Do you believe that Science has proven that humans are contributing to Global Warming or do you believe that Global Warming is false?
Most Scientists insist that Global Warming is real & the melting of the earth’s glaciers seem to support this, plus our increasingly erratic weather patterns do appear to be tied to human pollution of our eco-system. However, a lot of people deny that Global Warming is real & state that even if Global Warming might actually be happening – that humans have nothing to do with it. Where do you stand on this very serious issue that may (or may not) be facing our planet & its human population? I would like to know the reasons that you do (or do not) believe that Global Warming is happening.
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
81 Answers
Global Warming is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of fact.
I don’t want to go down the road of the conspiracy theorists but I do have my doubts.
The evidence is clear, so yes.
The vast majority of the scientific community has agreed that the research is consistent and that climate change is sufficiently supported.
When you speak of climate change deniers, remember that there are also large numbers of Americans who don’t “believe” in evolution. There are also large numbers of people who think that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Holocaust deniers. Childhood vaccine conspiracies. Birthers. Faked moon landing. Never underestimate the stupidity of our society.
global warming is a natural part of Earth’s cycle. It has happened before, it will happen again.
It will happen, with or without us
@DrBill
Wildfires happen naturally, too, therefore humans can not ever be the cause of wildfires.
Global warming is freaking real.
NY has no snow and it’s February
The earth does warm and cool. Are humans contributing to the current warming? I think the evidence is very compelling that we are. Is this a bad thing? I don’t know. I’m very conservative when it comes to believing the accuracy of predictions about the future. I just don’t think we can be very accurate, and I don’t think we know enough to make a meaningful prediction.
Does this mean we shouldn’t try to slow down our contributions to warming? No. I think we should. But I don’t think we should fool ourselves into believing we have any control over what happens.
I think that the problem we are running into is that we are placing all of our emphasis on GLOBAL WARMING. People have f*%~d with the
atmosphere so long and so much that the weather is
changing. That is provable
scientific fact. The weather
has changed and will continue
to change unless we do what
we can to stop it. I’m not
claiming that by simply walking
or stopping wasting water in a
shower we will fix everything, but we can ALL take small steps. Every little thing we do
adds up when we all do what
we can.
@DrBill That is by far one of my most hated arguements to global climate change. I’d post a link if I werent on my nook, but go ahead and look up a graph of human population growth and compare it side by side to one of CO2 levels. Is that all just coincidence?
Q: Do you believe that Science has proven that humans are contributing to Global Warming or do you believe that Global Warming is false?
A: Not exactly, and no.
I am not convinced that humans are the major contributing factor to Global Warming, but I do believe that Global Warming is real.
Humans may be a minor contributer here, but I am not convinced we are the cause.
However, I am a strong believer in cleaning up our mess, and controlling the, so called, greenhouse gases. That just makes good sense.
I believe that it’s a natural cycle. I also believe that humans are hastening the cycle. So I guess you could say that I believe humans are contributing, but that we’re exaggerating how much exactly we are contributing. Of course either way it’s not good and something needs to be done about it, and making something appear worse than it really is is a great way to get the ball rolling to get something done to try to minimize our “contributions” to global warming.
Why isn’t anyone stating the obvious? Clearly God caused global warming.
Mysterious ways and such not.
Regardless of your beliefs pro or con regarding global warming and humans’ contribution and whatnot; the one indisputable fact is that there are some so-called environmentalist who have made big money on the concept and politicians who have used it for political gain.
Global warming is a fact, and humans do contribute to it, but I don’t think we can do much about it as long as businessmen are alive. Lol.
Global warming exists, and humans are certainly contributing to it. How much is our contribution and how much is natural is much harder to prove. Anyone completely denying that it’s occurring is delusional.
I live in Buffalo, and we’ve had less snow this winter than we typically get in just November. Temperatures are typically in the mid 20’s (and in February mid teens), and this year temperatures have typically been in the upper 30’s to low 40’s (although the next couple of days are supposed to be in the teens to low 20’s before it bounces back up to the 40’s). I’ve seen more rain this winter than snow.
It’s a fact.
The entire year of weather here where I live in Wisconsin is changing quickly. To see evidence of the change view these two graphs.
