Yes or No: Do you believe in man made “climate change “?

let's be real here wrote:

FFF wrote:

Yes.

C02 influence on the atmosphere spiked at the start of the Industrial Revolution, and has been climbing drastically since. Sure, 7,000 volcanoes erupting simultaneously have doubtless done the same in the past, but we have clearly influenced the climate for a long time now.

You wouldn't know science from your ass

Wow, you fixed it! It's going to be 64 degrees for the marathon in Doha, and it didn't rain 5 feet on Texas. Good job!

It's absolutely bananas that Americans are still this stupid.

Perish the thought.

It’s as preposterous as suggesting that humans evolved from chimpanzee-like creatures, that the universe is billions of years old, or that there’s such a thing as a spacetime.

You know the “liberal snobs” just pretended to be concerned about things like civil rights, the Cold War, the Vietnam war, MAD, women’s equality, etc. in the 60s and 70s, but all that was just a cover for their real project of spurring under-the-radar efforts in climate science, with increasing interest in the science in the 1980s being predicated on one great hope: “In 30 or 40 years, we’re going to have us one fine power grab!” While losing elections to Reagan and Bush 1 and using their incredible power and acumen to nominate Mondale and Dukakis, the dadgummed libs were really secretly hatching a nefarious plot to encourage more and more scientists to study climate change, callously neglecting to use their crystal ball to avert HIV and the crack and opioid epidemics, multiple genocides, or 9/11, but instead fiendishly targeting a 2006 Al Gore movie as their tipping point. The pinnacle of their foresight was hinging their hopes on the actions of a not-yet-conceived 16-year-old Swedish girl. Everybody knows that the politics preceded the science on this one, and that if you don’t like the people spreading the message or the repercussions of the message, the message has to be wrong.

No

How dare you?

The consensus among climate scientists is that the current warming trend is the result of society's CO2 emissions. In fact 97+% of climate scientists agree on anthropogenic climate change.

Do you know how rare it is for 97% of scientists to agree on anything? They are argumentative pricks whose primary motivation is to publish new--which generally means contradictory--evidence and theories. You don't get tenure as a scientist for confirming the previous study, you have to discover something different and the biggest rewards come from knocking holes in well-known theories. Consider Einstein's theory of relatively. There is a steady stream of scientific papers trying to poke holes in it: maybe the speed of light varies slightly with wavelength, or neutrinos travel slightly faster than light, or quantum effects allow information to travel instantaneously, or some particle is observed to "travel backward in time." In the end most of these papers turn out to have mundane explanations (maybe experimental error was underestimated or a questionable definition of what it means for a particle to travel backward in time was used) but the point is that these papers not only get published but they get a lot of attention both inside and outside of the scientific community and the people that publish these papers get jobs and get promoted: scientists are well rewarded for publishing credible attacks on the established theory, in this case relativity, a 115 year-old theory which is one of the most accurate theories known.

Anthropogenic climate change by contrast is a far newer and less established theory. As recently as the late 90's there was still a steady current of research trying to knock holes in the theory and there were a fair number of scientists who were skeptical that warming was occurring or that it was caused by humans. As is the case with relativity, there was a huge motivation for scientists to come up with theories and evidence bucking the established theory. Fast forward to today and few skeptics remain in the climate science community. The motivations are the same, after all scientists are still trying to find exceptions to relativity, but the warming trend is now clear and the science linking it to human CO2 emissions has become very strong making it very hard to publish credible attacks on the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Interesting. Letsrun does have the reputation as the 8chan of athletics and I believe it.

trends and data wrote:

Interesting. Letsrun does have the reputation as the 8chan of athletics and I believe it.

Yeah. And over at Pinkbike - think Letsrun for mountain bike guys - there's a post today about the World Champion (mountain biking) and team mooning The White House. And this guy, the World Champion, is actually a member of the Swiss military.

And the comments are unbelievable, in that there's a threshold system on that board, and political stuff is hidden. It's refreshing to visit a place that isn't dominated by political talk, or posters who call themselves "Dems loose again," or posters saying the same thing 1000 times.

No

The planet changes, but we don't have any affect on that. Now having said that, I don't think we should kill every animal and cut down every tree, but that's not this brand of environmentalism. This is more about redistribution of wealth from rich countries to 3rd world.

The rest of the world wrote:

It's absolutely bananas that Americans are still this stupid.

Yet we run the world. And have lead the world in science, business and technology for the past 100 years or so.

You might want to rethink your level.

foo wrote:

The greenhouse gas effect is not even questioned. It causes a planet like Venus to be warmer than Mercury even though Mercury is closer to the sun.

So, the humans living on Venus are causing climate change there too?

The rest of the world wrote:

It's absolutely bananas that Americans are still this stupid.

there's no need to be emotional

a bloo bloo wrote:

The rest of the world wrote:

It's absolutely bananas that Americans are still this stupid.

there's no need to be emotional

I'm perfectly calm dude.

Ah yes, the old "science is settled so you're not allowed to question it unless you're stupid" debate tactic. It works every time: 1) Malthusian economics (we're all going to starve by 1850 because of population growth); 2) Global cooling in the 1970s (see Newsweek and Time magazines for that chuckle); 3) The ozone hole scare of the 1980s (it's closing by the way); but best of all; 4) Global Warming (they had to find a new name when the old forecasts were used as bird cage liners).

But Global warming is a keeper. They just keep announcing doomsday is xxx years away and when the date passes they have new, more dire and indisputable "settled science".

No matter how many scientists question the theory, the answer is "Nobody questions it!"

I like your conspiracy theories.

When is the world ending?

The ozone hole is closing because we collectively took the right action to prevent the damage we were doing.

Fake Science wrote:

Ah yes, the old "science is settled so you're not allowed to question it unless you're stupid" debate tactic. It works every time: 1) Malthusian economics (we're all going to starve by 1850 because of population growth); 2) Global cooling in the 1970s (see Newsweek and Time magazines for that chuckle); 3) The ozone hole scare of the 1980s (it's closing by the way); but best of all; 4) Global Warming (they had to find a new name when the old forecasts were used as bird cage liners).

But Global warming is a keeper. They just keep announcing doomsday is xxx years away and when the date passes they have new, more dire and indisputable "settled science".

No matter how many scientists question the theory, the answer is "Nobody questions it!"

+1

Yes. Of course man is changing the climate, but by how much? Nobody knows for sure. All i can say is that women are changing it at a much greater extent due to all the aerosols they release in their hairspray.

No