# Lifestyles & Discussion > Science & Technology >  What is Your Position on Global Warming / Climate Change?

## buenijo

_Please read the following carefully before making any replies._

I am curious to know the positions of those active on the forum with respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (otherwise known as Climate Change). I am interested to know largely because I've found that there exists ambiguity surrounding the issue, and this includes a general vagueness in the terms used to describe the (alleged) phenomenon. Therefore, I provide definitions in the hope of achieving clarity. Please try to operate within these definitions. 

AGW is the phenomenon by which the green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with human activities (including but not limited to CO2 derived from the combustion of fossil fuels) is increasing the net concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere. The resulting dynamic acts to increase average global temperatures to levels higher than they would achieve otherwise (i.e. without the emissions). In any case, the climate is affected by the process. Note that this definition _does not_ imply that our GHG emissions will necessarily cause a warming trend. Rather, it implies that it could cause a warming trend, merely contribute to a warming trend, or perhaps it might only mitigate a cooling trend. 

By this definition, it's possible for many to accept the AGW position, yet take widely disparate views. For example, one proponent of AGW might take the position that climate science is young and incomplete. Therefore, we do not yet have the understanding nor the tools with which to make accurate forecasts. Those on this end of the AGW spectrum advise against any interventions (governmental or otherwise) designed to alleviate the AGW dynamic. Conversely, those on the other end of the AGW spectrum might argue that the science is settled, and that it indicates GHG emissions derived from human activities to be affecting climate in ways that will prove detrimental to ecosystems and life on Earth in general. Among these AGW proponents include those who advocate for aggressive governmental interventions including all manner of taxes and regulations, as well as those who do not advocate for such interventions by considering them unlikely to have a net benefit. At the far end of the spectrum are those who argue that it's too late - our GHG emissions to date will cause the imminent extinction of the human race along with other species.

Now, I realize this is a broad definition. However, I selected it because I've come to understand that the oft-cited "consensus" among scientists on the AGW issue can include individuals with positions that lie anywhere along this spectrum. By contrast, there are those who deny emphatically that GHG emissions by humans can have any effect whatever on climate.

So, what position do you take:
(1) Do you accept the AGW position, or
(2) Do you deny it categorically.

... furthermore, if (1), then where on the spectrum does your position lie? Also, if (2), then what evidence might convince you otherwise (if any)?

_NOTE: Please refrain from engaging in dialog during the course of this thread as I hope to limit its scope._

----------


## mrsat_98

there is no such thing as man made global warming.

----------


## dannno

A better question is why were temperatures warmer back in the 1300s and why were CO2 concentrations higher in the 1300s and why was the ocean level about the same and why did crops yields grow in so many areas?

Why don't people consider that we just came out of a mini-ice age in the late 1700s and why wouldn't the climate be in a general warming trend after coming out of a mini-ice age?

Just asking those questions pretty much debunks MMGW theories because those theories assume that temperatures are higher than they have been for thousands of years and that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been higher than they ever were before industrialization and that just isn't true.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I am not convinced that human actions have _enough_ of an impact to actually change the climate. Certainly, we can effect the atmosphere to a certain extent, but with all of the other factors, it's hard to know if it has any substantial effect on climate. We know that we can pollute the environment and the air, especially ground level air pollution, but I would never categorize the common components of the lower troposphere as pollution.

The AGW hypothesis is untestable. Too many uncontrolled parameters, and many with far more weight than human actions.

----------


## HVACTech

> there is no such thing as man made global warming.


I would agree and add that since we clearly are not in an ice age.
the climate has both changed and global warming has also occurred. 
both had NOTHING to do with us.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Recently, past few years, there was some significant evidence that several planets in the solar system were experiencing planetary climate warming at the same time.  I really doubt that humans are/were responsible for all (any) of them.

----------


## willwash

I think the yearly 100,000+ acre wildfires out west probably put more carbon into the atmosphere than a billion internal combustion engines do in a decade.