Normally, our lakes would be frozen solid this time of year. We haven’t had a deep freeze at all this year.
Of course global warming is real. Ever hear of the Ice age? The fact that the earth goes through periodic changes in global climate is not disputed.
Are humans contributing to global warming? Of course they are, but that is not the issue either. The real question is how much human activity is contributing on a global scale. To think humans have had no impact is ludicrous. However, to believe that human activity is the sole and primary cause of the current warming trend, especially given the scientifically proven cyclic planetary warming and cooling cycles, is equally as misguided.
You’re a cool breath of fresh air, @YoBob.
@bkcunningham I’m willing to bet those years you listed had much colder temperatures than we have now too. Most of Buffalo’s snowfall comes from lake effect snow, so when the lake hasn’t frozen over, we get more snow. If a winter is especially cold, than the lake freezes over quicker and we get less snowfall. I’m willing to bet there aren’t any other instances of higher temperatures causing less snow than is typical. Or as much of a difference as there is this year anyway.
Yes, it’s real. Yes, humans are the main contribution. We understand the mechanism. We can’t exactly predict the potential effects (because climate is chaotic). But the potential to trigger certain feedback cycles should horrify any thinking person.
It’s amazing to me that people make the same idiotic arguments against anthropocentric global warming. Your living room naturally gets hotter in the summer and colder in the winter. Therefore, burning a fire in the middle of your living room will have little or no effect? @YoBob, @CWOTUS, @DrBill, have you guys actually thought this argument through before parroting it?
@bkcunningham, you could say the same for any issue or position of public importance. People and politicians have made big money from the position that abortion should be illegal, the position that nuclear weapons should be secured and monitored, the position that offshore oil rigs should be regulated, the position that offshore oil rigs should not be regulated. What is your point? Seems like you’re just trying to poison the well rather than contribute to the discussion.
Yep, fact. Just look at the weather patterns this year. My county is experiencing the driest and warmest winter in 80 years. I’m ready to do a naked rain dance and offer up some happy brownies to the gods. lol If we don’t get pounded with rain & snow in the next 8 weeks we will be going into an extreme wildfire/forest fire season, Scary as hell for me up here in these hills.
I think we should be careful about pointing to the weather in any one place for any one year as an example of global warming. This year’s warm winter could be part of overall climate change, but it’s just one point of data. It’s always preferable to talk about this subject in terms of the bigger picture.
@Qingu Good point. The graphs I linked above^ for Wis show the data from 1850 to present day. This is not just some sort of periodic climate trend.
Also, for those of you who are skeptical about little old humanity’s power to actually cause something as grand as global warming:
Humans have literally reshaped most of the Earth’s surface. We have eradicated almost all of the natural prairie that once covered much of North America and replaced it with this.
In the past 500 million years or so, there have been a total of five mass extinctions (the most recent being caused by the asteroid that wiped out most of the dinosaurs). Humans are now likely causing a sixth mass extinction.
So yeah, it really shouldn’t be surprising that humans are also capable of raising Earth’s average temperature by a couple of degrees.
@Qingu, considering that the Earth heated and cooled many times prior to the onset of the Industrial Revolution, even prior to man’s presence on the planet, have you given much thought to your bland assertion that anthropocentric effects are “the main contributors” to planetary climate changes?
@CWOTUS, yep. Climate scientists take natural cycles into account. The mechanism for anthropocentric climate change is independent of those cycles. Again: much like how burning a fire in your living room will make your living room hotter, regardless of the fact that your living room naturally gets hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter.
This is seriously the stupidest argument against climate change since “Only God can wreck the planet.”
Since you know so much about this – obviously, since anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, according to you – then what were the natural cycles (absent now, of course) that caused ice ages and hotter planetary temperatures in the past? The last time I had looked into this (casually, I admit) this was not generally known. Can’t wait to see your book.
Can’t be true, I mean when was the last time anyone saw an eskimo in a bikini eh?
It is a fact that the average temperature of our planet is increasing and we can measure that increase. It is also a fact that CO2 in the atmosphere has a warming effect and we have been pumping huge quantities of the stuff into the air since the industrial revolution. There is no doubt that man’s activities contribute to global warming.
@CWOTUS, I fail to see your point. You’re making an argument from ignorance. “Since we don’t know exactly what caused the ice ages, the same thing might be causing global warming today!”
Why not just say “God did it”?
By the same logic: We don’t know what caused the Permian extinction, therefore humans cannot be causing extinctions today?
@Qingu – While I doubt anyone would dispute that building a fire in one’s living room would certainly heat it up, the jury is still out regarding whether human activity constitutes an inferno, or simply the brewing of a nice cup of tea.
From the 2009 survey we can gather that:
Climatologists generally agree that yes, humans play the major factor in current global warming.
Roughly ⅔ of Meteorologists seem to agree that humans are the major factor in current global warming.
A bit less than half of economic geologists seem to agree that humans are the major factor in current global warming.
I think that, yes, the views climatologists should be taken into serious consideration. However we can’t simply ignore the views of the other two major groups that also do climate based research who seem to have major divides between those who say we are and we aren’t at fault/contributing.
@Qingu I wish (and I’d bet a lot of money that I’m not alone in this) that you’d read what I actually say before you assume that I’m an idiot and make up silly straw man arguments that I do not make or ascribe to. I’m perfectly willing to admit that there is an anthropogenic source of some climate change. Obviously, the first fart from the first man added to global warming, however infinitesimally, thereby causing some anthropogenic warming from the expelled methane.
Obviously, humans are capable of creating planetary changes that could result in mass extinctions. But to use your own example, if we don’t know what caused the Permian extinction there is no way to say whether it can happen again or not, or how we would even recognize when it is about to occur.
Same with planetary climate changes. If we don’t know what caused them before the arrival of man, then there’s no way to say with certainty that the same thing isn’t happening today.
You made an invalid and unfair comparison. If you were simply ignorant or unskilled in debating, then I’d just ignore it as I do many others in this forum who are ignorant and unskilled. But you’re smarter than that; you should know better. You do it fairly regularly, in fact, which makes you hard to argue with, not because you’re so smart, but because you’re often intellectually dishonest. But this has been pointed out to you before, too.
@YoBob, by “jury” do you mean scientists who study climate? Because there is almost 100% consensus among that jury that human-caused climate change is gonna cause problems.
Or did you have something broader in mind when you said “jury,” so as to include people who don’t actually know anything about climate science?
@CWOTUS, my comparison is fair.
We don’t know what caused the Permian exctinction. (We have some ideas).
We don’t know what caused the ice ages. (We have some ideas).
We know that agriculture, overhunting, ecosystem destruction, and pollution have directly caused many extinctions.
We know that pumping a huge excess of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes global warming.
You are citing an unknown and mysterious force that caused the ice ages to explain, and/or mitigate, observed global warming. This is exactly like invoking the mysterious unknown force that caused the Permian extinction to explain extinctions today. “We don’t know what caused X years ago, therefore we can’t know what causes Y today.” Makes no damn sense.
Hmm.. @Qingu , I for one would certainly like to see where you come up with that 100% consensus you threw out (on second thought, perhaps I would rather not see it as I suspect it might have come from a rather dark moist orifice). Last I checked it was darned near impossible to get almost 100% of any given group to agree on anything at all.
@King_Pariah, I am not sure what you mean when you say these other groups do “climate based research.”
Meteorologists study weather. Weather is different from climate.
I’m not sure what an economic geologist studies. I imagine such people easily find employment in oil industries (many geologists do).
For a point of comparison, some scientists do not believe in evolution. As it happens, most of these evolution-doubting scientists are not biologists.
No, @Qingu, and I expect this to be my last reply to you on the topic, since you’re not backing down from your deliberately false analogy. In fact, you’re defending that lie.
If we don’t know what caused “X” in the past, then we can’t be certain that the same causes aren’t in play right now. And I’m not citing some “mysterious” i.e. “mystical” forces, either. Some natural processes (and only “mysterious” to the extent that they remain unknown or unproven to us) occurred in Earth’s past to cause ice ages (and prior / subsequent warming cycles warmer than what we have been experiencing over the past several hundred years). We don’t understand well enough what those processes were to say with certainty whether they are or are not occurring now. We can say with certainty that “mankind was not responsible.”
