Is climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by stan1990, Jan 21, 2020.

?

Do you believe that climate change man-made or natural phenomena?

Poll closed Thursday at 11:51 PM.
  1. Yes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Not sure

    100.0%
  1. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    What is the definition of climate change?

    Scientists will continue to argue about a proper definition of the concept of climate change. So far, Scientists didn't reach consent about the moment recognized as the critical moment in the climate change called the point of disaster. There are reports that the ozone hole has begun to narrow. There are other reports that the causes of melting Antarctic ice are volcanic activities.

    US President Donald Trump has announced his country's withdrawal from the Paris Convention against climate change, and many have expressed their concern. During the reign of former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada announced its withdrawal from the Kyoto Climate Treaty. Opposing the concept of climate change and that it is a hoax is not a registered American mark, but other countries share the United States with that.

    The problem is that climate change has become a politician's game, and scientists have been pushed to the margin. Science shouldn't be subject to politics. But we witness a different scenario in reality. scientists are forced to resign, ignored in scientific forums, or prevent them from promoting or publishing their research in scientific journals that are supposed to be neutral when they express an opinion contrary to the dominant trend.

    We are witnessing a horrific forest fire in Australia, unprecedented snowfall in Canada, an unparalleled rise in temperatures in California, rising water levels in the seas and oceans, and many other things that advocate of climate change warning, and that we must begin to take measures to stop this. The question is that can we interfere with the work of nature? Forest fires in Australia and other countries are common. There are winters in Canada that snow didn't fall until the end of January, while in other seasons there was snowfall at the end of October. The state of California is experiencing an increase in the population and cultivated areas, and consequently an increase in water consumption. Climate change is not responsible for all of that.

    We have to be careful in judging these kinds of scientific questions that require impartiality and integrity that unfortunately, no longer exist. Ordinary people are not scientists and don't possess the minimum amount of scientific knowledge. While scientists are subjected to politicians and corporate interests because they control the financing of scientific research. The urgent question to answer remains: Is climate change a man-made or is it a nature-made?

    End
     
  2. AGWisFAKEsillyBABYKILLERS

    AGWisFAKEsillyBABYKILLERS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2017
    Messages:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your q/a makes no sense..

    If climate change is man made.. I wonder how the climate could possibly have changed before their were men...
    Hmmm...
     
    drluggit, Josephwalker and Ddyad like this.
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't answer your poll since there is no option for how I would answer it.

    Good question! I have only ever run into one definition for the term "climate change" which adhered to logic. That definition, listed as "Climate", can be found here. http://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual

    Other attempts at defining it have ended up being circular definitions (ie, "climate change" IS "climate change"). Circular definitions are utterly meaningless and are a rejection of logic.

    There is no "point of disaster". The ozone is fine. Ice caps shrink and grow all the time. Volcanoes happen all the time. Nothing new here.

    "Climate Change" is a fundamentalist style religion. That's all it is.

    There is no science involved here. Only fundamentalist style religious beliefs.

    ...created by many arsonists and improper forest and land management. Arsonists are not "climate change". Improper forest and land management is not "climate change". Also, it is Summer in Australia. Fires will happen during that time of year.

    There is nothing "unprecedented" about snowfall in Canada during Winter...

    What is the temperature of the SOTC (the Socialist Oligarchy of the Territory of California, aka the former "State of California") right now? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the SOTC. We don't have enough thermometers to do so.

    It is not possible to measure a "global sea level". There is no valid reference point to make use of.

    Define "climate change". What "measures", exactly? Here, you are building a Pascal's Wager Fallacy off of a Buzzword Fallacy.

    Yup, so what's the big deal? Weather happens.

    It is responsible for NONE of that. A circularly defined buzzword cannot be responsible for anything.

    What "science"? There has been no "science" in your post so far...

    Define "ordinary people". Science is simply a set of falsifiable theories. Anyone can learn about those theories.

    It is neither. It is a fundamentalist style religion which requires the Church Member to reject logic, science, and mathematics.
     
  4. bricklayer

    bricklayer Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    8,385
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most climate change is man made, but it is far from global. I'm sitting now in a climate controlled home. We human beings survive by changing our climate rather than adapting to it. Generally speaking, human beings do not take clean and safe environments and make them dirty and dangerous. Generally speaking, with some notable exceptions, human beings take dirty and dangerous environments and make them cleaner and safer for human beings. My environmental goal is not necessarily minimizing human impact on the environment. My environmental goal is to maximize human well being.

    Man made climate change is neither global or catastrophic. In fact, human beings would net benefit from increases in atmospheric CO2 by as much as three or four times what it is now. We would also net benefit from global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman, or even the Phoenician, high periods.

    We don't live in a climatologically optimum time period. Our plants are starving at 400ppm. At 350ppm, most food crops stop growing, at 250 they die. If human beings are going to continue to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, we are going to need a warmer, wetter and greener Earth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  5. Capt Nice

    Capt Nice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7,180
    Likes Received:
    5,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    For some stupid reason I trust the people that are educated in matters pertaining to the planet earth.
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  6. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    4,006
    Likes Received:
    3,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So those scientists who predicted that ocean water levels (from ice shelf melt-off) would encompass parts of North America by 2013 were correct?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  7. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,182
    Likes Received:
    840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So lemme get this straight: we can't define it to begin with, but it's urgent that we determine the cause of that which we cannot define. Have I got that right?
    Whatever the reason, it's definitely stupid to believe competence is a necessary consequence of education.
     
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    34,750
    Likes Received:
    13,098
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why?
     
  9. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    13,835
    Likes Received:
    2,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Global warming has become a political football. Democrats believe, so Republican disbelieve or vice versa, Democrats believe because Republicans disbelieve. 78% of Democrats believe Global warming is man made compared to 28% of Republicans. Normal politics with independents in the middle with 48% belief.

    I would wager the ranch if Republicans all of a sudden took up the mantle of man made climate change, Democrats would change their stance denying it. Such is the nature of our politics. What one side is for, the other side is against.

    Personally, I don't know if global warming is caused by man or caused by mother nature going through her cycles. This planet has been much hotter and much colder as it goes in natural cycles. Could man be pushing a natural cycle along, accelerating it, certainly possible. Now I understand the skeptics. It wasn't that long ago scientist were stating the earth was entering another ice age. That was the 1970's I believe.

    If I were one to worry, I'd be a heck of a lot more worried about us blowing mankind off the face of the earth in a nuclear holocaust than the average earth temperature rising 2-3 or how many degrees over the next 100 or so years. Fact is, I put super volcanoes above climate change in my list of worries.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  10. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree with you. A very good comment.
     
    perotista likes this.
  11. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Not can't define it but can't agree on a definition
     
  12. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    You can answer the poll by: Yes, No or Maybe. And thanks for your comments. A informative and detailed. I agree with you on many of them. Thank you very much.
     
    gfm7175 likes this.
  13. stan1990

    stan1990 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    267
    Likes Received:
    46
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    I stand in the Middle.
     
  14. Idahojunebug77

    Idahojunebug77 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2017
    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The question is irrelevant if one is seeking a political solution. If global warming is a natural phenomena we cannot change the progression, but only hope to adapt to the coming changes. If a warming planet is man-made we will never be willing to lower our standard of living to the extent necessary (zero carbon emissions) to stop the progression of global warming, all we can do is adapt to the new climatic conditions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2020
  15. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    27,860
    Likes Received:
    5,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Global warming is predominantly a natural process resulting from cyclical effects of ocean currents, solar radiation, and planetary cycles.

    If anyone believes that global warming is 10% caused by increasing human CO2 emissions there is nothing politically possible to significantly reduce the rate of increase of those CO2 emissions.
     
  16. pitbull

    pitbull Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2018
    Messages:
    1,776
    Likes Received:
    582
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Especially the yes/no options. :D

    Btw, I think climate change is both, man-made and natural too. The human race could survive longer if we wouldn't destroy nature. But at some point, the lifespan of humanity will be over, either way.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2020
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,526
    Likes Received:
    38,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Why am I not surprised that instead of an internationally recognised definition (the IOCC reports do contain one) you would choose a made up piece of rubbish posted by an anonymous poster on a near defunct forum?
     
  18. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,526
    Likes Received:
    38,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Let me ask a question

    Which would you rather

    Climate change which has a known cause that we can address and prevent worse outcomes


    Or

    Climate change driven by an external factor we cannot control and which will cause mass damage to the ecology of the planet?
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    58,526
    Likes Received:
    38,766
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Okay

    Validate that theorem and there is a Nobel prize in it for you, well, an ig-Nobel prize anyway given previous efforts at validation
     
  20. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,765
    Likes Received:
    482
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Please provide this "internationally recognized definition". I bet you dollars to doughnuts that it is a circular definition.

    Like I said, the only non-circular definition that I have ever come across is what I linked in my prior comment.
     
  21. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,182
    Likes Received:
    840
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The substantive difference being...?
     
  22. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If forest fires are man made, I wonder how forest fires could have happened before there were men ...

    Your logic has a problem, wouldn't you agree? It's called the "fallacy of the single cause". You assume, without any facts to back it up, that only natural factors can be a factor. By leaving out the other variables involved, you come to a conclusion that's completely wrong.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020 at 8:32 PM
  23. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And which scientists were those? Name names, with links to the quotes. If you're not just repeating baseless propaganda, that shouldn't be a problem.
     
  24. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And you'd be wrong. You're assuming that we base beleifs on poltics instead of facts, because that's what your side does. But we're not like you.

    And while those global warming deniers were predicting an ice age in the 1970s, the climate scientists were predicting warming. The denier side has been failing with their predictions for 40+ years now, while the rational side has been getting it all right over that time frame. That would indicate a lack of credibility on the denier side, and stellar credibility on the climate science side.

    Risk analysis failure. Even assuming you've calculated risks correctly, and you haven't, it makes no sense to ignore a risk just because you think another risk is riskier.
     
  25. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    4,990
    Likes Received:
    1,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

Share This Page