----------


## buenijo

I take the position that, while I accept the premise that GHG emissions from human activities can affect the climate system, I emphasize that we do not have the means to quantify or characterize how these effects will manifest. I state with perfect confidence that there is no reason (i.e. there is insufficient evidence) to expect climate to change in any material manner due to the GHG emissions from human activities. Furthermore, I note that many politicians have exaggerated some claims of the underlying science, and that the objectivity of scientists working in the field has been compromised by a resulting public outcry. The institutions that support the science of climate and environmental science in general have expanded many fold in the face of a widely perceived threat of global warming. Today, these institutions are now wholly dependent on the tax dollars derived from this perceived threat. I do not believe it's possible for the science to be objective under these conditions. Under these conditions, people will see (and have seen) what they want to see. My position is scientific skepticism.

----------


## FindLiberty

> Recently, past few years, there was some significant evidence that several planets in the solar system were experiencing planetary climate warming at the same time.  I really doubt that humans are/were responsible for all (any) of them.


THIS^

There is no such thing as man-made climate change.

----------


## Nolan

It was mini ice age in the 70/80s, then global _scamming_ in the 90s, and now they rename it to climate change. Whatever it is next that the liberal communist think of next, more money will go into their coffer. It's not about the environment stupid!

Here's a report from the guy who founded the Weather Channel, if anyone should have any authority about environmental expertise.

Oh, and a little bit of where the global warming scare came from. The mentor of Al Gore warned that global warming should not be politicized until the data are in. Too bad for him they are now using his name for a scam award against his own will. He must be spinning in his grave.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## otherone

> I am curious to know the positions of those active on the forum with respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (otherwise known as Climate Change).


I'm lock-step with Hillary on this:

----------


## PRB

> there is no such thing as man made global warming.


I take it you flat out deny it 

I hope you're not the same conspiracy theorist who thinks chemtrails cause weather modification and HAARP causes earthquakes

----------


## PRB

> It was mini ice age in the 70/80s, then global _scamming_ in the 90s, and now they rename it to climate change.


Please refrain from posting PRATT http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_r...thousand_times

1. No, the scientific consensus in 70s was NOT forecasting a mini ice age (it was media sensationalism)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm

2. Climate change was not a recent Orwellian change in terms, what do you think IPCC founded in 1988 stands for?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...al-warming.htm

So, when you want to share a snarky talking point, try to spare yourself the embarrassment and look up whether there's a response to it first, will ya?

----------


## PRB

> I think the yearly 100,000+ acre wildfires out west probably put more carbon into the atmosphere than a billion internal combustion engines do in a decade.


that's like saying natural deaths exceed murders, therefore we should act like murders never happen or do nothing to prevent them.

----------


## PRB

> The AGW hypothesis is untestable. Too many uncontrolled parameters, and many with far more weight than human actions.


It's untestable?

So any and all predictions of future climate and temperatures are equally valid?

What's your list of uncontrolled parameters we need to pay attention to? 

You ALREADY know they outweigh human actions huh? So you must know what they are and how great its impact is.

----------


## presence

We burn ungodly joules of fossilized $#@! daily,

 that would have otherwise been trapped underground for eons.

I don't give a $#@! about carbon. 

If a butterfly can flap its wings and cause a typhoon, 

the ongoing fire alone undoubtedly makes the climate different.


The only quick things I can think of that I want my government to do about it:

Deregulate the auto industry.
Stop subsidizing the oil and electric industries.
Stop pissing out fuel on foreign empire building.
Outlaw building codes.
Provide tax breaks to citizens before BP Exxon and Shell
Stop providing government financed indemnification to energy companies
End EPA permits for environmental destruction and allow individuals to sue for damages.
Defund the DOE
End the "emmissions" regulations for wood burning appliances

I guess I could go on and on...

----------


## PRB

> Recently, past few years, there was some significant evidence that several planets in the solar system were experiencing planetary climate warming at the same time.  I really doubt that humans are/were responsible for all (any) of them.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

----------


## PRB

> *If a butterfly can flap its wings and cause a typhoon,*


Who said that?

----------


## Original_Intent

Do we have an effect? Sure.

Is it something that is a significant contributor that makes a real difference to the climate? (Real difference being what would have happened anyway due to natural climate change that has always and will always occur). I don't think the case has been made at all that we do, I also feel that Al Gore and many others have a vested financial interest in promoting the global warming, erm, global climate change agenda. There have been numerous cases where Al Gore in his book, and various scientists in their studies have been caught fudging the numbers and also discussing amongst themselves fudging the numbers - i.e. its not honest human error, it is manipulation.

I remember in 5th grade many eons ago being taught how the earth does have a natural ability to correct things. Extra CO2 causes warming, this causes Algae to grow more plentifully in the ocean, this absorbs the CO2 and temperatures drop. That's what I remember from 40 years ago. Also climate isn't something that is measured over years or decades - climate is extremely long term and tends to level out fluctuations which we have (in the 70s and 80s we were being scare mongered with global cooling and the coming Ice Age). So now they have settled on climate change so now any movement in either direction can be blamed on CO2 and we need those carbon credits that Al Gore has been saving up to sell us.

I wouldn't say I am a denier, but I am a skeptic.

----------


## PRB

> So now they have settled on climate change so now any movement in either direction can be blamed on CO2 and we need those carbon credits that Al Gore has been saving up to sell us.


First of all, no, we do not need anybody's carbon credits, or taxes, for the matter. Whether you accept the scientific conclusions do not mean you must accept regulations as a result.

Next, 
Please refrain from posting PRATT http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Point_r...thousand_times


1. No, the scientific consensus in 70s was NOT forecasting a mini ice age (it was media sensationalism)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-...s-in-1970s.htm


2. Climate change was not a recent Orwellian change in terms, what do you think IPCC founded in 1988 stands for?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clim...al-warming.htm

----------


## presence

> Who said that?


Lorenz 

In chaos theory, the *butterfly effect* is the _sensitive dependency on initial conditions_ in which a small change at one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. The name of the effect, coined by Edward Lorenz,  is derived from the theoretical example of the details of a hurricane  (exact time of formation, exact path taken) being influenced by minor  perturbations equating to the flapping of the wings of a distant butterfly several weeks earlier. Lorenz discovered the effect when he observed that runs of his weather model with initial condition data that was rounded  in a seemingly inconsequential manner would fail to reproduce the  results of runs with the unrounded initial condition data. A very small  change in initial conditions had created a significantly different  outcome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

----------


## acptulsa

_If_ our impact is significant, I'm pretty sure the government will do all the wrong things about it.  They will not, for example, stop using afterburners every weekend training weekend warriors to fly obsolete fighter jets (jet engines not only burning a hell of a lot of fuel, but dumping their exhaust high in the atmosphere rather than down where the plants are).  And they will make the rich richer and the poor poorer in the process.  The government plays at developing alternatives, subsidizing corn squeezin' for fuel when there are far better alternatives, and all the while fights (with jet aircraft) all of the Middle East for their oil.

That said, we aren't doing anything that one good eruption from Krakatoa won't more than neutralize, at least for a couple of years.

We like to be arrogant enough to think we are _the_ major impact on the earth.  We aren't.  But government will play on that desire, and use it to screw us.  I don't care to be a party to that.  And so long as government is playing this game, I don't think it will be possible to know what our net effect is.

We need to make intelligent decisions about this.  We won't.

----------


## PRB

> _If_ our impact is significant, I'm pretty sure the government will do all the wrong things about it.  They will not, for example, stop using afterburners every weekend training weekend warriors to fly obsolete fighter jets (jet engines not only burning a hell of a lot of fuel, but dumping their exhaust high in the atmosphere rather than down where the plants are).  And they will make the rich richer and the poor poorer in the process.  The government plays at developing alternatives, subsidizing corn squeezin' for fuel when there are far better alternatives, and all the while fights (with jet aircraft) all of the Middle East for their oil.
> 
> That said, we aren't doing anything that one good eruption from Krakatoa won't more than neutralize, at least for a couple of years.
> 
> We like to be arrogant enough to think we are _the_ major impact on the earth.  We aren't.  But government will play on that desire, and use it to screw us.  I don't care to be a party to that.  And so long as government is playing this game, I don't think it will be possible to know what our net effect is.
> 
> We need to make intelligent decisions about this.  We won't.


The government can play the game, but you don't need to.

i can't change the government's mind, but I don't need to lie about the science to reject its regulations.

----------


## acptulsa

> The government can play the game, but you don't need to.
> 
> i can't change the government's mind, but I don't need to lie about the science to reject its regulations.


I find it camouflages the science so effectively I can't make head nor tail out of it.  If we could drag the government kicking and screaming out of the scientists' wallets, we might be able to figure out what is going on and what to do about it.  Until then, we're mushrooms.  We're kept in the dark and fed $#@!.

----------


## PRB

> I find it camouflages the science so effectively I can't make head nor tail out of it.  If we could drag the government kicking and screaming out of the scientists' wallets, we might be able to figure out what is going on and what to do about it.  Until then, we're mushrooms.  We're kept in the dark and fed $#@!.


do you know this skepticism to ALL parts of science? or just climate?

----------


## acptulsa

> do you know this skepticism to ALL parts of science? or just climate?


Do I know this skepticism?  I don't even know what you mean by asking if I know this skepticism.

I _apply_ this skepticism to all science and pseudo-science which involves more variables than we can possibly account for (psychology fits that description), and take a very careful look at all science that is seriously overfunded by the government or other entities which have an agenda.

Don't you?

----------


## Bman

It happens, man has very little effect.

----------


## squarepusher

you should have made a poll

----------


## Ronin Truth

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm


Which part of my post is causing you difficulties?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We burn ungodly joules of fossilized $#@! daily,
> 
>  that would have otherwise been trapped underground for eons.
> 
> I don't give a $#@! about carbon. 
> 
> If a butterfly can flap its wings and cause a typhoon, 
> 
> the ongoing fire alone undoubtedly makes the climate different.
> ...


Fires only change temperatures in their immediate environment. 

By the way, the butterfly effect is a myth.

----------


## jllundqu

> _Please read the following carefully before making any replies._
> 
> I am curious to know the positions of those active on the forum with respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) (otherwise known as Climate Change). I am interested to know largely because I've found that there exists ambiguity surrounding the issue, and this includes a general vagueness in the terms used to describe the (alleged) phenomenon. Therefore, I provide definitions in the hope of achieving clarity. Please try to operate within these definitions. 
> 
> AGW is the phenomenon by which the green house gas (GHG) emissions associated with human activities (including but not limited to CO2 derived from the combustion of fossil fuels) is increasing the net concentration of GHG's in the atmosphere. The resulting dynamic acts to increase average global temperatures to levels higher than they would achieve otherwise (i.e. without the emissions). In any case, the climate is affected by the process. Note that this definition _does not_ imply that our GHG emissions will necessarily cause a warming trend. Rather, it implies that it could cause a warming trend, merely contribute to a warming trend, or perhaps it might only mitigate a cooling trend. 
> 
> By this definition, it's possible for many to accept the AGW position, yet take widely disparate views. For example, one proponent of AGW might take the position that climate science is young and incomplete. Therefore, we do not yet have the understanding nor the tools with which to make accurate forecasts. Those on this end of the AGW spectrum advise against any interventions (governmental or otherwise) designed to alleviate the AGW dynamic. Conversely, those on the other end of the AGW spectrum might argue that the science is settled, and that it indicates GHG emissions derived from human activities to be affecting climate in ways that will prove detrimental to ecosystems and life on Earth in general. Among these AGW proponents include those who advocate for aggressive governmental interventions including all manner of taxes and regulations, as well as those who do not advocate for such interventions by considering them unlikely to have a net benefit. At the far end of the spectrum are those who argue that it's too late - our GHG emissions to date will cause the imminent extinction of the human race along with other species.
> 
> Now, I realize this is a broad definition. However, I selected it because I've come to understand that the oft-cited "consensus" among scientists on the AGW issue can include individuals with positions that lie anywhere along this spectrum. By contrast, there are those who deny emphatically that GHG emissions by humans can have any effect whatever on climate.
> ...


Excellent post.

I would answer #1.  I DO believe that science has shown that measurable increases in GHG has the potential to impact the global climate in significant ways.  Venus is a good example of the extremes of GHG accumulation.  I DO believe that humanity's vast consumption of fossil fuels adds significantly to increases in GHG in the atmosphere.  I do NOT believe, however, that science (or scientists) has (have) been able to present convincing evidence to show that there has been a measurable increase in global temperatures, increases in 'extreme' weather, hurricanes, ice melts, etc.   The increase in GHG has the potential, but has not yet.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Fires only change temperatures in their immediate environment. 
> 
> By the way, the butterfly effect is a myth.


Under chaos theory there is a critical dependence on initial conditions (mathematically out to several decimal digits). Hence the butterfly effect. Minor differences in initial conditions often produce major differences later.

----------


## presence

> By the way, the butterfly effect is a myth.


Its hardly a myth; it is the very reason why meteorologist create "ensemble forecasts" to provide probabilities of rain.   If you've ever done any computer programming you run into instances where small changes in code which one would expect to have negligible effect actually skew results in totally unexpected ways.  In building bitcoin trading bots I run into these types of things all the time.  I have a good friend that works for NWS building climate models; butterfly effect is a very real thing that is very well studied by people in the "forecasting" fields.

----------


## DBroncs

I do believe it's happening like the scientists say it is. But unless you live in a cabin in the woods with no electricity or modern technology then you shouldn't lambast anyone for promoting global warming because you drive a pickup or whatever.

----------


## pcosmar

> By the way, the butterfly effect is a myth.


And the Hockey Stick algorithm is a scam.

----------


## PRB

> And the Hockey Stick algorithm is a scam.



bad methods, but essentially the same result

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../4411032a.html

----------


## amy31416

> We burn ungodly joules of fossilized $#@! daily,
> 
>  that would have otherwise been trapped underground for eons.
> 
> I don't give a $#@! about carbon. 
> 
> If a butterfly can flap its wings and cause a typhoon, 
> 
> the ongoing fire alone undoubtedly makes the climate different.
> ...


You made many points that I would have made.

----------


## HVACTech

> And the Hockey Stick algorithm is a scam.


so is the "fossil" fuel theory. imo.

it is now clear to me, that these substances are not "special" to life or former living life forms.
coal being the obvious exception. (and peat,etc.)

----------


## PRB

> so is the "fossil" fuel theory. imo.
> 
> it is now clear to me, that these substances are not "special" to life or former living life forms.
> coal being the obvious exception. (and peat,etc.)


it doesn't need to be special to life for it to be limited in quantity though, right?

----------


## oyarde

" Climate change " is normal , everything else is bull$#@! . That is " my position" .

----------


## PRB

> " Climate change " is normal , everything else is bull$#@! . That is " my position" .


So Sandy and Katrina and the current California drought are all normal?

----------


## Natural Citizen

We're just a speck in the cosmos, people. Insignificant except to ourselves. Exceptional. 

When the Earth gets tired of our silliness it will shake us off like a bad case of the fleas. Heh...

----------


## PRB

> We're just a speck in the cosmos, people. Insignificant except to ourselves. Exceptional. 
> 
> When the Earth gets tired of our silliness it will shake us off like a bad case of the fleas. Heh...


you've been reading our NWO secret handbook! OMG. That's exactly what makes genocide such a non-issue!

----------


## ibaghdadi

My current position in brief:
Yes, I believe earth temperatures are getting warmer.Yes, I believe human activity contributed to this, although I'm not sure by how much.No, I do not believe we can do anything about it now.Yes, I believe that it will cause different weather changes in different parts of the world.No, I do not believe that all these changes will be negative. Some may even be positive.

----------


## pcosmar

> So Sandy and Katrina and the current California drought are all normal?


yes actually.

I have been through many hurricanes.. some years there is none that hit,, some years there are several.

Tracking and warnings have improved,, predictions have not.

----------


## PRB

> yes actually.
> 
> I have been through many hurricanes.. some years there is none that hit,, some years there are several.
> 
> Tracking and warnings have improved,, predictions have not.


it's normal because predictions have not improved? 

isn't the definition of normal "expected"? 

If Sandy and Katrina are normal, then there are no "victims", they all should've known it was coming, right?

----------


## PRB

> I have been through many hurricanes.. some years there is none that hit,, some years there are several.


I've heard people murdered too. I've seen government before, it's been around for hundreds of years. Why am I complaining about it if it's normal?

----------


## pcosmar

> it's normal because predictions have not improved? 
> 
> isn't the definition of normal "expected"? 
> 
> If Sandy and Katrina are normal, then there are no "victims", they all should've known it was coming, right?


No it is normal because of air currents , planetary rotation,,Thermal input from the sun,, etc.
It is normal,, Storms happen,, they have happened and they will happen.

Normal is what happens. Spring follows winter,,summer and winter are divided by fall. Normal.
If people become victims due to ignoring the weather it is their own fault.

Either by failing to shelter or by ignoring the weather altogether.

----------


## pcosmar

> I've heard people murdered too. I've seen government before, it's been around for hundreds of years. Why am I complaining about it if it's normal?


You actually typed that?

----------


## PRB

> You actually typed that?


"Normal is what happens."

----------

