a frozen wasteland without any signs of life.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jul 27, 2015

Yes, and co2 is only 0.0397% of our atmosphere, such a small factor can't contribute to global warming. Earth has gone through cooling and warming periods. In the midevil age it was warmer than it is now, with no human produced co2. This is all just an excuse for ecologists to stop oil production domestically. We only mine 50% of our own oil, and go to other countries and kill other people and our own troops for oil. It's disgusting. Ecologists want to trade trees for lives, which is wrong.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Jul 27, 2015

No one is denying that global warming (and cooling) is taking place. The +problem+ is that there bad decisions being made with information from the hysteria which is being created by the alarmists.
International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses into giving up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control. Wake up, America! He who controls energy controls the world.
As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”
Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years.
What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.
The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science..
To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, & etc.

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.
As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.
Global warming (AKA "climate change")
Humans did not cause it
Humans cannot stop it

Global warming is indeed real and has been documented with ice cores dating back tens of thousands of years. What is NOT real is the quackery that humans caused (or can even affect) global warming.
The scare tactics being perpetrated upon us are only a money/power grab scheme by bottom-feeder politicians accompanied by their so-easily-led sheeple who take their prattle, even their movies, as hard science.
To find that my statement above is true, follow the money. See just who it is who will profit from the carbon offset, carbon tax, and other so-called green enterprises.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Jul 27, 2015

Of course we do. Anyone who thinks that human progress hasn't taken it's toll on the planet is either incredibly naive, completely unaware that equations will balance, or in the pocket of one of the entities who are pillaging the planet and selling the spoils back to it's inhabitants.

There are, of course, natural factors at work also... it's not all people.

But to say that the technology created by people (to include burning wood for heat - a long time ago) has no effect on the planet are truly fools and should not be allowed a place at the "big people's table" when it comes to talking about what the causes are for climate change and what can we do, if anything, to change it's outcome.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Jul 27, 2015

I'm assuming that you and the others seated at the "big peoples table" have stopped driving their pollution mobiles, are heating/cooloing and lighting their homes with solar and volatiacs and are no longer contributing to the destruction of the planet in any way. Am I correct?

subscribe
0
User voted Yes, very much.
0 votes
Sep 28, 2015

With any complicated global phenomenon like global warming, it can be tough to tell how different natural cycles may have emerged in different counter-factual worlds. The models we have are hugely complicated and poorly understood.

Still, the evidence is pretty overwhelming at this point that global warming is happening and by far the biggest causal driver of it is greenhouse emissions by human beings.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: