well I disagree that change can cause human climates.
That’s ludicrous for a number of reasons. What if the melting ice caps cause a massive change in the gulf stream which therefore utterly alters the ocean environment? The shrimp, whales, fish, invertebrates, etc. can not move out of the way with ease, nor can they build structures to protect their own environments. Once those creatures move or die because of this changing environment, the locals who might need those natural resources will be looking elsewhere for calories if they can look at all.
As for computer models that you have a hard time putting your faith in, do you ever check your local weather? Or, more simply, do you not trust computer models that deal with weather alone, or computer models on the whole?
seems you don’t know climate has been changing before humans existed. so how is it humans are suddenly causing climate change? You can’t prove it, and that is the problem. You’ll never be able to convince someone who knows that climate has always changed. Will always change. nothing humans can do about it, it will always happen.
and yet it can’t be proven can it? So your data is from a set that has been reconstructed to match a model. We all know that. you cannot prove causation most likely never will.
So right now the hiatus is indeed a fact and increase CO2 and flat temperatures blow up the models. too, bad.
Bill Nye, is a tv climate something but not science. ask him to show his CO2 experiment he did with Al Gore, funny stuff. faked and lied about the outcome. Fact is it didn’t produce the expected results, and that is hilarious.
hey Bill, let’s see that experiment repeated and show the entire feed and show how the added CO2 did nothing to the temps.
That’s not true! I know that climate has always changed, and it doesn’t stop me from understanding how the orders of magnitude faster shifts we are currently seeing have been rigorously linked to human activity. I know, your chaff is that it’s impossible for anyone to ever prove anything; but there’s been more than evidence enough by the standards of science, history, and other human understanding.
@Medievalist, for the record, this is why I disagree with you that “climate change” is a better term than “global warming” to describe the increase in global thermal energy we are currently experiencing. It’s less particular, and the dishonest will twist it into lies just the same.
there was ice and then there wasn’t and then there was and then there wasn’t. The poles make ice and ice melts, happens every year. hurricanes have always been around, and there has not been any up tick in them, instead they have gone down. hmmmmm, exactly the opposite of the nay sayers. Face it you have no way to prove your point. Can you admit that?
“Your honor, members of the jury… I submit to you that we know for a fact that humans have been getting murdered since long before my client was even born. So how is it that he is suddenly responsible for stabbing the deceased 27 times in the back? You can’t prove it, and that is the problem. I rest my case.”
hahahahahahha, you have nothing. Another with nothing. See you can’t discuss it because there isn’t any way for you to. See, you can pull wool over some eyes, but some others don’t allow it. So, you prove my point that you can’t prove humans cause climate change. Thanks!!!
Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
They looked at almost 12,000 papers and of the ones that expressed a position on AGW, practically none of them reject the AGW hypothesis. You are part of a vanishingly tiny group. Upon what do you base your beliefs on?
BTW, asking for proof just demonstrates a misunderstanding of how science works. What you want to see is experimental evidence or data either in support of or in opposition to current climate models.
I like to talk about pollution instead of climate change or global warming (although you’re right I much prefer the former of those two!) Pollution is the problem’s actual source rather than one of its many symptoms.
@jc456 - let me try to understand what you are saying here. Do you believe that you can dump billions of tons of waste material into the earth’s air and water and there will be no effect on anything? That there can be causes without effects, and effects without causes? Is that your point? Am I understanding you correctly?
Dude, I even mentioned Detroit in my next sentence. Though that was a pretty slow and gradual one caused by the economy.
Yes we moved lots of people out after Katrina - but “Nearly 10 years after Hurricane Katrina and subsequent levee breaks flooded 80 percent of the Crescent City, a study by the University of New Orleans Department of Geography found that 81 percent of homes damaged in Orleans and St. Bernard parishes have either been rebuilt or are in the process of being rebuilt.”
So we hardly “learned a lesson” there or moved back from the shore. Same with all the homes on the east coast who get beat up by hurricanes every decade or so.
Any computer model where we don’t know all the variables and how they work. We still don’t fully understand climate and weather. There are a lot of randoms involved that you can’t simply account for. While I agree we have pumped a ton of CO2 in the air, we still are not sure how detrimental that is. It is still a trace gas. That alone can’t account for all the changes. Sun cycles and the massively long cycles in the earth’s orbit and wobble also affect our climate. Hence the ice age cycles (which we just came off of a small ice not that long ago).
It is a SLOW process. It is like trying to watch Evolution happen. You can really only see Evolution on the grand scale if you step back and view it over broad swaths of time. You can see “micro” evolution with small things, but the time to say turn dinosaurs into birds or a land mammal into whales isn’t directly observable. Climate in short measured times is just weather. I dare say we haven’t been taking measurements long enough to have a good handle on what is even “normal”. What man considers long droughts etc are nothing on geological time.
So anyway, climate changes. That is a fact and we shouldn’t ignore it. I think we need to focus on ways to best adapt. I’d stop moving to resource starved locations like Arizona, personally. And I am all for research into expanding our energy capabilities like solar power. I think we should work on making new, more efficient, cleaner atomic energy as well. It is a proven tech that if done right has the best pay off. But I also don’t buy into the “we’re all gonna die” rhetoric.
I certainly think that human activity can affect the planet!
But I’m not about to fall into the false dilemma that if we do not take every possible drastic step immediately (all of which for some mysterious reason seem to involve more political control over people’s lives) we are in effect doing nothing.
For example, US carbon emissions have been dropping steadily for the last several years. Only those for whom “action” is defined as “passing more laws” would see this as inaction.
But then the problem becomes “How can you call carbon dioxide ‘pollution’? You’re exhaling it RIGHT NOW, you hypocrite!” If you don’t talk about how those billions of tons of excess carbon tip the natural balance which regulates our climate then that form of pollution doesn’t seem like a problem at all.
