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.
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.
Last edited:
