Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?
Poll: Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?
Total Members Polled: 599
Discussion
Theres just not real evidence to show that humans are contributing significantly to climate change.
Climate does change, for most of the planets life its been warmer than it is now. Its also changed significantly and rapidly before.
I always think its hubris that man thinks they are the centre of everything.
Climate does change, for most of the planets life its been warmer than it is now. Its also changed significantly and rapidly before.
I always think its hubris that man thinks they are the centre of everything.
Yes, in that we do pump enough stuff into the atmosphere to alter the climate.
But we don't really have a choice - the tree huggers don't have the remotest idea of a viable model of how we sustain existing enough economic activity - let alone growth - powered by windymills and yoghurt weaving, to keep our industrial and post-industrial economies from collapsing. So we need to burn oil and coal and gas, and lots of it, and have the vision to develop something not simply sustainable, but actually jaw-droppingly gob-smackingly fundamentally brilliant in terms of power generation (and supporting that effort will need of our filthy economies to fund it, because the last person to do fundamental physics research in a sustainable agrarian economy was called Newton).
So, yes, we cause acid rain, a bit of warming, a bit of cooling, and there are a few Polynesian islanders and a lot of coastal cities who may well be bang out of luck as the sea-levels rise.
But frankly, the alternative is to quietly dispose of the excess of the planet's population - say 7 billion - down to what it was when we were vaguely symbiotic with our environment, probably below the single billion level.
Of course, I suspect the hardcore eco-warriors would like nothing better than that....and we have a word for those sort of people.
I believe human influence on global climate is likely in some albido fashion, but will be so small as to be immeasurable. I believe athropogenic CO2 emissions have no influence on global climate, which is hardly surprising given the tiny quantity and the fact that CO2 follows temperature.
eharding said:
Yes, in that we do pump enough stuff into the atmosphere to alter the climate.
But we don't really have a choice - the tree huggers don't have the remotest idea of a viable model of how we sustain existing enough economic activity - let alone growth - powered by windymills and yoghurt weaving, to keep our industrial and post-industrial economies from collapsing. So we need to burn oil and coal and gas, and lots of it, and have the vision to develop something not simply sustainable, but actually jaw-droppingly gob-smackingly fundamentally brilliant in terms of power generation (and supporting that effort will need of our filthy economies to fund it, because the last person to do fundamental physics research in a sustainable agrarian economy was called Newton).
So, yes, we cause acid rain, a bit of warming, a bit of cooling, and there are a few Polynesian islanders and a lot of coastal cities who may well be bang out of luck as the sea-levels rise.
But frankly, the alternative is to quietly dispose of the excess of the planet's population - say 7 billion - down to what it was when we were vaguely symbiotic with our environment, probably below the single billion level.
Of course, I suspect the hardcore eco-warriors would like nothing better than that....and we have a word for those sort of people.
Was this single bilion before or after the medievel warm period ???? But we don't really have a choice - the tree huggers don't have the remotest idea of a viable model of how we sustain existing enough economic activity - let alone growth - powered by windymills and yoghurt weaving, to keep our industrial and post-industrial economies from collapsing. So we need to burn oil and coal and gas, and lots of it, and have the vision to develop something not simply sustainable, but actually jaw-droppingly gob-smackingly fundamentally brilliant in terms of power generation (and supporting that effort will need of our filthy economies to fund it, because the last person to do fundamental physics research in a sustainable agrarian economy was called Newton).
So, yes, we cause acid rain, a bit of warming, a bit of cooling, and there are a few Polynesian islanders and a lot of coastal cities who may well be bang out of luck as the sea-levels rise.
But frankly, the alternative is to quietly dispose of the excess of the planet's population - say 7 billion - down to what it was when we were vaguely symbiotic with our environment, probably below the single billion level.
Of course, I suspect the hardcore eco-warriors would like nothing better than that....and we have a word for those sort of people.
I think man's significant impact is on biodiversity rather than the climate directly.
We have cut down so much forest, built on so much land, fished, hunted and generally poisoned, killed and restricted the animal kingdom that IMO it has a much reduced ability to cope with climate change.
We have cut down so much forest, built on so much land, fished, hunted and generally poisoned, killed and restricted the animal kingdom that IMO it has a much reduced ability to cope with climate change.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff