POLL: Do you believe in human-caused ("AGW") global warming?

[erowe1]

I said no. I'm really more of an I don't know. But even if it does happen, it doeesn't matter, and nothing should be done about it.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Yes, "human-caused," not nature-caused (e.g., Spring).

This proves to me that you are absolutely clueless and have no business even asking such questions. Much less delegating the rules of the cosmos. Nature is full of "wiggly" things. And so are you. So are the cosmos. That's about as dumbed down as I can put it but I'm comfortable that others laughing at the poll understand what I mean.

 

[bolil]

In a science and engineering sense, I'm not sure people can even see 50-years ahead. But that is almost always a benefit, not a liability. Advances occur so rapidly that the entire technological landscape is entirely foreign to what nearly anyone could have imagined 50 years ago.

Technology is all in the use. I don't think that genetically modified crops, a deliberate genetic bottleneck, is a good idea. The science is arriving that I am right, roundup doesn't whack weeds like it used to in the midwest.

 

[proudclod229]

Here's the thing: humans have polluted the earth--pretty badly.

But the temperature is not rising at an alarming rate...not by anyone's calculus.

Personally, I think that nuclear testing is the #1 source of pollution in the world.

Though I'm supposed to use shitty cfl lightbulbs with mercury in em to save the earth. Yeah right.

Edison's main competitor had a lightbulb that is still running to this day.

Gotta hate planned obselecence.

 

[presence]

Edison's main competitor had a lightbulb light-emitting-heating element that is still running to this day.

..

 

[Natural Citizen]

Here's the thing: humans have polluted the earth--pretty badly.

I think it's just silly for men to place themselves upon some pedestal as if they are so relevant in the larger scheme of things. They're just a speck. Not even that. The cosmos is not in any way political. Men are political. In fact, they have made a science of it in and of itself. Which is what this poll is. Is political science.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

That said, pollution is harmful to our environment, and the market should absolutely look into cleaner resources (natural gas, solar, wind, nuclear, etc).

They would have anyways. With or without Chu's selective subsidies. How many millions did Solyndra end up with, anyways? Probably enough to make it billions, though I can't rightly remember.

I do remember that Rand Paul ripped Chu a new one though.

 

[Kelly.]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.

 

[Dr.3D]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.

Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

 

[Sola_Fide]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

yes humans have an effect on the environment (good and bad). to think otherwise is to view humans separate from nature.

human caused warming implies there is only one cause which i disagree with. but to think that humans have no control over the environment is very close minded imo.

When Mount St. Helens erupted, it spewed out more dangerous gasses than the entire history of industrialized man.

 

[compromise]

I do believe in human-caused climate change, but I don't believe it's significant enough to be of any concern.

 

[bolil]

I am more concerned with the biosphere. Humans do have a knack for wiping out other species and trees...

 

[Kelly.]

Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

When Mount St. Helens erupted, it spewed out more dangerous gasses than the entire history of industrialized man.

so are you saying the gases released from your cars inefficient engine, somehow do not absorb heat?

i didnt say climate change (read: a changing climate) is solely man made, but to think you have no effect is wrong imo.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What is really screwing up things are all of the newly formed companies spraying aluminum into the atmosphere based upon all of the hype from this political science. So...to that effect, everyone making the political argument for or against this political charade are part of that problem. Cripes, only a fraction of the suns rays even make it to Earth now. This creates havoc in the natural cycles of the environment. They can only continue this practice as long as the politicos maintain the false paradigm for or against the man made narrative.

Here are a few. I'm sure one can find many more out there. These companies exist and wreck the natural cycle of Earth because of the arguments we see here. These arguments create the demand.

http://www.wtwma.com
http://www.weathermodification.com
http://www.naiwmc.org/
http://www.just-clouds.com/

 

[brooks009]

Yep, those gases do about as much to the atmosphere as pissing into an Olympic size swimming pool changes it's salinity.

Good example, but its not 1 person its 700 people pissing in the pool and the waters starting to look yellow. We have 7 billion people in the world and its starting to have an affect on the environment.

 

[Neil Desmond]

This proves to me that you are absolutely clueless and have no business even asking such questions. Much less delegating the rules of the cosmos. Nature is full of "wiggly" things. And so are you. So are the cosmos. That's about as dumbed down as I can put it but I'm comfortable that others laughing at the poll understand what I mean.

I'll ask what I damn well please & I don't care what something proves to you about me, because I'm not what matters; whether we're really causing damage and destruction to the planet, or are being scammed into believing such a thing when it's not true (to make the super wealthy and powerful more wealthy and more powerful, while the rest of us get more and more oppressed), is what does matter. Yes, for every action there is an equal or greater reaction; but there is also something called a feedback process.

By the way, you're not the first person to try the I'm going to try to spark an emotional reaction from this guy by attempting to portray him as a very dumb individual with my "I'm dumbing it down for you as much as I can" ad hom causal fallacy attack on me on this forum; but it's even more entertaining than before because it reveals your ignorance (yes, it can be bliss) about me - especially because the other person had just tried it within the past couple weeks. I'm also amused at how you tried to create the illusion of a nonexistent group of people laughing at the pitiful misportrayal of a question that has absolutely nothing wrong with it.

PS: If I'm wrong about something, just bring it up and point it out. Not only do I not mind being shown that I'm wrong, I will appreciate it being brought up with something that shows how or why I'm wrong. What I don't have much use for is being told things like I'm clueless, dumb, this, that - whatever, without being provided with something to help me take corrective action.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

so are you saying the gases released from your cars inefficient engine, somehow do not absorb heat?

i didnt say climate change (read: a changing climate) is solely man made, but to think you have no effect is wrong imo.

How much of an effect do you personally believe it to be?

I am of the belief that it is so minute when compared to natural causes that it borders on absurd. I don't think clean energy is going to drastically change anything in the long run. (with regards to our changing climate) It should be explored by private companies, not subsidized to the politically connected. With all of the billions floating around, there is incentive to skew some studies, or to flatout lie. Some companies have a very large stake in us going green.

 

[Dr.3D]

Good example, but its not 1 person its 700 people pissing in the pool and the waters starting to look yellow. We have 7 billion people in the world and its starting to have an affect on the environment.

Well, if you want to look at it that way, then we have to look at it as all those people pissing in the ocean and changing it's salinity. Yeah, it changes a little.

 

[erowe1]

the internal combustion engine powering my car is no more that 40% efficient.
the gases that engine doesnt burn are releases into the biosphere, those same gases absorb and hold heat. i wonder why so many people cant grasp this concept

On the assumption that the fuel that engine burns comes from what were once living plants and animals, the release of those gases to the atmosphere is just sending them back to where they came from.

 

[CTRattlesnake]

AGW is incredibly complex and unless you have a PHD in Atmospheric physics you shouldnt be lecturing anyone (looks at every politician)


There is still a heated debate in the scientific community about this, and the short answer is that no one is really 100% certain.