Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 57 discussions (136 posts)

64
emievilposted 15 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?

This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
reply report
1. 39
  getpaidtopostposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Americans do not believe because they are one of the main contributor to global warming. IMO no offense intended
  
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  No offense taken. You obviously know little about the topic.
  reply report
2. 64
  emievilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I forgot to add something - same survey said most scientists believe that humans caused global warming. Maybe those scientists didn't come from the U. S.?
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Science is not performed by consensus.
  reply report
  0
  pgrundyposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for saying this. It's not like we're putting together a climate change religion, like, wow, let's see who believes what.
  reply report
  65
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually this was exactly the question - who believes
  reply report
3. 43
  WaffleCheeseposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Climate Change is just a natural process the earth goes through all the time.
  
  The polar ice caps are the warmest in 2000 years. Did humans cause it 2000 years ago?
  
  Here's the thing. The earth is cyclical. It goes through climate changes, mass extinctions, and rarely periods of stability.
  
  It's like building a house on the side of a hill and building a retaining wall to prevent mudslides. Guess what? The mountain will always win.
  
  So, climate change is here, whether it's human caused or not is a valid question, but just know the earth has done this for millennia--no, eons.
  
  So? What are we going to do about it? Point fingers at Bush? Take responsibility ourselves? (last I checked, pretty much everyone that writes on hubs drives a car and breathes.)
  
  As it stands, we need to adapt. Species survive by evolving to changing conditions. If we are to survive this UNSTOPPABLE phenomenon (think the mountain and the mudslide) what are we going to do about it? Build a retaining wall? Or move away from the mountain? (Or, coastlines.)
  reply report
4. 59
  Neil Sperlingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  If humans are the soul cause of global warming it is because of all the scented candles burning at any given moment!
  reply report
  69
  torimariposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's true. I go into a Yankee candle store and I almost die from the influx of scents raping my sense of smell right there. I'm sure it adds to the issue! That and incense.
  
  Who knew the beach at night smelled like Tide laundry detergent.
  Then again, I go to a Jersey shore near Trenton and it smells of urine and salt so I could be wrong.
  
  Anyway, at least the world will crumble smelling like 'Warm Apple Pie.'
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL. Well said.
  reply report
39
getpaidtopostposted 15 years ago
yes, without a doubt.
reply report
65
aka-djposted 15 years ago
What climate change? Much debate rages. I for one am NOT convinced it is a problem "we" created. But that's just MO.
reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
I am not American, and I do not "believe" in this. It has not been proven
reply report
1. 60
  Davinagirl3posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Climate has changed drastically since the beginning of time. I do believe we have attributed to our enviornment negatively, but I am not convinced we "created" global warming. That is putting the cart before the horse.
  reply report
61
Colebabieposted 15 years ago
Yup
reply report
55
andromidaposted 15 years ago
There is no hard evidence behind it.But I think human activity is
responsible for climate change at some extent . At least deforestation and carbon emission can be controlled by us.
reply report
70
ledefensetechposted 15 years ago
No humans don't cause global warming. There's this big fiery ball in the sky called the sun. That's what controls the temperature on this planet, indeed on all planets.
reply report
1. 60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As well as geothermal sources which are just beginning to be understood.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  True, that may account for things like the Late Medieval Warming period, but not the Little Ice Age. I think the Little Ice Age was due to solar activity. Or perhaps geothermal sources only exacerbate the situation and solar output is the main driver. You're right it's poorly understood but it doesn't stop the would-be world saviors from claiming they know it all and destroying all of us in the process.
  reply report
  61
  Pete Maidaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I guess I have to figure out how conserving resources and being a little greener is destroying us. I'm not talking about government orders; I'm against that also. I'm talking about personal and business responsibility to something beyond what benefits them. Would the financial markets be harmed? Maybe but it seems we can screw them up and still wreck the planet. It is clear that we are eating up the resources. No matter what CO2 is doing we will run out and sooner than we think if we don't get smarter about things.
  reply report
73
Ultimate Hubberposted 15 years ago
Yes I think so and I have even written a hub which defines global warming. According to my research CO2 is the main contributing factor in global warming which has increased due to in-human activities done by humans.
Here is my hub on it: http://hubpages.com/hub/What-is-Global-Warming
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Your research is flawed.
  
  1. You only referenced one source to support your assertion.
  
  2. You presented no competing sources for comparison purposes. An interesting contrast might be the article on an imminent ice age published in Time Magazine about 30 years ago. While Time Magazine is not a 'scientific' source, the article does provide references.
  
