Do you believe in man-made global warming?

Read the poll question before voting. I'm amazed at how many people deny the evidence for man-made (or shall I at least say sped up by industrial technology) global (greenhouse) warming, and I'm very skeptical about the motives of many of them when they do. I don't quite like the term man-made, but I think you know what I mean.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive" (Donald Trump).

Yes, I do think he's full of hot air. It doesn't make historical sense either, since the concept of greenhouse gasses/ man induced climate change and global warming is such an old one.

I watched this whole debate on youtube earlier, but here's the relevant bit:



Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts has said "It is clear that climate change is a scam" and has said that NASA has corrupted data, there is no empirical evidence that people are causing global warming, and the climate models are wrong.

I would say the term Climate Change is not ideal because the climate does change over time and has nothing to do with man, but that is a somewhat different discussion.   Emissions that cause ozone damage do exist and clearly have a marked impact.   Pollution in general is a big problem we've always faced, even before the industrial era.

My question is, how did Los Angeles clean up their air?   When I was a kid and you'd fly in to L.A. you literally could not see it from the air due to the massive brown cloud that perpetually hung over the city.   Now the smog is much less visible except on certain days.   De-industrialization? (in SoCal, really?).   Fewer cars on the road? (let's be serious).   I mean I know they probably had some EPA mandate to do something but it was a pretty impressive clean-up in a fairly short time.




Edited by Atavachron - January 04 2017 at 19:35

Yes, there's scientific proof that technological advancements since the industrial age have at least partly caused global warming. There is, however, also a pattern of climate change that the Earth has naturally gone in, so it's not like we've completely altered the atmosphere. To believe humans have the power to do that in such a relatively short time is absurd.

It's real. There's no conspiracy. The evidence has been verified and published and this debate is effectivey over. It's only kept alive by people like Alex Jones, Donald Trump and David Icke.

Time to move on.

Logan wrote: Of course I felt pretty silly even doing this topic since the evidence is so overwhelming, and I tried to approach it with some humour (of the absurdist kind). There has been some conspiracy when it's come to man induced greenhouse warming deniers. I would love to move on, but I think humanity must ask itself one very important question, how do we convince Ted Nugent? "Global warming is a fraud. Watch Glenn Beck" (Ted Nugent).

I'd be more concerned about convincing Donald Trump. Nugent was a no one even when he was a 'someone'....

I have to say, though, I'm kind of on George Carlins page regarding "white bourgeois liberals" who want to 'save the planet' The planet is absolutely fine, it's the people who are f***ed.

... as long as America does take stupid to a whole new level, like by electing a climate change denier to a position of power and influence, we'll be fine...

A conspiracy, a hoax, a scam or just poppycock... one of these four it should be, albeit not made in China. I always have the idea that this smells a bit too much like science subdued to politics. I voted the Yes option for other reasons than Mascodagama. OK, global temperatures may be a bit beyond my scope, and at a local level the monthly average temperatures have been rising more than one degree Centigrade in some months during the last three or four decades, but I have my doubts, I cannot help it, even though the average time lapse between two editions of the Elfstedentocht has increased (the last one was held twenty years and one day ago, but that is not yet a record, this is still 22 years and 34 days, 1963-85; the "global warming" started in '87 or '88 as far as I'm informed).

Edited by someone_else - January 05 2017 at 02:26

People say "Oh, I'm not a scientist so I can't judge." Well, my husband is a scientist and he can judge. It's real and since the GOP will do everything it can to roll back regulations and get out of global agreements to fix it, we're screwed. By the time the Democrats get back in and start doing anything about it, too much damage will be done and it will be irreversible. The planet will probably last out our lifetimes, but things will be tough for our children and grandchildren. The changes will kill millions, maybe billions, and the people who are left are in for a bad time.

All environmental problems are caused by overpopulation.

^^^ Around 1975 Prof John P Holdren (Obama's Science Tzar) co-authored a book called Ecoscience, in which in which he sggested reproduction could be controlled by the selective granting of birthing licenses, and also the introduction of chemicals into the food chain to reduce fertility.
That is probably a more likely approach than temporarily outlawing childbirth. That would be too difficult to police and even more contraversial than what he was suggesting.

Edited by Blacksword - January 05 2017 at 12:02