jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (13 posts)


  1. 0
    mbuggiehposted 3 years ago

    According to CNN (20 August 2013) a leaked UN report notes the following:

    "It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010, according to a summary of the draft obtained by CNN. There is high confidence that this has warmed the ocean, melted snow and ice, raised global mean sea level and changed some climate extremes in the second half of the 20th century."  And, the report also notes that in the last 20 years of publication of scholarly scientific work related to climate change, some 95% to 97% maintain that climate change is the result of human activity.

    There is no scientific debate. There is only science in consensus about one simple fact: Human activity is causing climate change and has been causing it for a long time.

    So...why the partisan political debate?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image59
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      So how many humans do we have to get rid of before the status quo is maintainable?

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        None.  They just need to pollute less.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image59
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          With 7 billion people on the planet if they cut pollution by half it still wouldn't be enough.
          In 50 years time there will be 8 billion, how much would they have to cut pollution then?

          The best way to cut pollution is to cull humans. It's a sad fact but even if we all went back to the stone age we would still produce to much pollution for the earth to cope with now.

        2. 0
          mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this


          Reducing the population while maintaining current lifestyles will do nothing to effectively slow or eliminate global climate change. Global climate change is not a function of population only. Global climate change is a function of the interaction over time of a collection of several variables (social, technical, historical, demographic, economic, political----just to cite a few). Reversing global climate change, therefore, will also require engagement with each of these variables and over time.

          What we need to do is rethink how we live and work and move into the future in terms of sustainable and renewable resources.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image59
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            As I said, back to the Stone Age.

            1. 0
              mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No...it is not either destroy the planet or live in the Stone Age.

              The truth is that in some places---particularly in the US, a great deal of repair of the climate has happened.

              The problem is convincing some countries (like China and India) that repair of the climate is in their economic and national interests. The good news is that some progress is being made in China---and as a result of international pressure to do something about their horrific environmental record.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image59
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So you believe we can continue to increase the population by a billion every 50 years and still produce enough energy to keep the lights on and the ice caps frozen?

                Firstly turning everyone into a vegetarian will do nothing as the energy needed to produce even more food would out way the benefits.
                Secondly we could not produce enough energy to run the system if we take all carbon based energy production away, so how would you do it?

                The only sensible way to save the earth is to reduce population.

                1. 0
                  mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  No, and I did not suggest that we can continue to increase the population and maintain our current state of energy consumption.

                  Nor did I suggest that everyone become a vegetarian.

                  Nor did I suggest that we remove all fossil fuels from the energy mix.

                  What I did say is that this is a complex problem resulting from the interaction of several variables over time.

                  What I did say was that since this is a complex and multivariate problem that it, then, requires a complex and multivariate solution.

                  Sensible solutions require responses to all aspects of a problem and to all causes of a problem---not one.

      2. 0
        mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The issue of global climate change is not simply an issue of population.

        There are many ways to deal with the issue of global climate change. Among them:

        1.  Being intentionally energy-efficient in every aspect of our lives;

        2.  Choosing to develop and utilize renewable resources---including for energy production;

        3. Changing our diets---including movement away from meat-based diets;

        4.  Recycling and working to reduce waste of resources;

        5.  Making polluting expensive for those who do it---in terms of dollars and cents;

        6.  Telecommute; work to reduce air travel and commuting to work as much as possible;

        7.  Go digital and reward businesses and individuals who "go digital".

        And these are just a few of the many things we can do.

    2. Goodpal profile image87
      Goodpalposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I suggest you change the title to "global Climatic Mess." It has nothing to do with any "change." Increasing the frequency of natural disasters can not be called "change."

  2. my_girl_sara profile image90
    my_girl_saraposted 3 years ago

    If we humans are truly causing climate change, how do you explain the ice ages and their subsequent melting? There were no cars or smoky factories back then.

    1. 0
      mbuggiehposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The fact that climate change occurred in the past and unconnected to human activity does not negate that fact that present-day climate change is the result of human activity.

      The geological record indicates that the Ice Age may have started because of the position of the continents 10,000 years ago; positions that blocked or reduced the flow of warm water from the equator to the poles. This blockage allowed ice sheets to form.

      The ice sheets increased the Earth's ability to reflect sunlight  which in turn led to a reduction in the absorption of solar radiation. As  less radiation was absorbed the atmosphere cooled. As the atmosphere cooled, the  ice sheets grew. The growth of ice sheets led to a positive feedback loop---what we might call a vicious circle of cooling and growing of ice sheets contributing to more cooling more growing of ice sheets, etc.

      The ice age continued until other factors such as rainfall, variations on earth's orbit, variations in the sun's energy output, etc. caused an increase in the greenhouse effect which, in turn, allowed the earth to begin to warm.

      This is not how I explain the Ice Age of some 10,000 years ago. This is how geological sciences explain it.