  3. The temperature of the Earth as a whole cannot be measured. It's different everywhere, every day.
  
  4. To suggest that the temperature of an entire planet has increased by .74 degrees in the 20th century implies that available measuring devices were accurate to 1/100th of a degree. Given that digital electronics were not invented until well into the 20 century, it is extremely unlikely that the technology existed to measure air or water temperature in such a precise manner. In the early and mid 20th century, water temperatures were taken by placing an analog thermometer in a bucket or canvas bag, then tossing the bag into the water. That's hardly a technique accurate to 1/100th of a degree.
  reply report
  73
  Ultimate Hubberposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  LOL!!!
  Your reply sound funny!
  I confirmed this from more than one reliable and valid sources.
  
  And we are not living in stone age. Yes we can measure the temperature accurate enough, and whatever method you have said was used to take water temperatures, finally we got some temperature as a result of that. Yes there are people and techniques competent enough to analyze the temperature as a whole. Come to light my friend. The stone age is now over.
  reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 15 years ago
I must live an odd part of the United States. Everyone I talk to believes that we are doing the Earth a great deal of harm. Here's the deal. Are we the cause of climate change; maybe not. The climate does cycle and we are due for a change, but what we may be doing is contributing to is the severity of the change. What we are also doing is consuming the Earth's resources at an alarming rate. At the rate we are going by 2050 it will take the resources of two Earths to support our consumption. What harm does it do to be a little protective of our planet. If we do and it wasn't necessary it will only make the Earth better. If we don't and it was necessary then our grandchildren will pay for it.
reply report
66
BristolBoyposted 15 years ago
Simple answer yes. Also the vast majority of Brits/European's believe climate change is man-made. Finally 79% of people smapled in a poll for the BBC believe climate change is man-made (22,000 people from 21 countries including China, India, Egypt, Nigeria, US, Canada, Australia, UK, France and Brazil). Also in the same poll at least two thirds of the people in 21 of the 22 countries said human activities play some part in climate change. The one exception being India where 47% human activity was, but 32% did not know/answer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p … tepoll.pdf

Also the vast majority, if not all, eminent scientists in the world support the idea that climate change is affected by human activities, including the chief scientist of NASA (James Hansen).
reply report
1. 73
  Ultimate Hubberposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  GREAT STATS!
  reply report
2. 64
  emievilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wow BristolBoy. Thanks for sharing the info. I guess the US was specifically mentioned in the article I read because President Obama is really pushing a climate change legislation very hard.
  reply report
59
1weddingsourceposted 15 years ago
I think, we are not solely responsible for this because I believe that the Earth is deteriorating because it's old already. But since we are the ones who are given the access to preserve the Earth but we are doing more harm than preservation, therefore we are contributing to climate changes.
reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/9928
reply report
0
girly_girl09posted 15 years ago
I spent an entire semester in an english class writing around 15-20 in-depth research papers on global warming (LOL not my choice!) No matter my opinions, it was a VERY educational experience for me and the best english class I have ever taken. I wrote papers from every viewpoint imagineable, and learned a lot about creating good arguments and backing them up with factual statements. I argued the dangers of global warming and even the benefits. At times, I had to argue that humans are at fault and other times, that mother nature is at fault. My last paper could be written about anything relating to the subject and I concluded that the two main causes of global warming are: natural and human influenced, with natural causes being the predominant factor. Humans are powerful, but not as powerful as we think. Let me just say that my professor commonly argued that humans are the major cause of the climate change. I argued against her, used supporting facts, and was the only student to receive an A on the final project.

Almost all of my research supported that greenhouse gases are the greatest menace to global warming. Crazy climate changes have been affecting earth for thousands of years, certainly before humans ever got here (or before humans had cars and factories). Humans aren't the only contributors to greenhouse gas emmissions!

Methane and carbon dioxide are naturally released from the earth's soil. Even cow poo is a major contributor. So are volcanic eruptions (these are VERY damaging to our climate)

Another factor not even related to greenhouse gases is simply the temperature of the earth and how it changes. The earth's natural orbit around the sun causes orbital variations that change the receipt of sunlight on the earth's surface, which greatly changes earth's temperature in different locations.

So, yes, I think humans have contributed somewhat (not as much as natural causes, however). Based on past data, dramatic climate change has occurred in the past without the assistance from humans, dating back to the Jurassic era.

I am confident that humans did not cause the climate change, rather we contribute partially and nature does the rest.
reply report
1. 61
  Kidgasposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Glad someone brought up cow methane.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  As far as global warming, methane is 20 times more 'bad' compared to CO2. It retains 20 times more heat.
  
  Cows emit it, as do wetlands, marshes, and swamps. It also bubbles out of the precious permafrost in arctic climates.
  