I’m not the one saying “since we don’t know what happened before then we know it’s not our fault if anything happens now”. Those are your words, and that’s your false analogy. I don’t doubt that there is some anthropogenic cause of any climate change we’re experiencing now. I’m simply not convinced that man is the principal actor in this. (And as any legitimate climate scientist can tell you – as most of the legitimate ones do, in fact – the scale of “a year or two” or “a decade or two” to judge “climate change” on a planetary / geologic scale are akin to an attempt to measure insect populations over the planet by counting the fruit flies in your kitchen and extrapolating.)
Hmm… what exactly would you expect sources like “green blogs” and the “union of concerned scientists” to post? I suspect that both of those sources have a bit of a bias when it comes to the issue.
However, it seems that the there is no shortage of scientists with dissenting opinions
@YoBob, how any of those dissenting scientists are climate scientists? See above.
@CWOTUS, I don’t see how you’ve saved or reframed your argument such that it’s not an argument from ignorance. You’ve just repeated what you already said. I think my point still stands, so I guess we’ll leave it at that.
@YoBob and only a minority of those on that list are actually climatologists. I do not give much weight to a cobbler’s opinion on brain surgery. Schuster bleib bei deinen Leisten.
Okay @Qingu, the 2010 survey (Anderegg, Prall, Harold, Schneider, 2010 I’m assuming is the one you mentioned) was conducted on roughly 1,500 American climate researchers of which a large portion are made up of those who continue to cite each other’s work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation. Not looking to good there. :/
I believe you also mentioned the 2011 survey (Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011 I assume) which was done on a relatively small amount of American scientists most belonging to the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union. Guess what both are fairly well noted for? Studies in meteorology (modern geophysics entails meteorology). So I think if my point with Meteorologists is kaput. I think yours should be as well. :)
Climate Change is documented.
I still listen to jerks go on about how it is a natural Phenom. Some part may naturally accrue. The increase of carbon in our in our Environment has been documented to intensify Climate change. We are already seeing more intense storms.
Look this up at sciencedaily.com.
The R has made this a Political issue. This is because some Elitist are too greedy to recognize the threat Climate poses.
They oppose Alternative Energy Research. They oppose change and progress. For some reason they seem to oppose progress.
1. The earth has a history of climatic cycles. We are in the heating up portion of one.
2. Man’s activity has the potential to change the climate, long term, and science is getting clear on exactly how. Probably the current warming is being accelerated by man’s activity.
3. The people of earth can agree to have an influence on climate and can make a difference.
4. If the people of the earth don’t agree on how to deal with the potential for our contribution to climate change, there will be problems. The problems will not affect us all the same. Florida may be gone, but more of Russia will become habitable.
5. It’s possible that some stupid volcano will swamp whatever effort we put into handling climate change.
1.) Global warming is occurring.
2.) Human civilization is contributing to it.
3.) The dispute is how much we are contributing to it, vs. how much is Earth’s natural cycle.
@6rant6 I’m pretty sure that volcanic eruptions cause “short” term large scale cooling. Repeated eruptions however can put out enough CO2 to start causing global warming. If Yellowstone erupted, I’m pretty sure they stated that the survivors of the eruption would be looking at another ice age.
Global warming real? Lets hope so, BRING IT ON! The best Winter yet, hardly 14 total days of that nasty wet stuff to ruin things. I can’t wait for SUMMER! Woot woot!
@King_Pariah Yes, that was the stupid volcano to which I was referring.
I’m jumping in late without reading all the prior discussions. Please forgive. But yes, science has settled the matter. Golbal warming is real, it is happening, and man is contributing enough to it that unless we change our ways, it will doom civilization as we know it.
@6rant6 sorry, I thought your volcano comment was saying the volcano would nullify any effort people put into being green. My bad.
There seems to be plenty of evidence for manmade global warming from what I’ve read. I’m still not sure how much of a factor that certain natural climatic cycles may be contributing though. Either way the human factor seems to be a major part of global warming though.
@ETpro
I know this and I think you often have great information to add.
Happy Thursday.
