It is scientifically proven that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes, are major contributors to climate change.
This poll should not be even necessary outside the US, I guess.
Yes, but will the billions being spent on "green initiatives" make a real difference?
Are the initiatives supported by scientific studies and have the support of the best experts on the field? then it is much more than just likely that they will help.
That's a loaded question. I feel there is natural climate change, aggravated or accelerated by human activity.
Climate change when talking about the current crisis is not about just any change in climate at geological rates but a sudden exaggerated change produced by human activity that can be measured even year by year. It is like considering "do bacterial infections produce high temperatures?" a loaded question because the body have higher and lower temperatures during the day.
Of course no, our influence is by far overrated or at least marginally insignificant. Although there always has been massive climate change, let's take as examples the vegetation during the dinosaurs era or that the Grand canyon was formed by huge rivers etc, since existence of humans and still nowadays the climate is changing only very moderate and only within a narrow bandwidth, and among those few changes, our influence or the influence from a few industrialized areas is nearly zero or not measurable in the sense of assigning the small bandwidth changes to certain human or economic activities.
When it comes to respecting the Earth, the environment, and the gift of everything this beautiful world naturally offers. As human beings we can't wait for usless entities like countries to do something about this problem. We must empower ourselves to respect this Earth and treasure its beauity because its the only place we have. Be empowered and take things into your own hands and show respect for the world around you!
I find those who don’t are generally motivated by politics. It also found its way onto the hymn sheet of conspiracy theorists who will believe anything they are told.
I find those who don’t are generally motivated by politics. It also found its way onto the hymn sheet of conspiracy theorists who will believe anything they are told.
Typical globalist drivel - accuse anyone who questions the climate agenda of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ while ignoring the real conspiracy: the elites exploiting climate change to push their authoritarian control. You’re the one parroting the ‘hymn sheet’ handed down by unelected bureaucrats and billionaires who profit from fear-mongering and green scams like carbon taxes. Open your eyes: the climate cult isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about enslaving the people under a globalist system that crushes freedom and destroys economies.
Actual intelligent people are environmentalists, not green energy cultists.
Are the initiatives supported by scientific studies and have the support of the best experts on the field? then it is much more than just likely that they will help.
Yes, but is it cost effective or are we spending billions to make a tiny irrelevant change?
Money that could be better spent moving people who live in areas that are going to flood etc.
Jay, like it. let's go for banning jet fighters, massive war marine vessels, highly polluting one-way missiles, and not least mutiple communication satellite launches... plus space travelling tourist (elitist). that would improve the environment.
while ignoring the real conspiracy: the elites exploiting climate change to push their authoritarian control.
Except of course that isn't happening. It's exactly the "elites" that are questioning the scientific consensus, it's exactly the "elites" that are dragging their feet in implementing measures to reduce carbon emissions, it's the elites that push for oil and gas over renewable energy sources.
Except of course that isn't happening. It's exactly the "elites" that are questioning the scientific consensus, it's exactly the "elites" that are dragging their feet in implementing measures to reduce carbon emissions, it's the elites that push for oil and gas over renewable energy sources.
Nope. Oil and gas is literally the lifeblood of the middle and lower classes - it's the only option powering affordable transportation, heating homes, and driving the industries that provide real jobs for real people and actual economic stability.
And while the average person struggles with skyrocketing energy costs and forced lifestyle changes, your green overlords profit off from climate alarmism and virtue-signal their way to even more power.
When it comes to respecting the Earth, the environment, and the gift of everything this beautiful world naturally offers. As human beings we can't wait for usless entities like countries to do something about this problem. We must empower ourselves to respect this Earth and treasure its beauity because its the only place we have. Be empowered and take things into your own hands and show respect for the world around you!
I agree with everything you wrote, and I realize that humans have been messing up the environment. But I doubt that we have had any significant impact on the world's climate. And I very much doubt any of the measures that are being followed or considered will accomplish anything except making a few people richer, and further messing up the environment.
Of course no, our influence is by far overrated or at least marginally insignificant
The best scientists on the field are a much more reliable source of information and they completely contradict you, unless you can refute them with evidence that would mean you are mistaken.
Typical globalist drivel - accuse anyone who questions the climate agenda of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ while ignoring the real conspiracy:
When your excuse is a conspiracy that you can't prove because supposedly includes every institutions of science in the whole world there is nothing wrong with calling that a conspiracy theorist, that is what the term means, unless you have evidence that disprove the scientists then this is as correct as the conspiracy that hides the flat earth or that the planet is only 6000 years old as the creationists defend.
Yes, but is it cost effective or are we spending billions to make a tiny irrelevant change?
Again, Are the initiatives supported by scientific studies and have the support of the best experts on the field? then it is much more than just likely that they will help.
Which measures that the experts support are unrealistic? what evidence do you have to prove this is the case?
But I doubt that we have had any significant impact on the world's climate
The best scientists on the field are sure beyond any reasonable doubt and can prove it, the uninformed, evidence lacking opinion of nameless people on the internet saying the contrary is not exactly a counter argument. Some will doubt microbes exists, that would not make infections less real.
your green overlords profit off from climate alarmism and virtue-signal their way to even more power.
But who are they exactly, these overlords? And which ones have power and are getting even more? And who's closer to the elites, the "green overlords" or the oil companies?
But I doubt that we have had any significant impact on the world's climate.
Read up, there is no question that humans do have a significant impact on the world's climate.
And that, folks, is how you write a totally biased question. Hilarious.
How about this: I acknowledge that the climate is always changing, and has been since Day 1. I acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming. However, I also know that:
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emitted by human activity is at the most 5% of this 0.04%, which means that it is highly unlikely that our CO2 emissions could possibly be driving climate change.
The whole issue has become so politicised that it is now impossible to even ask questions about the anthropogenic warming theory without being labelled a 'denier'. Even eminent scientists like Richard Lindzen have been smeared or ignored for decades.
In view of the above, I would say that the whole issue is still open, and that we should approach the fashionable theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming with scepticism.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emitted by human activity is at the most 5% of this 0.04%, which means that it is highly unlikely that our CO2 emissions could possibly be driving climate change.
Carbon dioxide has increase by 50% since the industrial revolution. If I increase the spice in your food by 50%, you start to notice it.
And that, folks, is how you write a totally biased question. Hilarious.
It is as biased as asking if your acknowledge the reality of microbe caused infections, scientifically both things are about the same degree of settled, without any rational doubt remaining.
How about this
So you think terribly obvious information that every first year student of climatic science somehow have eluded the best experts of the world? and you think this premise is believable?
How about you bring a proper scientific rebuttal of the scientific papers that demonstrate beyond any credible criticism that you are mistaken? reducing the discussion to highschool level arguments only helps demonstrating you could not do anything against what the scientists of the world can easily demonstrate.
The whole issue has become so politicised that it is now impossible to even ask questions about the anthropogenic warming theory without being labelled a 'denier'.
Asking the same questions that have been repeatedly debunked is a valid reason to call people deniers, pretending the science of climate change is being conducted at elementary levels (ignoring the actual evidence in order to keep repeating the questions) is evidence that the person is actively rejecting the answers that don't fit what this person find s acceptable, thus becoming a denier.
In view of the above, I would say that the whole issue is still open
Making an appeal to your own authority in the field is not valid from an anonymous account, specially when the actual scientific authorities explicitly say the issue is already demonstrated and can show the evidence to prove it.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emitted by human activity is at the most 5% of this 0.04%, which means that it is highly unlikely that our CO2 emissions could possibly be driving climate change.
> Carbon dioxide has increase by 50% since the industrial revolution. If I increase the spice in your food by 50%, you start to notice it.
If human activity accounts for at most 5% of CO2 emissions, how could it possibly cause a 50% increase?
If human activity accounts for at most 5% of CO2 emissions, how could it possibly cause a 50% increase?
The falsehood comes from the claim that human activity accounts for 5% of CO2 emissions. This false claim comes exclusively from antiscientific groups trying to mislead the public.
CO2 levels before humans began mass-burning of fossil fuels, which the graphic calls “natural” levels, were around 278 ppm (0.028%), not the claimed figure of 0.0384% (384 ppm), according to the IPCC, opens new tab
and Chris Brierley, a professor in climate science at University College London.
Human activities are responsible for this 50% increase of around 142 ppm (0.0142%), Paulo Ceppi, a senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London, and Simone Alin, supervisory oceanographer at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and affiliate associate professor at the University of Washington School of Oceanography, told Reuters.
Scientist say that humans are the main contributor to climate change. So Human are not the cause meaning if you take human out of the equation the earth climate will still change but not so fast.
"Do you acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change?"
Very interesting and thought provoking question, but here is the deal as long as we "humans" keeps on living in inquity, cutting emissions and / or any other measures we take are in vain. And as long as we keep on ignoring the earth and it's entirely as a living being/ thing we will never be able to resolve/ solve the worsening global condition on climate change.
If human activity accounts for at most 5% of CO2 emissions, how could it possibly cause a 50% increase?
The falsehood comes from the claim that human activity accounts for 5% of CO2 emissions. This false claim comes exclusively from antiscientific groups trying to mislead the public.
Indeed the original poster's post is incorrect. Human activity accounts for closer to 3% of CO2 emissions and thats being generous. It is universally acknowledged by the scientific community .
Now.
You must first explain why and how 97% of the natural CO2 emissions is not to blame for your supposed ecological disaster.
AND
You must also explain away why CO2 which greens the earth, is a bad thing.
Nope. Oil and gas is literally the lifeblood of the middle and lower classes - it's the only option powering affordable transportation, heating homes, and driving the industries that provide real jobs for real people and actual economic stability.
And while the average person struggles with skyrocketing energy costs and forced lifestyle changes, your green overlords profit off from climate alarmism and virtue-signal their way to even more power.
Nope. Oil and gas is literally the lifeblood of the middle and lower classes - it's the only option powering affordable transportation, heating homes, and driving the industries that provide real jobs for real people and actual economic stability.
And while the average person struggles with skyrocketing energy costs and forced lifestyle changes, your green overlords profit off from climate alarmism and virtue-signal their way to even more power.
I second that.
I third (?) it.
climate alarmism is a luxury belief by westerners to look good to their friends and neighbors.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it will mean the deaths of millions in the 3rd world.
No, it will mean transportation, electricity and heating are powered by the sun and wind mainly. Solar is already much cheaper than fossil fuels for many applications, which is why it's expanding so rapidly even in conservative states like Texas. You guys are still stuck in the 20th century.
I third (?) it.
climate alarmism is a luxury belief by westerners to look good to their friends and neighbors.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it will mean the deaths of millions in the 3rd world.
This question should be addressed to the top 4 most pollutant countries in the world: China, India, Russia and USA.
I'm very curious of their answers.
As for the fossil fuels, they will never go away as much as you try out alternative and expensive energy sources. Why? Simple. ALL of the plastic products and plastic in general, oils, paints, asphalt, all synthetic materials, fibers, etc, all are made from processed Petroleum or extracted crude oil.
Do you think your fully electric car is not polluting? Just remember that those batteries weight half of the car and are made of very toxic materials. plus, not really recyclable.
Anyone who has taken a drive through the Japanese countryside has seen the disgusting assault committed against what was recently pristine mountainous areas - with solar panel farms. What happens to all these inefficient panels you ask?
"Ever- increasing solar panel waste.
They last 10-15 years, and the all the panels we're so proud of now will have to be handled at high cost.
Indeed the original poster's post is incorrect. Human activity accounts for closer to 3% of CO2 emissions and thats being generous
A reference with a scientific authority clearly proves this claim is completely false, repeating it do not make it less so, if anything it helps demonstrating how baseless it is.
You must also explain away why CO2 which greens the earth, is a bad thing
You are still trying to pretend the scientific consensus does not exist and that the scientific conclusions come from nameless people on the internet, it is obviously not the case.
What scientific report do you have to contradict the scientists?
I mean, googling the question itself provides appropiate answers
And that is even without mentioning that the effects on climate itself (not only plant growth) are enough to greatly offset any potential benefit, when people no longer are able to procure water for crops, have to deal with much more destructive floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, etc. That is enough to objectively qualify the changes as negative.
Ah! I see where you went wrong, wallace. About subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
You were lied to.
"Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels."
For the past 1 million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as inferred from various proxy data, has fluctuated but has never been above 300ppm. Since the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), it has gone up without fail, and is now about 420 ppm. Basic science tells you the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more warming there is. Where do people think the CO2 comes from?
The problem I have with certain governments is that they're all about virtue signalling and expected the poorer nations to do all the suffering and hard work. One particular country has historically emitted more CO2 than China, and yet accuses China of over-capacity when it comes to EVs and solar panels. Two-faced.
For the past 1 million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as inferred from various proxy data, has fluctuated but has never been above 300ppm. Since the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), it has gone up without fail, and is now about 420 ppm
False.
CO2 was once higher than 5000 ppm, and life thrived during many millions of years.
Today, many people work in greenhouses with 1000 ppm CO2with zero negative affects.
Submariners live for months with CO2 up to 7000 ppm.
The leftists, in all their wisdom, shut down their industry. They literally de-industrialized (committed economic suicide) and outsourced it to the 3rd world who picked up the slack by burning record amounts of coal.
For this to be actually false you would have to prove CO2 over 5000 ppm at any point on the last 1 million years, which is what the text you quoted explicitly says.
You can't? that means it is your correction the one that is false and irrelevant, while the quoted text is perfectly correct.
and life thrived during many millions of years.
Not human life as we know it, and since the actual experts on the field predict extremely disastrous consequences to civilization by the changes you still have zero arguments to refute the consensus of science, no evidence just false claims.
See? it was this easy to make it clear you had no evidence of your own claim and that the text you said was false was perfectly correct, you even make the point to reply to concede you were wrong.
Why would I provide such specific data if it were not true?
You cannot refute it because it is factual. And therefore your entire religion is........false.
(and lets not get into the insulting claim that scientific consensus exists on anything. I care too much about the discipline to even hear it)
Why would I provide such specific data if it were not true?
You called the claim in a quoted text false, then failed to prove it with any data, you are recognizing it was yours the claim that was false.
You cannot refute it because it is factual.
No, it is not you could not find any source that proved that CO2 was at levels over 5000ppm on the last one million years. That means that when you called this claim false you instead was the one claiming something false.
and lets not get into the insulting claim that scientific consensus exists on anything
It does, even if that contradicts your personal beliefs about something, there is a scientific consensus that microbes cause infections, that the heart pumps blood, and that human activity causes climate change.
Repeating your personal belief do not make it less mistaken, you still have not refuted the consensus with any actual data, even for this specific claim you made and could not support.
No. We’re in an ice age still. Things will eventually warm up, humans or no humans
That is not correct at all, climatic change (as the current crisis) is about changes that can be observed even year with year, not over millions, this is caused by human action without room for any reasonable doubt. It is also innegable that it will bring disastrous consequences to human life.
That is not correct at all, climatic change (as the current crisis) is about changes that can be observed even year with year, not over millions, this is caused by human action without room for any reasonable doubt. It is also innegable that it will bring disastrous consequences to human life
completely false and without a shred of credibility.
-4
(
+4
/
-8
)
Moderator
dutch and virusrex, please stop bickering on this thread. Please take a break for at least a couple of hours.
energy storage and distribution investment is key to making the next big push for renewable energy. sustainable farming without the need for chemicals and keeping big business from owning/controlling water supplies.
completely false and without a shred of credibility.
The NASA is a much better source of information than nameless people on the internet and they support this claim
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
*The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. *
*...widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.*
Without any evidence that the NASA declarations are "completely false" and "without a shred of credibility" the claims you make lack any weight, climate change is happening at much higher rates than what would be expected naturally.
Interestingly, the crossover of those who do not believe in human-induced Climate Change and also believe in various Covid conspiracies is 99 percent. Yep - it's the very same folks!
Interestingly, the crossover of those who do not believe in human-induced Climate Change and also believe in various Covid conspiracies is 99 percent. Yep - it's the very same folks!
Deliberately over-simplified question set up to demonize any mind seeking a more sophisticated answer to an extremely complex issue. Straight out of the dying lefts playbook. Keep it up guys. Keep damaging all of your own causes. You want an easy target to demonize, and there lies the problem. So yeah, NO!
Deliberately over-simplified question set up to demonize any mind seeking a more sophisticated answer to an extremely complex issue.
There is no "sophistication" that would make the question invalid, climate change is real and it is caused by humans, it is very easy to see how this is the case the moment you could not come up with any actual argument that would make the question over-simplified.
Virus , so by acknowledging it you are solving it?
Sure, we all know it's changing and yes man has had a lot to do with it......and?
I suggest it's a meaningless question, one deliberately set up to trap or polarize people and then of course make those delightful souls who are a force for good in the world ( gag) feel virtuous and pat themselves on the back for doing absolutely nothing. Bravo.
The usual empty stuff. Now if it were a question on possible solutions and options on the table, that could be a worthy discussion. Instead, we prefer to chirp this noise.
Interestingly, the crossover of those who do not believe in human-induced Climate Change and also believe in various Covid conspiracies is 99 percent. Yep - it's the very same folks!
This does NOT strengthen the man-made global warming hypothesis.
Virus , so by acknowledging it you are solving it?
What part of the question makes you think this is false.
I suggest it's a meaningless question
People find interesting to see how many others can be in denial of clear scientific evidence. It is the same as aking "do you acknowledge that microbes exists" or "...the heart pumps blood?" except for the part that there are a considerable segment of the population that is being manipulated to be in denial of this clear scientific fact, so it is much more interesting to see how much people are in this group.
one deliberately set up to trap or polarize people and then of course make those delightful souls who are a force for good in the world ( gag) feel virtuous and pat themselves on the back for doing absolutely nothing. Bravo.
Again, no part of the question requires to clarify what can or is being done against the problem, and if people refuse to accept this clear scientific fact it is definitely not because of how the question is being asked, the superabundance of information that would convince anybody rational is more than enough to prove those that refuse to do it are doing it for very personal and irrational reasons, not because of one poll.
This does NOT strengthen the man-made global warming hypothesis.
The scientific facts do it, beyond any reasonable doubt. The crossover of people that hold several irrational beliefs at the same time help explaining why those people do it, for example by the explanation that people that are badly informed in one issue tend to be also in others, or a systematic anti-scientific position that is reflected in many different fields.
Unfortunately not only oil companies a lot of the current standards of human living (at least in developed countries) have caused the problem, fossil fuels are just the biggest offenders, not the only ones.
Every little bit helps but I am more worried about plastic and PFS pollution than the minimal effect we can have on climate.
The effect of humanity is not minimal, it has brought a severe crisis that will affect life on the planet to a degree that has not even been fully characterized, in comparison with plastic and PFS it is still a much greater problem.
The Climate has been changing (Hot-to-cold-to-Hot) since the beginning of time here on Earth. We humans have contributed to the changes, but are NOT the driving force behind it.
The Climate has been changing (Hot-to-cold-to-Hot) since the beginning of time here on Earth. We humans have contributed to the changes, but are NOT the driving force behind it.
For the current crisis definitely humans are the ones originating it, it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by scientist that are in consensus of this conclusion. We have been the driving force of climate change.
Why is this worded to sound like a profession of faith? Is criticism of the assumptions behind the conclusions of some climate scientists no longer allowed? If so, that is NOT science and it IS dangerous.
Why is this worded to sound like a profession of faith?
Because the issue is as defined as the germ theory of infection or the role of the heart in the circulation of blood.
Is criticism of the assumptions behind the conclusions of some climate scientists no longer allowed? If so, that is NOT science and it IS dangerous.
What criticism? endlessly repeating debunked claims even immediately after they have been debunked is not criticism. What would you think of someone that says bacteria does not exist because nobody has ever seen any? would that be criticism for you? because that is what is being tried to be used as one for climate change.
73 Comments
Login to comment
Mr Kipling
Yes, but will the billions being spent on "green initiatives" make a real difference?
nandakandamanda
That's a loaded question. I feel there is natural climate change, aggravated or accelerated by human activity.
Wasabi
It is scientifically proven that human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial processes, are major contributors to climate change.
This poll should not be even necessary outside the US, I guess.
virusrex
Are the initiatives supported by scientific studies and have the support of the best experts on the field? then it is much more than just likely that they will help.
Climate change when talking about the current crisis is not about just any change in climate at geological rates but a sudden exaggerated change produced by human activity that can be measured even year by year. It is like considering "do bacterial infections produce high temperatures?" a loaded question because the body have higher and lower temperatures during the day.
Sven Asai
Of course no, our influence is by far overrated or at least marginally insignificant. Although there always has been massive climate change, let's take as examples the vegetation during the dinosaurs era or that the Grand canyon was formed by huge rivers etc, since existence of humans and still nowadays the climate is changing only very moderate and only within a narrow bandwidth, and among those few changes, our influence or the influence from a few industrialized areas is nearly zero or not measurable in the sense of assigning the small bandwidth changes to certain human or economic activities.
藤原
When it comes to respecting the Earth, the environment, and the gift of everything this beautiful world naturally offers. As human beings we can't wait for usless entities like countries to do something about this problem. We must empower ourselves to respect this Earth and treasure its beauity because its the only place we have. Be empowered and take things into your own hands and show respect for the world around you!
wallace
Yes, since the mid-1960s.
Jimizo
Yes.
I find those who don’t are generally motivated by politics. It also found its way onto the hymn sheet of conspiracy theorists who will believe anything they are told.
Jay
Typical globalist drivel - accuse anyone who questions the climate agenda of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ while ignoring the real conspiracy: the elites exploiting climate change to push their authoritarian control. You’re the one parroting the ‘hymn sheet’ handed down by unelected bureaucrats and billionaires who profit from fear-mongering and green scams like carbon taxes. Open your eyes: the climate cult isn’t about saving the planet, it’s about enslaving the people under a globalist system that crushes freedom and destroys economies.
Actual intelligent people are environmentalists, not green energy cultists.
Mr Kipling
Yes, but is it cost effective or are we spending billions to make a tiny irrelevant change?
Money that could be better spent moving people who live in areas that are going to flood etc.
iron man
Jay, like it. let's go for banning jet fighters, massive war marine vessels, highly polluting one-way missiles, and not least mutiple communication satellite launches... plus space travelling tourist (elitist). that would improve the environment.
Great Bird
Except of course that isn't happening. It's exactly the "elites" that are questioning the scientific consensus, it's exactly the "elites" that are dragging their feet in implementing measures to reduce carbon emissions, it's the elites that push for oil and gas over renewable energy sources.
Jay
Nope. Oil and gas is literally the lifeblood of the middle and lower classes - it's the only option powering affordable transportation, heating homes, and driving the industries that provide real jobs for real people and actual economic stability.
And while the average person struggles with skyrocketing energy costs and forced lifestyle changes, your green overlords profit off from climate alarmism and virtue-signal their way to even more power.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Yes, because I have a brain.
Raw Beer
No, because I'm not a parrot.
rainyday
This:
But also this:
So its cheap but its also expensive?
Raw Beer
I agree with everything you wrote, and I realize that humans have been messing up the environment. But I doubt that we have had any significant impact on the world's climate. And I very much doubt any of the measures that are being followed or considered will accomplish anything except making a few people richer, and further messing up the environment.
Wasabi
Scientific facts do not care about opinion or poll.
virusrex
The best scientists on the field are a much more reliable source of information and they completely contradict you, unless you can refute them with evidence that would mean you are mistaken.
When your excuse is a conspiracy that you can't prove because supposedly includes every institutions of science in the whole world there is nothing wrong with calling that a conspiracy theorist, that is what the term means, unless you have evidence that disprove the scientists then this is as correct as the conspiracy that hides the flat earth or that the planet is only 6000 years old as the creationists defend.
Again, Are the initiatives supported by scientific studies and have the support of the best experts on the field? then it is much more than just likely that they will help.
Which measures that the experts support are unrealistic? what evidence do you have to prove this is the case?
The best scientists on the field are sure beyond any reasonable doubt and can prove it, the uninformed, evidence lacking opinion of nameless people on the internet saying the contrary is not exactly a counter argument. Some will doubt microbes exists, that would not make infections less real.
Great Bird
But who are they exactly, these overlords? And which ones have power and are getting even more? And who's closer to the elites, the "green overlords" or the oil companies?
Read up, there is no question that humans do have a significant impact on the world's climate.
Lord Dartmouth
And that, folks, is how you write a totally biased question. Hilarious.
How about this: I acknowledge that the climate is always changing, and has been since Day 1. I acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which causes warming. However, I also know that:
Carbon dioxide makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere emitted by human activity is at the most 5% of this 0.04%, which means that it is highly unlikely that our CO2 emissions could possibly be driving climate change.
The whole issue has become so politicised that it is now impossible to even ask questions about the anthropogenic warming theory without being labelled a 'denier'. Even eminent scientists like Richard Lindzen have been smeared or ignored for decades.In view of the above, I would say that the whole issue is still open, and that we should approach the fashionable theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming with scepticism.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Carbon dioxide has increase by 50% since the industrial revolution. If I increase the spice in your food by 50%, you start to notice it.
TaiwanIsNotChina
Maybe we can encourage MAGAs to plant trees if we tell them it is creating oil for the future.
virusrex
It is as biased as asking if your acknowledge the reality of microbe caused infections, scientifically both things are about the same degree of settled, without any rational doubt remaining.
So you think terribly obvious information that every first year student of climatic science somehow have eluded the best experts of the world? and you think this premise is believable?
How about you bring a proper scientific rebuttal of the scientific papers that demonstrate beyond any credible criticism that you are mistaken? reducing the discussion to highschool level arguments only helps demonstrating you could not do anything against what the scientists of the world can easily demonstrate.
Asking the same questions that have been repeatedly debunked is a valid reason to call people deniers, pretending the science of climate change is being conducted at elementary levels (ignoring the actual evidence in order to keep repeating the questions) is evidence that the person is actively rejecting the answers that don't fit what this person find s acceptable, thus becoming a denier.
Making an appeal to your own authority in the field is not valid from an anonymous account, specially when the actual scientific authorities explicitly say the issue is already demonstrated and can show the evidence to prove it.
Wick's pencil
If human activity accounts for at most 5% of CO2 emissions, how could it possibly cause a 50% increase?
virusrex
The falsehood comes from the claim that human activity accounts for 5% of CO2 emissions. This false claim comes exclusively from antiscientific groups trying to mislead the public.
https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/diagram-misrepresents-human-co2-contribution-its-climate-effect-2024-03-12/
John-San
Scientist say that humans are the main contributor to climate change. So Human are not the cause meaning if you take human out of the equation the earth climate will still change but not so fast.
Cephus
"Do you acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change?"
Very interesting and thought provoking question, but here is the deal as long as we "humans" keeps on living in inquity, cutting emissions and / or any other measures we take are in vain. And as long as we keep on ignoring the earth and it's entirely as a living being/ thing we will never be able to resolve/ solve the worsening global condition on climate change.
dutch
Indeed the original poster's post is incorrect. Human activity accounts for closer to 3% of CO2 emissions and thats being generous. It is universally acknowledged by the scientific community .
Now.
You must first explain why and how 97% of the natural CO2 emissions is not to blame for your supposed ecological disaster.
AND
You must also explain away why CO2 which greens the earth, is a bad thing.
Hint; it isn't.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989423004262
"CO2 make the world greener. Between 2001- to 2020 the world added many, many new leaves.
The additional leaf area is equivalent to 1.4x the area of the Contiguous United States"
DoN't believe the hype of the anti-humans. The earth is doing great.
bass4funk
I second that.
dutch
I third (?) it.
climate alarmism is a luxury belief by westerners to look good to their friends and neighbors.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it will mean the deaths of millions in the 3rd world.
fallaffel
No, it will mean transportation, electricity and heating are powered by the sun and wind mainly. Solar is already much cheaper than fossil fuels for many applications, which is why it's expanding so rapidly even in conservative states like Texas. You guys are still stuck in the 20th century.
dutch
There is a better chance of it those being powered by unicorns.
Such as? (I can't wait to hear this one)
dutch
Luxury beliefs, Climate colonialism.
https://www.cgdev.org/blog/do-clients-want-world-bank-focus-climate
"Rich countries want climate. Poorer countries, not surprisingly, want development (the World Bank's actual task)
Surveys of 43 nations:
on average, fewer than 6% want climate as a top 3 development priority."
Luxury beliefs, climate colonialism.
DanteKH
This question should be addressed to the top 4 most pollutant countries in the world: China, India, Russia and USA.
I'm very curious of their answers.
As for the fossil fuels, they will never go away as much as you try out alternative and expensive energy sources. Why? Simple. ALL of the plastic products and plastic in general, oils, paints, asphalt, all synthetic materials, fibers, etc, all are made from processed Petroleum or extracted crude oil.
Do you think your fully electric car is not polluting? Just remember that those batteries weight half of the car and are made of very toxic materials. plus, not really recyclable.
dutch
Anyone who has taken a drive through the Japanese countryside has seen the disgusting assault committed against what was recently pristine mountainous areas - with solar panel farms. What happens to all these inefficient panels you ask?
"Ever- increasing solar panel waste.
They last 10-15 years, and the all the panels we're so proud of now will have to be handled at high cost.
This alone will double the cost of solar energy."
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00207543.2021.1990434
dutch
The USA has actually been the only country to decrease its emissions.
It is not even in the same ballpark as the other 3.
wallace
In 2022 across the world fossil fuels received subsidies of more than $7 trillion. This was equivalent to 7.1% of global GDP.
fallaffel
See here: https://www.irena.org/Publications/2024/Sep/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2023
Here: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/02/29/utility-scale-pv-cheapest-power-source-in-asia-pacific-says-woodmac/.
As just a few examples...
dutch
falafel - rather than rely on lies spewed out by the industry itself (arena.org, everyone!) lets look at the real world facts
"EU climate policy has enormous costs. Industry electricity prices have increased 70% in real terms since 2000.
EU industries now pay 2.7x the electricity price of the US (and 1.9x in China!)
EU households now pay 2x the US electricity price and 3.3x that of China!)"
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/energy-prices
Now lets look a little closer at our Asian neighbor China;
"Solar on average 2x more expensive than coal in China
— when you correctly include system costs of grid balancing and integration
New 2024 paper: “all provincial system-levelized cost of electricity of China’s PV is currently higher than local desulfurized coal electricity price”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960148124000053
Lets not waste peoples time with falsehoods from the industry. Lets keep things science-y.
dutch
alarming, wallace!
Id like to read more. Citations please.
Mickelicious
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/trillion-dollar-question-fossil-fuel-subsidies-2024-11-15/#:~:text=The%20International%20Energy%20Agency%20(IEA,at%20%24620%20billion%20in%202023.
virusrex
A reference with a scientific authority clearly proves this claim is completely false, repeating it do not make it less so, if anything it helps demonstrating how baseless it is.
You are still trying to pretend the scientific consensus does not exist and that the scientific conclusions come from nameless people on the internet, it is obviously not the case.
What scientific report do you have to contradict the scientists?
I mean, googling the question itself provides appropiate answers
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/
And that is even without mentioning that the effects on climate itself (not only plant growth) are enough to greatly offset any potential benefit, when people no longer are able to procure water for crops, have to deal with much more destructive floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, etc. That is enough to objectively qualify the changes as negative.
dutch
Ah! I see where you went wrong, wallace. About subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.
You were lied to.
"Criticizing countries like India and China (or Kiribati) for the $424 billion spent on real subsidies is unlikely to attract the attention of rich world elites. To implicate developed country governments and create outrage, the IMF adds everything that they believe should be included in the cost of fossil fuels, and say that by not including these costs in the price of fuel, countries are “subsidizing” fossil fuels."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/bjornlomborg/2020/01/17/the-imfs-huge-miscalculation-of-energy-subsidies/#7e5079594b42
wallace
Climate Change | Fossil Fuel Subsidies
https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/climate-change/energy-subsidies#:~:text=Globally%2C%20fossil%20fuel%20subsidies%20were,support%20from%20surging%20energy%20prices.
wallace
Fossil fuels receive trillions every year in subsidies. The same with nuclear energy.
Pukey2
For the past 1 million years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, as inferred from various proxy data, has fluctuated but has never been above 300ppm. Since the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850), it has gone up without fail, and is now about 420 ppm. Basic science tells you the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more warming there is. Where do people think the CO2 comes from?
The problem I have with certain governments is that they're all about virtue signalling and expected the poorer nations to do all the suffering and hard work. One particular country has historically emitted more CO2 than China, and yet accuses China of over-capacity when it comes to EVs and solar panels. Two-faced.
dutch
They don't. Its been explained.
I'm sorry they lied to you.
dutch
False.
CO2 was once higher than 5000 ppm, and life thrived during many millions of years.
Today, many people work in greenhouses with 1000 ppm CO2with zero negative affects.
Submariners live for months with CO2 up to 7000 ppm.
dutch
"2024 emissions higher than ever"
https://globalcarbonbudget.org/
The leftists, in all their wisdom, shut down their industry. They literally de-industrialized (committed economic suicide) and outsourced it to the 3rd world who picked up the slack by burning record amounts of coal.
see: Germany.
virusrex
For this to be actually false you would have to prove CO2 over 5000 ppm at any point on the last 1 million years, which is what the text you quoted explicitly says.
You can't? that means it is your correction the one that is false and irrelevant, while the quoted text is perfectly correct.
Not human life as we know it, and since the actual experts on the field predict extremely disastrous consequences to civilization by the changes you still have zero arguments to refute the consensus of science, no evidence just false claims.
dutch
Why would I provide such specific data if it were not true?
You cannot refute it because it is factual. And therefore your entire religion is........false.
(and lets not get into the insulting claim that scientific consensus exists on anything. I care too much about the discipline to even hear it)
5000ppm, Rex.
read it and.....smile.
We're all gonna be just fine.
virusrex
You called the claim in a quoted text false, then failed to prove it with any data, you are recognizing it was yours the claim that was false.
No, it is not you could not find any source that proved that CO2 was at levels over 5000ppm on the last one million years. That means that when you called this claim false you instead was the one claiming something false.
It does, even if that contradicts your personal beliefs about something, there is a scientific consensus that microbes cause infections, that the heart pumps blood, and that human activity causes climate change.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00139165221129539
Repeating your personal belief do not make it less mistaken, you still have not refuted the consensus with any actual data, even for this specific claim you made and could not support.
FizzBit
No. We’re in an ice age still. Things will eventually warm up, humans or no humans.
virusrex
That is not correct at all, climatic change (as the current crisis) is about changes that can be observed even year with year, not over millions, this is caused by human action without room for any reasonable doubt. It is also innegable that it will bring disastrous consequences to human life.
dutch
completely false and without a shred of credibility.
Moderator
dutch and virusrex, please stop bickering on this thread. Please take a break for at least a couple of hours.
KnightsOfCydonia
energy storage and distribution investment is key to making the next big push for renewable energy. sustainable farming without the need for chemicals and keeping big business from owning/controlling water supplies.
virusrex
The NASA is a much better source of information than nameless people on the internet and they support this claim
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/evidence/
*The current warming trend is different because it is clearly the result of human activities since the mid-1800s, and is proceeding at a rate not seen over many recent millennia. *
*...widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere, and biosphere have occurred.*
Without any evidence that the NASA declarations are "completely false" and "without a shred of credibility" the claims you make lack any weight, climate change is happening at much higher rates than what would be expected naturally.
Fighto!
Interestingly, the crossover of those who do not believe in human-induced Climate Change and also believe in various Covid conspiracies is 99 percent. Yep - it's the very same folks!
tora
Source?
Ricky Kaminski13
Deliberately over-simplified question set up to demonize any mind seeking a more sophisticated answer to an extremely complex issue. Straight out of the dying lefts playbook. Keep it up guys. Keep damaging all of your own causes. You want an easy target to demonize, and there lies the problem. So yeah, NO!
virusrex
There is no "sophistication" that would make the question invalid, climate change is real and it is caused by humans, it is very easy to see how this is the case the moment you could not come up with any actual argument that would make the question over-simplified.
Ricky Kaminski13
Virus , so by acknowledging it you are solving it?
Sure, we all know it's changing and yes man has had a lot to do with it......and?
I suggest it's a meaningless question, one deliberately set up to trap or polarize people and then of course make those delightful souls who are a force for good in the world ( gag) feel virtuous and pat themselves on the back for doing absolutely nothing. Bravo.
The usual empty stuff. Now if it were a question on possible solutions and options on the table, that could be a worthy discussion. Instead, we prefer to chirp this noise.
Wick's pencil
This does NOT strengthen the man-made global warming hypothesis.
virusrex
What part of the question makes you think this is false.
People find interesting to see how many others can be in denial of clear scientific evidence. It is the same as aking "do you acknowledge that microbes exists" or "...the heart pumps blood?" except for the part that there are a considerable segment of the population that is being manipulated to be in denial of this clear scientific fact, so it is much more interesting to see how much people are in this group.
Again, no part of the question requires to clarify what can or is being done against the problem, and if people refuse to accept this clear scientific fact it is definitely not because of how the question is being asked, the superabundance of information that would convince anybody rational is more than enough to prove those that refuse to do it are doing it for very personal and irrational reasons, not because of one poll.
The scientific facts do it, beyond any reasonable doubt. The crossover of people that hold several irrational beliefs at the same time help explaining why those people do it, for example by the explanation that people that are badly informed in one issue tend to be also in others, or a systematic anti-scientific position that is reflected in many different fields.
SomeWeeb
Oil company caused you mean.
Sanjinosebleed
Every little bit helps but I am more worried about plastic and PFS pollution than the minimal effect we can have on climate.
virusrex
Unfortunately not only oil companies a lot of the current standards of human living (at least in developed countries) have caused the problem, fossil fuels are just the biggest offenders, not the only ones.
The effect of humanity is not minimal, it has brought a severe crisis that will affect life on the planet to a degree that has not even been fully characterized, in comparison with plastic and PFS it is still a much greater problem.
Carl N Jpn Gcjp
The Climate has been changing (Hot-to-cold-to-Hot) since the beginning of time here on Earth. We humans have contributed to the changes, but are NOT the driving force behind it.
virusrex
For the current crisis definitely humans are the ones originating it, it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by scientist that are in consensus of this conclusion. We have been the driving force of climate change.
Anonymous
Why is this worded to sound like a profession of faith? Is criticism of the assumptions behind the conclusions of some climate scientists no longer allowed? If so, that is NOT science and it IS dangerous.
virusrex
Because the issue is as defined as the germ theory of infection or the role of the heart in the circulation of blood.
What criticism? endlessly repeating debunked claims even immediately after they have been debunked is not criticism. What would you think of someone that says bacteria does not exist because nobody has ever seen any? would that be criticism for you? because that is what is being tried to be used as one for climate change.