  However, every molecule of methane in the atmosphere is obviously the fault of us evil humans. We stink.
  reply report
  60
  Ron Montgomeryposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sheep however, are totally innocent.
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  But part of the point of those of us who believe that the current climate change we are experiencing is primarily or significantly anthropogenic is that even many of these "natural" causes are actually man made, or exacerbated by the behavior of man.
  
  Take cow farts. Does anybody seriously believe that there would be as many cows in the world as there are today if not for humans?
  
  More importantly, the way we raise them causes them to emit more methane than the native ruminants they replaced in much of the world. Cattle stomachs aren't meant to handle large amounts of grain. It gives them indigestion, so they burp and fart more.
  
  Plus, if they're standing around eating grain in feedlots or paddocks, there's no greenery around to absorb the carbon dioxide they breathe out. The 60+ million bison that once roamed the American West didn't have nearly the carbon footprint of the cows that replaced them because they were running around on perennial grassland, which is even better than forests at sucking up and storing carbon. Trees are carbon neutral over their lifetimes, because when they decay or burn, they release the carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Grass stores it in the soil, where it's only released by tilling.
  
  Which, of course, is exactly what we proceeded to do. When we plowed up all that perennial grassland and started growing corn on it to feed cattle, we released all the carbon dioxide that had been stored by the grasses, and every time we re-till it, we release more.
  
  That's not even getting into the carbon emissions caused by making and transporting the chemical fertilizers and pesticides used to grow the grain, transporting the grain to the cows, transporting cows to slaughter and hamburgers to grocery stores and restaurants, slashing and burning rainforest for pasture or grains/soybeans to be used as cattle feed in tropical countries, etc.
  
  Cows are a major source of carbon emissions, but exactly how many of those emissions really qualify as "natural" is questionable.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And what happens if you're wrong?
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Wrong about what?
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Good thing we killed those buffalo. It all evens out.
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Uh uh, I realize that I am verbose, but did you read the post?
  
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I read it several times. We were on the subject of methane, now you have flipped over to carbon.
  
  We had 9,491,818 dairy cows in 1987 as opposed to 20 million in 1954, so the methane emissions from that sector has been cut in half.
  http://www.cpdmp.cornell.edu/CPDMP/Page … ubs/M4.pdf
  
  The US had 94 million head of cattle in 1994.
  http://www.sustainabletable.org/features/articles/beef/
  
  So, if hadn't killed all those buffalo, we'd have 66% more methane in the atmosphere.
  reply report
2. 60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It is difficult to be agreed with you. Most of the scientists and environmentalists are of the opinion that human beings are major contributors of climatic changes.
  
  1. Did we not cut forests those were constantly supplying oxygen to the planet and attracting rain?
  2. Have not we been using hydro-carbons at accelerating pace?
  3. Are we not responsible for CFO emissions?
  4. Are we not continually enhancing radio-activity?
  5. Have we not filled the earth with electro-magnetic waves?
  6. Are we not at all responsible for the hole in ozone layer?
  
  I urge to think seriously and say good bye to consumerism. We are at the threshold of total collapse. Please think of sustainable development.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  reply report
0
pgrundyposted 15 years ago
Doesn't make it a good question.
reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
exactly
reply report
0
kasanovaposted 15 years ago
I dont believe Human can cause climate change. It will be sheer arrogance if we, human think we can control the climate changes.
reply report
62
onthewritesideposted 15 years ago
Human activity has certainly had some sort of effect on global climate, but definitely not enough of one to "cause" any significant change. The Earth has natural cycles it goes through almost like clockwork, and if anything, I believe we are heading in the exact opposite direction (early signs of next Ice Age), as do many many scientists. The Ice Ages have always been preceded by higher global temperature spikes.

There are many different studies I could site, but for simplicity I will just give you this one link. It contains numerous statistics and articles written by a multitude of scientists and climatologists that feel the same way. By the way, last year a consortium of over 31,000 scientists, (including over 9000 with PhD's), came out to dispute the global warming claims. That's no small gathering of people who are "in the know".

http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm
reply report
66
BristolBoyposted 15 years ago
I can see that I am in the minority here, but I do believe in anthropogenic global warming.

Many people say that the global warming change is caused by changes in solar radiation. However, it has been proven that up until about the 1950s the changes in energy from the sun was driving the temperature to increase, whereas after this date the sun would actually make the temperature reduce. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/10/3713.full.pdf

An educational document on climate change which I recommend you possibly read: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 … t_Ch09.pdf

Another created by the IPCC (a UN agency): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4 … nt_SPM.pdf
reply report
1. 70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You're quoting from the IPCC, which seems to be the only group arguing for anthropocentric global warming. Given the fact that I hold anything the UN does with suspicion, just look at the oil for food scam, it behooves me to provide evidence: http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/keyissue.html
  reply report
70
waynetposted 15 years ago
Yes I believe we caused climate change and most of the known diseases around today, because of our actions with chemicals and other pollutants, we all don't deserve to die because of specific people who never thought things through from the beginning....
reply report
1. 89
  Amanda Severnposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Let's face it, it's all down to the Law of Unintended Consequences. It's not that people have failed to think things through, it's just that they are ignorant of the domino effect our actions have.
  reply report
60
Raven Kingposted 15 years ago
Have you heard of Pole Shift or even global dimming? Polar shift could cause climate change.
reply report
81
Tom Cornettposted 15 years ago
Find out which scientists are in political and corporate pockets....people will lie for money. There can be lies on both sides...but the money side lies with the power of cash behind it.
reply report
1. 70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's not just corporate pockets you have to worry about. Governments can give sinecures and prestige just as businesses can. Much like with anything else, you have to really dig into the research and find out what the lies are.
  reply report
61
Milla Mahnoposted 15 years ago

Just kill every second one, and problem solved
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Correlation does not prove causation.
  reply report
  61
  Milla Mahnoposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly my point!
  reply report
71
maven101posted 15 years ago
Carbon credits, anyone..?
reply report
1. 60
  Davinagirl3posted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I wish I would have thought of that racket. I am too honest to pull that off.
  reply report
2. 70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You know the funny thing is that business in general gets the short end of the stick when it comes to "speculation" but this carbon "credit" nonsense is just tailor made for the kinds of shenanigans that you saw in the South Seas Bubble, Mississippi company, Tulip mania, and other government-sponsored "markets" throughout history. Especially since the stock market has tanked. People are going to literally shove money into this new "market", all the money and credit the Fed is busy producing is going to go into this "market" and it, too, will implode like a black hole, sucking the lives and livelihood of the schleps who actually buy into the nonsense. A part of me can't wait and another kinda feels sorry for the morons who are going to buy into it. A third part is horrified at the "unintended" consequences such a scheme will entail. I believe one of those "unintended" consequences will be a famine in the developed world for the first time since the early 1800's.
  reply report
54
Michael's hubposted 15 years ago
To tell the truth, i think it is natural but we are speeding it up. Global warming is caused by co2 being trapped in the atmosphere. This is happening naturally, but we are putting even more co2 in the atmosphere.
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe we should all just hold our breath
  reply report
2. 62
  onthewritesideposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, it's not CO2...that's the gas that plants "breathe" and the gas that we humans exhale naturally. What you are referring to, I think, is CO (carbon MONOXIDE). That is a "greenhouse" gas and it is produced by car emissions, factory emissions, and anything else that burns carbon-based fuels. It is also produced naturally by myriad sources, and has been since the dawn of time on this planet. Do humans increase the production of that gas? Absolutely...by our very existence, and most certainly by the industrialization of the planet that occurred back in the 1800's.
  
  But you would have to high to think that the addition of the industrial era over the last 2 centuries has caused the planet to go askew from its normal path...a path that it has coursed on for over 4 billion years. Weather Modification projects, such as have existed in the US for decades, are not trying to curb global warming, but rather try to keeo the next Ice Age from happening so that the powers that are can continue making money in the same fashion that they always have.
  
  You're right...it is about money...but not in the way you think...
  
  And since we're posting charts...here's one that totally contradicts the other posted on this thread so far...
  
  This chart shows that global temps have actually gone "down" .74 degrees since the dillweed Gore gave his propaganda speech.
  reply report
71
maven101posted 15 years ago
Ledefensetech mentioned " unintended consequences " with the seemingly implacable march to perdition we are all headed for with this Cap and Trade fiasco...Global warming is a very useful idiot, as they say, and Gore and Co, following Rahm's dictum to never let a crisis go to waste, has seized on this travesty ( and tragedy ) to provide a cash cow for his followers, under the guise of " Green Technology "....
The only green they are interested in is the color of money...yours and mine....
reply report
1. 0
  Madame Xposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bravo!
  reply report
70
ledefensetechposted 15 years ago
Funny how people complain about all the CO2 in the air. Plants subsist on CO2. Sure we might be cutting down trees, but surely somewhere in this great biosphere of ours, there is some organism taking advantage of all this free CO2 and growing in number. That's what nature does after all, look for advantages and exploit them. We could learn a thing or two from nature.
reply report
1. 81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is. They're called "weeds."
  
  A long but quite interesting description of why continues at the source:
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magaz … wanted=all
  
  This is eminently true. Some of us just prefer that nature "corrects" herself in a manner that results in the minimum of human suffering. I'm not quite ready to go extinct yet, thanks. We haven't even managed a manned flight to Mars yet!
  reply report
72
Hauntyposted 15 years ago
oh no it's graphs! I like serious discussion...
reply report
62
onthewritesideposted 15 years ago
By the way...for those of you who have no clue what I am talking about when I mention the "Weather Modification" acts being presented before congress? Google Senate Bill SR 517 of 2005. All you will see now is a bastardized version of the original bill, because a boatload of it was struck out. And yes....this bill was never actually passed. But if you read the original version of the bill...which is still available if you look for it...you would see that the original purpose of it was to transfer an "already on-going" military project into the hands of an over-seeing congressional committee. THIS is why it never passed.
reply report
60
logic,commonsenseposted 15 years ago
It is the height of arrogance for humans to think that they could affect nature on such a grand scale.
Nature moves at a pace measured not in years but in centuries.
What the human race does has little effect on the immutable forces of nature. When the human race is gone from the face of the earth, there will be global warming and ice ages as well.
Whatever pitiful things we may do, nature will correct in one manner or another and go on its own way.
reply report
83
ethel smithposted 15 years ago
Well here is my twopenneth. I believe that we, the human race, do as much harm as good around this planet. Probably more harm. It is more comfortable for some to believe that Global Warming or climate change is out of their hands because then they do not have to consider changing their lifestyles ie using gas guzzling cars, testig atom bombs etc. Whatever you believe it has to make sense to protect this great place where we reside, called earth.
reply report
59
vish143posted 15 years ago
Yes i think human are responsible for the climate changes.The burning of forest and the heavy disposal of industrial wastes (chemicals) has destroyed the ecosystem.
reply report
64
emievilposted 15 years ago
Very interesting replies. I'm seeing now why the results of the survey turned out that way. Clearly, this issue really results to divided opinions and thoughts.
reply report
1. 70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  It's not so much divided opinion as much as it is that some people "vote the party line" so to speak and others research, dig and verify on their own.
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  On both sides of the issue, of course.
  
  There are plenty of people from both camps who are spreading lies and misinformation for monetary or political gain.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well of course, that's why I take what either side says with a grain of salt. But I distrust government and supra-governmental organizations more than I do big business, so I take what statist proponents say with a larger grain of salt.
  reply report
  59
  JonTutorposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You think Big Business is independant of government?... Any abuse whether government or business is equally bad.... IMO the rich/powerful have a way of safeguarding there own interests.....no matter what party is in power.
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  My mind was boggling over that comment as well, but I agree with yours.
  
  Goldman-Sachs has been pushing the climate change issue heavily because they expect to profit hugely off cap-and-trade (which I oppose). Other companies have a vested financial interest in making sure that we remain dependent on fossil fuels. Neither side can be trusted.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Which is my point precisely. Big business and government are intimately entwined. But since government can force people to do things, yes I do consider government agendas to be the greater threat. Private businesses, after all, cannot afford to offend their customers else they find themselves out of business. This places a check on their power that does not exist for governments.
  reply report
  64
  emievilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree, but even if you research, dig and verify on your own, with all the conflicting data and research results on both sides, it still boils down to what the individual thinks about this issue, doesn't it?
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  There is a hell of a lot of material on both sides, but more will be known soon i think.
  reply report
  64
  emievilposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I agree and with the December climate summit coming up, things will really heat up.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  To an extent, you're right. To arrive close to what is "true" one must slavishly apply the scientific method to their research. Some people are better at this than others. Reason being that people sometimes become too attached to their hypothesis and are willing to ride the plan down in flames, so to speak, rather than change their hypothesis. I, for example, have found it useful to challenge the assumptions I make all the time. It serves me pretty well as I've accepted and rejected various beliefs over the years.
  
  To illustrate, at the beginning of the Iraq War, I was a diehard supporter. I wouldn't say I was a neocon, but I thought that Saddam had to go. I still do believe that, as a matter of fact, but what I have major disagreements on was how it was done. As I began reading history, philosophy, political science, etc. I realized why things were done the way they were and why things got so messed up. I found myself questioning the very foundations of my beliefs in society, humanity, government, etc. So then I began testing my assumptions "in the field" and reading "after action reports" via history books. What I found there invalidated my previous beliefs and led me to develop new hypotheses about people, society and government. So much so that I am now virulently opposed to any sort of government intervention anywhere.
  
  Far too many people don't question their assumptions and thus make errors in judgment. If you want to get a better idea of the sorts of things I'm talking about read up on Robert Ringer: http://www.robertringer.com/ He can do a much better job explaining these things than I can.
  reply report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I liked your view points. Open minded researches change the mind set of the people. we have to rethink seriously if we, the human race at large are causing to climate changes.
  
  My view points are repeated here.
  