For anyone not already aware of your carbon footprint, or if you are aware and are doing nothing about the destruction you are imposing upon this planet and the animals living here, I can assist in educating you and helping you manage and offset your carbon emission. This offer comes with an opportunity to support a local disadvantaged community in the Great rift Valley in Kenya.
@King_Pariah, if you don’t understand the difference between weather (what meteorologists study) and climate (what climatologists study), you aren’t really qualified to be having this discussion.
@6rant6 and others, I actually agree that people sometimes exaggerate the actual threat of global warming. Global warming is not going to end human civilization. It’s certainly not going to end life on Earth. But poor people living in Bangledesh and Africa? There’s a good chance they’ll be fucked. If the albedo feedback cycle melts the ice caps and causes the sea levels rise, if climate change causes widespread drought in central Africa, we are talking about destroying the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
It’s true that a historic volcanic eruption might accomplish a similar level of suffering. Who cares? We can’t do anything about volcanic eruptions. We can do something about global warming. And if we don’t, then the question turns to “who is accountable for the millions of people whose houses and livelihoods might be destroyed by rising seas and spreading drought?”
@bkcunningham, I’ll ask this again; what’s your point? I mean, congratulations, you’ve done the incredibly easy thing and pointed out that there is profit to potentially be made from speculation on a policy. How does this interact with the question of whether or not global warming is human-caused? Once again: you seem to be trying to poison the well rather than actually take and defend a position.
@Qingu I think you missed the point of that post.
Ah, I see.
I don’t know how you figured out that the climatologists cited in that study are mostly members of meteorological or geophysical associations. But let’s say they are. They’re still climate scientists by expertise. I did not mean to imply that meteorology or geology does not intersect with climatology. Likewise, geology intersects with biology; chemistry intersects with psychology. Most of science is interdisciplinary to some extent.
The fact that some climate scientists also have expertise in meteorology and geology doesn’t mean that a meteorologist or geologist necessarily has expertise in climatology—any more than the fact that psychiatrist PhD’s who are also chemists would imply that any given psychiatrists necessarily know anything about chemistry.
I did some more research, and I relent on my 2009 (Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009) survey that I was using. the meteorologists and economic geologists were seemingly a small side survey. However this survey was done worldwide where as 2010’s and 2011’s were solely US.
@King_Pariah, thanks for writing that.
I may be misinterpreting what you’re saying, but if you’re saying that the other studies aren’t trustworthy because they are too US-centric, my understanding is that anthropocentric climate change is much more accepted in the international scientific community than it is in the US anyway…
The 2009 study shows closer to 82% of the international climatology community believe in anthropocentric climate change (True, nigh 100% IF you look at only those who have actively published articles/journals/etc on climate change) as opposed to the US’s 90+% from the 2010 and 2011 surveys. Still an overwhelming majority, but points to that there’s still a fairly large minority that begs to differ.
@Linda_Owl, thank you for that link! I posted it on Facebook, I don’t know how many will see it but some of my friends STILL don’t believe in climate change.
You are welcome @GracieT . So it has been posted at least twice to FaceBook because I posted it there also.
@Qingu I think you are talking out of school when you definitively declare that anthropomorphic global warming won;t end human existence. It very well may. We are approaching a tipping point where the climate warms enough to begin melting frozen tundra and warming deep sea temperatures enough to release billions of metric tons of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more effective than CO2. If that cycle starts, it will produce runaway warming till the atmosphere is so methane rich human life would be wiped out even if we could figure out how to remain cool enough, and how to grow sufficient crops, and how to escape the wild weather events such warming would bring.
@ETpro, I disagree. First of all, I don’t think it’s at all clear that warming sea temperatures alone could actually release the methane clathrates on the continental shelves. My understanding is that it probably would take something like huge volcanic eruptions to melt that kind of ice (that’s one of the working hypotheses for the Permian extinction).
Secondly, I think you underestimate the resilience of the human species. We’re like cockroaches. You don’t think at least some humans would have survived the K-T or even the Permian?
It would have sucked, don’t get me wrong. But I certainly don’t think global warming will approach the level of disaster of an asteroid crashing into Earth. I don’t think we should overstate the threat of global warming in these apocalyptic terms.
@Qingu , since a lot of the tundra in Alaska & in Russia is thawing to the point that buildings are actually sinking into it, don’t you consider this fact to be serious enough to warrant concern over the rising temperature of the world’s oceans? And there has been an up-serge in volcanic activity (although I can’t see how humans could trigger this other than oil drilling at previously unheard of depths) & the temperature rise of the oceans is almost at a point where some of the less deep deposits of methane ice are vulnerable. I think the point that @ETpro is making is that there is enough environmental contamination from humans all over planet earth that we are risking the acceleration of Global Warming & that just because our planet might survive – does not mean that people would survive. Most of the countries of our world today are highly technologically advanced & this technologically advanced civilization depends upon electricity. A truly technologically advanced civilization is one of the easiest civilizations to bring down, because it is so vulnerable to external stimuli such as the loss of power, loss of food supplies, loss of non-contaminated water sources, etc. A rise of just a few degrees would make it extremely difficult to grow food. Without food we cannot survive & human activity is pouring pollution into our atmosphere to the point that we are actually killing ourselves with every degree the temperature rises.
@Linda_Owl, a couple of things:
• The feedback cycles are indeed really scary. I mentioned the Arctic ice cover vicious cycle. The potential release of methane is probably even scarier. But my understanding is that there is not really enough of this methane that is actually at risk from melting ice cover to create a super-harmful effect. The largest deposits, AFAIK, are trapped in underwater ice, and that’s not going to melt even if the ocean temps rise 5 degrees.
• It’s not clear that global warming will actually result in less farmland overall. It certainly might. But Canada is projected to have even more farmland in a global warming scenario. The cost of shifting agricultural production along with the changing climate will be severe—and it’s going to hugely affect poorer countries that are vulnerable to drought. But it won’t be “extremely difficult to grow food” globally, just locally in certain areas that become more vulnerable to drought.
• There’s probably no real way to quantify our disagreement over modern society’s resilience. But look at how society recovered from World War II, the most destructive sequence of events in world history. Entire cities were destroyed. Something like 70 million people were killed. Within a decade much of society had recovered.
One thing to think about @Qingu , the destruction from WWII was, indeed, rendered by man, but it did not involve actual sustained damage to our planet. In the 67 years that have passed since WWII ended, man has managed to pour record amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere which has resulted in an increase in our planet’s over-all temperature, we have poured toxins into our oceans & into our fresh water systems & there are actual floating islands of trash (mostly cast off plastic items) contaminating our oceans, over-fishing is decimating the marine life in our oceans (basically turning them into deserts), wide spread droughts are turning large areas of our planet from farmland into deserts, our weather patterns have become very unstable (of course, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist) some of this may well be due to experimentation with the HAARP facilities. But the point being, humans have had a tremendous impact on our planet to the point that some portions of our planet are now almost unlivable – all within a timespan of just over 50 years. And if these contributing factors are not addressed soon, it may well become too late for humans to be able to actively change anything.
@Linda_Owl you make a good point that WW2 did not cause (as far as we know) lasting damage or disruption to Earth’s natural cycles. I brought it up more as an example of humanity’s ability to rebound from natural disasters. But of course, if greenhouse gas emissions permanently mess up Earth’s natural cycles to a given extent, then there might not be a stable environment for us to rebound into.
I just don’t think global warming will be bad to that extent. I think the worst case scenario will certainly be bad. Like I said, it will cause suffering and deaths of millions of people, particularly poor people. But I haven’t seen any worst-case models that are so terrible that human society could not survive or even flourish to some extent.
I also disagree that we’ve rendered significant portions of our planet unlivable within the last 50 years. (Unless you are referring to like the parts of Nevada and Kazakhstan and the Pacific where we performed hundreds of nuclear tests?) Droughts may increase through global warming, it’s true, but that hasn’t happened on a wide scale (yet)
@Qingu It would be insane when evaluating the danger posed by this or that approach to the national energy policy to ignore the worst-case scenario. Certainly, we do not want to wildly overstate the risks. But we do want to to evaluate the true worst-case scenario and see just how bad it could be.
As to whether methane clathrates in our oceans and lakes could melt and bubble up, to say that’s impossible is to ignore what’s going on right now, right in front of our eyes.
@Linda_Owl‘s quite right. The deteriorating conditions could triger a nuclear war for dwindling resources. Also, it is quite possible that needed resources for human life could become entirely unavailable. I truly think the worst-case scenario is death of the species. Could we find some way to reseed the Earth after the planet finally cleans up the mess we made? Perhaps we could, given enough time. But we are nowhere close to duplicating all the hormonal changes and chemical processes that are required to take a fertilized human egg cell to a viable baby. And time to solve that challenge is in tragically short supply.
Global warming is a fact and it just requires thermometer reading and recording.
That CO2 and CH4 are greenhouses gases is a fact too.
It’s almost certain that humans do contribute, but most likely that’s not the only factor. Solar cycles and solar variations are highly complex phenomena.
Science can never be 100% sure, but doing nothing when there’s a good chance that our atmosphere gets destroyed is highly irresponsible. We need to apply the precautionary principle.
@bkcunningham It’s difficult to know what to make of that paper in the EOS transactions. It states that only 1 meter of the ocean floor premafrost in siberia melted in the last 25 years. That is not a fact that gives me great conficence that golbal warming isn’t causoing melting of permafrost. Quite the opposite. You have to read all the science on this with a very jaundiced eye. Golbal warming deniers are fond of claiming that Al Gore is pushing the global warming “hoax” to add to his existing millions. But the same people who are certain that’s true are just as sure that the $40 trillion per year Fossil Fuel industry would NEVER engage in disinformation. Their faith is totally misplaced. The industry in fact has hired the same PR firms that so successfully sold the lies that nicotine is not addictive and that cigarette smoking is good for your health. They have literally filled the Internet and any scientific journal that will accept them with pure junk science. If big tobacco would engage in a many decades campaign of disinformation to protect an industry worth a few billion dollars, how much more will the fossil fuel industry spend to protect an industry woth many trillions of dollars per year?
Rhethermore,. the American Geophysical Society and opther secietific organizations focused primarily on geology are heavily beholden to the fossil fuel industry for finding and for employment of their members. I trust Oceanographers and Climatologists far more to give us unbiased reports of what’s really happening.
@mattbrowne Thanks. But I worry about the disclaimer that Schenectady and never one certain of the causes of warming. Whe can be exteremely accursee, nfd
@bkcunningham, regarding your links, I actually mentioned methan clathrate in one of my earlier posts. I disagreed with the apocalyptic scenario regarding that source of global warming. (My understanding is that the largest supplies of methane hydrates are buried deeper underwater, so while I wasn’t familiar with this particular story, it doesn’t surprise me).
I find myself confused, as seems usual in our discussions, what the context of this point you’re making is. Are you pointing this out to dispute a particular nuance of methane measurements affects on climate change? Or are you trying to “poke holes” in global warming as a whole?
I just wondered what @ETpro‘s opinion was regarding the article, @Qingu. I was hoping to learn something to be honest. Although I appreciate the attempt, @ETpro‘s response didn’t really help to be honest.
@bkcunningham Sorry, I wasn’t able to read the New York Times Op Ed by Andrew Revkin till this evening. Frankly, even after reading it, I do not find any assurance that melting permafrost is not a problem, and that the methane releases seen over the past 25 years are nothing to worry about. The melting in this particular portion of the permafrost may have started 8,000 years ago when water from the sea rose enough to flood the near shore seabed. It’s reasonable to expect that some methane clathrate melting, and connected gaseous methane release has been going on for that entire 8,000 years. But the cited piece from the Journal of Geophysical Research goes on to say, “that roughly 1 meter of the subsurface permafrost thawed in the past 25 years” It then states that this added 1 meter to the previously melted 25 meters. That says 25 meters melted in 8,000 years. At the rate of 1 meter in 25 years, we could expect 320 meters to melt in 8 millennia, not 25 meters. Furthermore, this just looks at one specific spot.
I do respect Andrew Revkin and don’t accuse him of bias. But I wish I could query him on his seemingly sanguine review of the facts in this case. Reading what he quotes from the journal, I can’t see how the stated facts lead him to the conclusion he seems to be drawing.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
