questionsdo you believe in global warming? if yes or no…


I believe that while we should do our best to take care of our planet... our planet can survive whatever we throw at it.

Earth has been here for millions/billions of years, it is beyond arrogant to think that we
a: can permanently affect the climate
or b: that we can measure and predict that change.
In the centuries before humanoids there were ice ages, fires, humid/hot temperate climates and continental shifts. I don't believe we are yet sophisticated enough to track, measure, and extrapolate that data into a usable format or interface.


Ok. The climate changes, yes. The ocean is indeed a gigantic carbon sink, volcanoes spew incredible amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. The climate has changed incredibly drastically over the course of time, but that has been hundreds of millions of years. The problem nowadays is that it appears that climate change is accelerating, and that we the ones doing that, since we are taking the carbon sequestered in the earth over the past billion years and spewing it into the atmosphere.

It isn't arrogant to think we can permanently affect the climate, because there are over 7 billion people on this world. There has never been such a concentration of life that produces as much carbon as we do.

Basically, yes, the climate has changed, yes, there are tons of natural events that change the climate, but we are ACCELERATING that change at an unsustainable pace. If the world is indeed naturally warming, we should be working to keep it cool, so it can be inhabitable for more generations.


I studied ecology, including, wait for it, plaeobiogeography and got to hear many perspectives on the issue from different PhDs in different fields. I don't want to get into a heated discussion, but we do know today that over the 4 billion years the Earth has existed it has cycled through drastic climate changes. On the other hand, there are some inconsistencies with the event we are seeing now that seem to correlate with human resource use. For example, the event we see today, the rate at which the ocean is rising, ice caps are melting and CO2 is building up is much faster than what we know about previous cycles.

Even the experts in the field argue over this, and we all need to realize that 99% of us will never have the full picture. And you certainly aren't going to get the full picture off the nightly news or from a politician's mouth. It is intensely, vastly more complicated than the witty banter we hear from lobbyist-in-their-pocket candidates (and I mean from BOTH sides).


Climate change exists. If you trust your history lessons, trust that. Changing climate can annihilate species. If you trust your history lessons, trust that. Some species survived catastrophic changes in the planet by altering their habits of living. If you trust your history lessons, trust that.

You've heard the phrase, "those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it".

The question, that needs not be asked, is do you want to be the species that lives or dies? The species that adapts or doesn't?

Did mankind hasten the coming of a climate change? I don't know. Does mankind have the power, now, to prevent climate change? Probably not. Is it worth taking every possible step to try? Hell yes.


Yep, I believe there is a global climate change happening.
Subtle? Perhaps, but it is measurable and statistically valid.
Are the changes significant? I believe so, based on the data.

Can we prove what is the "cause"?
That's tougher because the root causes may involve many inter-related forces, including solar output and geologic cycles. But I agree humanity has an impact.

I think that science is making some valid predictions and if we have a chance to alter our actions, it just seems logical to consider it. Better to enact changes now (which will be slow to implement) and measure the effects with time rather than discover ironclad evidence of catastrophe after a tipping point is passed.

Whatever we do, trying to stay in balance with the ecology seems a sane choice, whatever the science. As it is, we rarely consider the true cost of our actions because global impacts are hard to judge individually.


Absolutely not. Right now, "global warming" is a bandwagon phenomenon, put on the a highly misinformed and grossly under-qualified, Al Gore.

When you look at what many experts have to say, like David Bromwich, scientist at the Byrd Polar Research Center, you find that most Americans are just jumping on a bandwagon of only a percentage of over-zealous scientists. I don't buy it.
The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available - there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.


@dmaz: Why downvote someone because their opinion differs? I didn't downvote anyone who said they believed in global warming...silly


@dmaz: We may only have literal temperature data from the past 160 years or so, but we have plenty of other accurate means of approximating much, much older temperatures through geologic and chemical methods.

And the controversy about global warming extends far before Al Gore got in the spotlight. Scientists over the past few decades have been putting forth evidence that the climate has been warming, Al Gore just brings more attention because he's closer to the media than the scientific community.


@xandertrax: You're right, I was unfounded in that. Your argument about Al Gore is true. Nonetheless, Gore's arguments are not sound at all, when you compare them to critiques of contemporary scientists. I just want to see some hard empirical evidence, that definitively points to global warming to the degree that there is a fuss being made about it. I haven't seen such, so as to be that convincing...


Weren't they predicting an ice age a few years ago???


The invention of the internet was the event that spurred this snowball global warming


@thumperchick: For some reason your post stuck with me as I was driving to work this morning. It is beyond arrogant to think that we can permanently affect the climate... Is that really so ignorant?

Is it ignorant to think that rapid deforestation can impact the planet? Is it ignorant to think that the chemicals in our waste, right down to household cleaners, can cause vast devastation? We know both these cause devastation to local ecosystems. Why is it ignorant to think it can devastate the global ecosystem? Local devastation does, in fact, span every continent of the globe. Systems which took millions of years to develop destroyed with extraordinary speed. Is it ignorant to believe this is a problem?

We have created disease, by shortsighted selfish practices. We are good at causing death in new, innovative ways.

However, you are right. The change may not be permanent. A few million years of an uninhabitable earth might just patch the problem. We won't be around to find out.


@gregorylikescheapstu: I never used the word ignorant. I said arrogant. they are different. I also said that we should do what we can to care for our planet - that encompasses stopping the waste dumping, stripping natural resources, etc. I simply made the point that in comparison to a planet that has housed an unknown number of lifeforms, throughout millions of years and through innumerable circumstances - we are arrogant to think that within a hundred years we have managed to permanently damage the weather patterns. That doesn't mean we should continue to be wasteful.