  Most of the scientists and environmentalists are of the opinion that human beings are major contributors of climatic changes.
  
  1. Did we not cut forests those were constantly supplying oxygen to the planet and attracting rain?
  2. Have not we been using hydro-carbons at accelerating pace?
  3. Are we not responsible for CFO emissions?
  4. Are we not continually enhancing radio-activity?
  5. Have we not filled the earth with electromagnetic waves?
  6. Are we not at all responsible for the hole in ozone layer?
  
  I urge to think seriously and say good bye to consumerism. We are at the threshold of total collapse. Please think of sustainable development.
  
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I know this is veering off topic a bit... but what you say here about the Iraq war struck something of a chord. Not because I altered my opinion about it (I was against it from the start and never changed my mind on that score), but because it made me realise how bogus a lot of the reasoning of so-called "experts" and media pundits actually is. For example, a large percentage of such "reasoning" involves moral blackmail and appeals to emotion. This is certainly true of the global warming debate. It's disturbing too that some people are being branded as heretics because they disagree with the idea of man-made global warming:
  
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … matechange
  
  How scary is this?
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Hypotetically, if it were proven that man-made global warming is real and that the oil execs deliberately obfuscated the debate in order to protect their own short term economic interests, what would you suggest be done to them then? Global climate change is expected to kill and displace hundreds of millions of people over the next 100-200 years - far more than smoking ever has.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  In your hypothetical scenario, I don't think anything should be done to the oil execs, other than publicising such obfuscation and letting the public draw their own conclusions.
  
  The closest real-life analogy I can think of is Holocaust denial. There are people out there who base a career on it. Do I think they should be prosecuted for their views? No. Because however reprehensible these views are, I think free speech is more important.
  reply report
  70
  ledefensetechposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Actually I think it's very germane to the discussion. Most people labor under the illusion that religion is the source of all dogma. Yet I've argued for some time that dogma is an adherence to a particular idea even after it's been shown to be incorrect or needs to be revised. That last point is key, I think.
  
  When it happened to me I didn't want to believe the Iraq war was wrong, I wanted to support our troops. Yet I soon came to the understanding that despite what the pundits said, it was not "Fight them there or fight them here". Plus I began to develop an entirely different vision of what our military should be used for. Taking such a course of action would pretty much destroy the military-industrial-congressional complex, so there's little hope of seeing such changes made.
  
  Scientists are just as prey to dogma as any theologian. The fact that they claim their so-called reason as basis for their superiority and not faith makes little difference in the real world.
  reply report
59
gurgel1posted 15 years ago
Yes, there are billions of us.
reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 15 years ago
I have come to a conclusion recently that humans don't have the backbone to do anything that is sacrificial. We will only give up our comforts when the crisis is upon us. Then it will be too late.
We need to start preparing for what the world will look like in the near future. We must understand what the climate change will do, no matter what is causing it, and prepare to deal with it. We will not prevent it; we don't have the what it takes to do that.
reply report
61
Pete Maidaposted 15 years ago
I have to say that this is one of the best discussions I have ever seen on this subject. I tip my hat all that have brought forth knowledge on both sides. People stuck to the issue and laid out some excellent information. I think this is a thread that we can be proud of.
reply report
81
kerrygposted 15 years ago
Jyoti, your first point touches on the reason I have a very hard time understanding the argument that AGW supporters overestimate the importance of humans. Compared to the effect of the sun on earth's climate, our effect may indeed by negligible, but with the usual drivers of climate change currently inactive or at least quiet, why is it unreasonable to assume that 6 billion+ creatures with the power to affect the planet faster, more consistently, and on a larger scale than any other living creature might be the driving factor in the current changes?

To return to prairies, since they're what I know best, the native tallgrass prairie once covered hundreds of thousands of square miles from Canada to Mexico, Ohio to Nebraska. Today, less than one percent of the original extent remains. The rest has been converted to farmland, primarily grain crops, and development. That's hundreds of thousands of square miles of the best carbon sink in the world converted to a net carbon emitter.

Deforestation is an even bigger problem. In some areas, as much as 100% of the original forest cover is gone as a direct or indirect result of human activities, and worldwide the figure is estimated at about 50%. Tropical deforestation is already contributing 20% of humanity's carbon emissions, and tropical ecosystems are so delicate that it can take hundreds or thousands of years for them to recover.

During the European Middle Ages, Easter Island was covered in tropical forest. By the time Europeans found it, the trees were gone, and with the exception of a small plantation of non-native trees planted by humans, they have yet to come back. The Anasazi and ancient Greeks also lived among far more trees than their modern day descendants, 1000+ years later, and the Fertile Crescent, which is now barren desert thanks to salinization from poor irrigation practices, was once among the richest farmland in the world.

The environmental destruction caused by humanity has accelerated in the last century and a half, destroying the planet's ability to control the carbon cycle at the same time we are pouring more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
reply report
0
pgrundyposted 15 years ago
Well, at least we'll go down fighting with each other over stupid crap.

I know that's how I've always wanted to do: Fighting with other people over stuff that isn't even really an issue because it's right in our faces.

When we fry, we'll be still be arguing about whether the Bible says we are frying or not or whether global warming is a liberal conspiracy or whatever. We'll still be clutching our our Tupperware and bottled water and melamine pet food whilst ramming each other in our SUVs.

That way, when we disappear from the the earth for good the other critters who remain will at least feel some small relief that the planet they live on is a bit quieter. Finally.
reply report
1. 61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Translation: I'm right, so stop arguing with me.
  
  Translation: ignore those other silly scientists and trust these scientists.
  
  Translation: (No idea. A global temperature increase of 1 degree will not 'fry' anyone.)
  
  Translation: Global Warming / Climate Change will kill *every* human on Earth but not harm the furry animals with faces.
  
  Summary: Even it we're wrong, we've got to do something!
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  1.1 degree C is the absolute lowest prediction of how much the global temperature is likely to increase in the 21st century. 3-6 degrees C (up to 11 degrees F) is a much more common predicted range.
  
  Climate change is unlikely to result in the extermination of the human race. It IS likely to result in widespread misery and a substantial decline in the human population, as well as an explosion in the population of highly adaptable critters like rats, mosquitoes, and weeds and a decline in the populations of more sensitive ones.
  
  The earth will survive, but will she survive in a state we will really want to pass down to our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren?
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Assuming it does happen, even 11 degrees won't "fry" anyone. Growing seasons will increase (more food), we won't need as much clothing in Winter (saves money), and we'll spend less on foreign oil to heat our homes (better for the ecology).
  
  6 degrees:
  http://www.roperld.com/science/GlobalWa … #WorstCase
  
  8 degrees:
  http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Im … ns_Map_jpg
  
  Global Warming caused by Solar Variation:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_war … _variation
  
  The 10 worst warming predictions
  http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/?p=682
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Why are you making my case for me?
  
  You do know she was using the word "fry" figuratively, right?
  
  Longer growing seasons and warmer winters can increase the food supply in some areas, yes. They can also allow invasive species and pests to run amok when they're no longer held in check by cold temperatures, as we are currently seeing in some parts of the Canadian and Alaskan taiga with the devastation caused by the spruce bark beetle, and with the spread of malaria-carrying mosquitoes north in many areas of the globe.
  
  The point is, we're entering a brave new world and nobody knows what to expect. Some regions will benefit; others will be devastated. Unfortunately, some of the areas expected to be hardest hit are among the most populated.
  
  For example, the Himalayan glaciers feed the Ganges, Indus, Brahmaputra, Mekong, Thanlwin, Yangtze and Yellow Rivers, and are the main source of water for about 1/6 of the world's current population. Though the glaciers in the Karakoram region have grown somewhat, the Himalayan glaciers overall declined 21% between 1962 and 2007 and are expected to be mostly gone by 2030.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists
  http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu … mists.html
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Oh dear - another genius that cannot distinguish between climate change and global warming.
  
  Perhaps it says something in your 2000 year old religious book that all your "facts" come from?
  
  And it is (of course) all down to the damn frogs.........
  reply report
  65
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, should I call Milla?
  reply report
  58
  Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bring him, I mean her, on
  reply report
  0
  sandra rinckposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You mean Shim!
  reply report
  77
  frogdroppingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Just saw this.
  
  *gulps*
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I have bolded the relevant part of my earlier post for your convenience. The "Himalayan glaciers" are not growing, one area of them is. (The Karakoram region mentioned above.) Satellite images have shown that the Himalayan glaciers as a whole have declined by 21% in the last ~50 years.
  
  Additionally, the Karakoram glaciers are not "confounding" scientists at all. The reason for their growth involves feedback from the monsoon season.
  reply report
  61
  nicompposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Well... hmmmm.. uhhh...
  
  The thing of it is... if a glacier is getting bigger in one place and smaller in another place, then the Global Warming alarmists glom onto the shrinky part and ignore the growy part, as you did when you first brought it up.
  
  Since it's all the same glacier, wouldn't it all be melting, regardless of how much monsoon was monsooning? When a thing reaches melting temperature, it melts and continues melting when rainwater accumulates on it. Actually it should melt faster if it's rainy.
  
  OK?
  reply report
  81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't ignore it at all. I specifically mentioned it, in fact.
  
  Dude, do you have any idea how big the Himalayas are? It is most definitely not "all one glacier." In fact, the Himalayan range contains over 15,000 individual glaciers.
  reply report
  60
  JYOTI KOTHARIposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  The Himalayas are very big mountain, biggest in the world. The Everest and Kanchanjangha, the highest and 3rd highest peaks in the world are within the HImalayas.
  However, we human beings are causing environmental death of the mountains.
  We are just putting our garbage, plastic wastes on the top of these glaciers.
  Will we think?
  Thanks,
  Jyoti Kothari
  reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
Absolutely Pam! Can't even understand how a sane person can't see what is right in our faces!
reply report
61
Chef Jeffposted 15 years ago
I prefer to call it global climate change, since I believe it will affect different areas of the globe in different ways. Some areas might cool for a time, others might get hotter. Whether or not it is entirely caused by human activity is being researched and so far the research weighs in favor of the view that human activity has indeed played some part. However, more research needs to be done.

However, the lack of 100% evidence does not mean that our world isn't going through a climate shift. The best advice I could give is be skeptical but be prepared for anything. Science will discover more evidence as research continues. Do not take a stand either way until you look at all sides of the issue, and for your own sake, don't listen to pundits and people with agendas! They are out there only to recruit you mindlessly to their side!
reply report
1. 61
  Pete Maidaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Very wise advice indeed.
  reply report
61
shakeelzposted 15 years ago
yes i think that we as humans ave given a lot many disaster to the environment
reply report
61
nicompposted 15 years ago
Who you gonna believe?

Comments from a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/glob … 90591.html
reply report
77
frogdroppingposted 15 years ago
Well. At least no one's blaming frogs.
reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
LOL They will, when they run out of humans to blame
reply report
1. 77
  frogdroppingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  You think? Rats.
  
  Uh. I mean frogs
  
  And hello Mr Knowles. I just wrote about you. Glad to see you're home again. Happy holiday?
  reply report
65
Mishaposted 15 years ago
LOL

I think THEM took part in this thread already, yet nobody reacted - probably the lack of imagination
reply report
77
Uninvited Writerposted 15 years ago
I was just going to say...I blame the frogs
reply report
1. 77
  frogdroppingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  And this.
  
  C'mon guys. Climate change can't be my fault. Surely?
  
  I mean - I know I bugger about a bit and burn the odd lump of charcoal but still ...
  reply report
  65
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Frog fart may be?
  reply report
  77
  frogdroppingposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Now frogs don't fart Misha. We make bubbles.
  reply report
  65
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Ooops, I need to get more educated about frogs but then no one needs education in order to blame, in fact it's better to not have it
  reply report
75
mayhmongposted 15 years ago
I think Global warming is caused by Aliens!

C'mon, we all know its our fault!
reply report
77
frogdroppingposted 15 years ago
Misha it's the blame game huh? Maybe they think there's some compensation.

Where there's blame - there's a claim

And I'm far from edumacated ...
reply report
1. 65
  Mishaposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Sure. The one who won gets frog legs for dinner
  reply report
70
waynetposted 15 years ago
No, it was the animals, they don't speak and secretly plotting against us....
reply report
1. 81
  kerrygposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Bunnies aren't just cute like everybody supposes!
  They've got them hoppy legs and twitchy little noses!
  And what's with all the carrots?
  What do they need such good eyesight for anyway?
  Bunnies! Bunnies! It must be bunnies!
  
  ...
  
  Or maybe midgets.
  
  /geek
  reply report
  70
  waynetposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  Clowns and midgets...together they will take over the world!!!
  reply report
  73
  earnestshubposted 15 years agoin reply to this
  OK it's time to round up the little people to throw at the clowns then!
  reply report
67
aidenofthetowerposted 15 years ago
I think it is always hard to answer a question that says "most" in it. I can't answer for most people anywhere. I do say that there are a growing number of people world wide who believe that humans caused the climate to change. However, I can't be one of them no matter what numbers scientists give, no matter who says it, and no matter how I look at it. We know without a shadow of a doubt that major climate changes happen over time. And we are talking major. There used to be ice that covered a huge portion of the world. It seems most likely that the climate changes we see today are just part of how the world works. Over time climate changes. It is that simple. Yet we want to blame it on ourselves, because if we did something to cause it then we should and can do something to fix it. However, if we can't do anything and things continue as it is going, we will be out of luck.
reply report
60
Marketing Sucessoposted 15 years ago
During the history of the earth many climate changes took place, but those changes happened in millions of years.

Nowadays we feel the changes everyday, every month, every year... The climate change rythm is frightening and this is our fault - No doubt about it!
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Do You Believe Humans Caused the Climate Change?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies