Poll: Do you believe in global warming?

[KiKiweaky]

Believe doesn't come into it I'm afraid its a fact and I have seen people saying that its only less than a degree its nothing is another crock that small variation could be the difference between a lake or river freezing over or not

 

[Vigormortis]

Global warming is absolutely happening and there is no dispute that the earth is on average getting warmer.

Yes and no.

I absolutely agree that there is a clear indication of an incline in the average temperature, globally. However, it isn't quite as definitive over the course of the last two centuries, given the lack of accuracy and availability of good data, globally, one hundred or two hundred years ago.

Even so, there is a clear warming trend today.

The only argument is whether it is due to natural causes or man, and the vast majority of scientists believe it is due to artificial activity.

This is really the sticking point. Global climate change is undeniably taking place. And, unless something shifts in the near future (or further data proves otherwise) it's clearly trending up. The only question is, "Why?"

As it stand, most would say the culprit is human activity. Citing such things as greenhouse emissions and the like. Others would argue it's likely natural causes.

I believe it's a combination of both. That we may simply be exacerbating a natural, cyclic change in Earths environment.

But even then, it's not that simple. As a recent study by the UKs own Meteorological Service has found, the recent increase in North Atlantic storm severity may actually be due, in part, to having cleaner air above that part of the ocean.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/science/earth/air-pollution-may-have-suppressed-storms-research-suggests.html?_r=0

Even with these findings, which are still being studied, things still aren't clear cut. There is still a LOT we don't yet understand about our planets environment. So, while it is most assuredly indisputable that global climate change is a real thing, that it is trending towards temperature increases today, and that humanity is likely contributing to it, there is still a massive amount of study and research left to be done before we can say anything definitively.

As was stated in the article, by the lead of the research group at Britains Meteorological Service, "Dr. Dunstone emphasized not only that more work needed to be done, but that his group?s finding was no reason to stop cleaning up the air. Pollution has severe effects on human health and the environment, and the clean air laws are believed to have saved many lives."

Even if global warming was false, we're facing a pretty serious fuel crisis in 50 years once the shale gas runs out. The best time to transition to a renewable economy is when energy is cheap and it doesn't cost a lot to make solar panels, wind turbines, etc. The benefits of energy independence alone are enough to change our lifestyle, even if we don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.

Absolutely. This is why we need members of the energy conglomerates to band together and put some serious funding into experimental fuel/energy sources.

That way, some day soon, we can all have one of these:

 

[Fleaman]

Fact: The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles.

Fact: Each time this happens, everything goddamn dies.

It doesn't matter whether or not humanity caused it. No one's trying to make humanity stand in the corner and think about what it's done. If we're all basically agreeing that "it's happening" and "greenhouse emissions aren't fixing it", then why are we arguing at all? Bobby, I don't care that it wasn't your fault, Suzy needs to go to a hospital either goddamn way, right goddamn now.

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Do I believe in global warming, yes. Do I believe that humans are a contributing factor, yes. Do I believe we should severely damage our economy, hinder human advancement, and massively raise the price of energy by shutting down coal/oil/etc. production to fight some prophesied doomsday, no.

The problem is that belief in global warming is inexorably linked to a very radical (and harmful) environmental agenda. Either you acknowledge global warming as real, and therefore support the agenda, or you deny the existence of global warming despite all scientific facts that say otherwise.

I don't think there are really people out there that don't believe in global warming. I think many people just say its they don't believe it because they don't want to get roped into supporting the radical environmental agenda that goes with it.

 

[Eddie the head]

Considering how much energy the sun bombards us with every day, I'm going to say it's pretty arrogant to think that man is the only cause of global warming. The fact is, we've been on this earth for such a short time, and even shorter is our ability to measure and catalog data about its temperature. There is no way to tell if what we are measuring is truly our fault.

I'm quite certain we did cause some damage at some point though. The ozone layer and CFC's being something completely provable.

EDIT: I forgot to point out how I also don't trust agendas with a lot of cash behind them. I remember Penn and Teller doing an episode on going green. Al Gore's motives behind the movie was hardly for the sake of the planet. Also, the episode lead with reading an excerpt from a magazine talking about the dangers and current effects of the warming, and how it all spelt certain and impending doom just over the horizon. They then revealed the article was written in the 70's, pointing out how these alarmist discussions have been around for decades, and we really aren't worse for wear.

Edit 2:

Found the episode on youtube

Spoiler

The crazies they find in the episode are a fun addition, but their retardation isn't swaying me in the opposite direction. I'm mostly interested in that chart near the beginning.

The fact you consider it arrogant, and the fact Al Gore might have an agenda has no baring on how truthful it is. If you don't believe it fine, but those are two fallacious arguments against it. They have no barring on it's truthfulness.

 

[Platypus540]

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question here. It's not whether global warming is happening, it's whether global warming is a natural occurrence or the result of human activity.

The big problem here is that there are no temperature models that can handle that global warming right now is natural occurrence. We're talking statistic disproving. Disbelievers can live comfy thinking that there's a 1% chance humans aren't roasting the planet, but I'm not.

Haha I think you misunderstood my post. I do think that humans are causing (or at least accelerating) global warming, I was just clarifying what the argument is. In retrospect I probably should have included my opinion.

 

[MCerberus]

I'm afraid you're asking the wrong question here. It's not whether global warming is happening, it's whether global warming is a natural occurrence or the result of human activity.

The big problem here is that there are no temperature models that can handle that global warming right now is natural occurrence. We're talking statistic disproving. Disbelievers can live comfy thinking that there's a 1% chance humans aren't roasting the planet, but I'm not.

Haha I think you misunderstood my post. I do think that humans are causing (or at least accelerating) global warming, I was just clarifying what the argument is. In retrospect I probably should have included my opinion.

Yah, I caught that and edited out some plural 'you's to not assume your point of view.

 

[Dinasis]

...

Well, if we're going to be using Wikipedia as a legitimate source...

The Gore Effect is a term used with various meanings relating to the former Vice President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In one use, the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and meetings associated with global warming,[1] with particular emphasis on events attended by Gore.[1][2][3][4][5] The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13]

Gotta love the irony. Anyhow, assuming the term "Global Warming" to have the more colloquial meaning of an average global temperature increase caused by human activity (as opposed to an increase in the average global temperature due to any causes), I answer this poll with a resounding no. As to the topic of climate change, I have no doubt that it exists, but I believe it is less a matter of what we do with our advancing technology and more to do with the cycles of our planet, our local star, and perhaps with our local galactic neighborhood.

We always look to statistics for a matter like this, because that's the only way we can really observe the patterns. We don't exactly have any living person around who has been living in the same area for the past two hundred years to tell us if things are hotter or colder now than they were then, so we rely on aggregate data. If there's anything I learned about statistics from my two data analysis classes, it's that a) Minitab is a lot easier to work with than doing crap by hand and b) you can make statistics say anything you want. A lot of that comes down to what you disclose about your results and both what data you include and what outliers you omit.

Regardless whether you think it's global warming alarmists or critics who are fudging their data, the real problem is this:

Spoiler: The classic Global Average Temperature vs Number of Pirates chart

[/spoiler]

Yes, I see the irony of using this chart while making any sort of argument against global warming, but the point is correlation does not imply causation. And to highlight some Wikipedia text:

[QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation ]Correlation does not imply causation is [i][b]a phrase used in science and statistics[/b][/i] to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] [i][b]Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables[/b][/i]. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
The counter assumption, that [i][b]correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy[/b][/i] in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").[/QUOTE]

Anyhow, moving back a topic, I think that it's very little to do with humanity and more to do with cycles because of things like this:

[QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages ]The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen [b][i]cycles of glaciation[/i][/b] with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. [i][b]The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago[/b][/i]. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.[/QUOTE]

 

[MeisterKleister]

...

Well, if we're going to be using Wikipedia as a legitimate source...

The Gore Effect is a term used with various meanings relating to the former Vice President of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Al Gore. In one use, the term is a humorous concept suggesting a causal relationship between unseasonable cold weather phenomena and meetings associated with global warming,[1] with particular emphasis on events attended by Gore.[1][2][3][4][5] The phrase has also been used to describe Gore's impact in raising global warming as a public issue,[6][7][8][9] and in other ways related to Al Gore.[10][11][12][13]

Gotta love the irony. Anyhow, assuming the term "Global Warming" to have the more colloquial meaning of an average global temperature increase caused by human activity (as opposed to an increase in the average global temperature due to any causes), I answer this poll with a resounding no. As to the topic of climate change, I have no doubt that it exists, but I believe it is less a matter of what we do with our advancing technology and more to do with the cycles of our planet, our local star, and perhaps with our local galactic neighborhood.

We always look to statistics for a matter like this, because that's the only way we can really observe the patterns. We don't exactly have any living person around who has been living in the same area for the past two hundred years to tell us if things are hotter or colder now than they were then, so we rely on aggregate data. If there's anything I learned about statistics from my two data analysis classes, it's that a) Minitab is a lot easier to work with than doing crap by hand and b) you can make statistics say anything you want. A lot of that comes down to what you disclose about your results and both what data you include and what outliers you omit.

Regardless whether you think it's global warming alarmists or critics who are fudging their data, the real problem is this:

Spoiler: The classic Global Average Temperature vs Number of Pirates chart

[/spoiler]

Yes, I see the irony of using this chart while making any sort of argument against global warming, but the point is correlation does not imply causation. And to highlight some Wikipedia text:

[QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation ]Correlation does not imply causation is [i][b]a phrase used in science and statistics[/b][/i] to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] [i][b]Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables[/b][/i]. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.
The counter assumption, that [i][b]correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy[/b][/i] in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").[/QUOTE]

Anyhow, moving back a topic, I think that it's very little to do with humanity and more to do with cycles because of things like this:

[QUOTE=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age#Major_ice_ages ]The current ice age, the Pliocene-Quaternary glaciation, started about 2.58 million years ago during the late Pliocene, when the spread of ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere began. Since then, the world has seen [b][i]cycles of glaciation[/i][/b] with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacial periods, glacials or glacial advances, and interglacial periods, interglacials or glacial retreats. [i][b]The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago[/b][/i]. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and smaller glaciers such as on Baffin Island.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Wikipedia was meant as reading material, as an explanation. It's a summary of other sources.
Here is one of the very first sources that the Wikipedia article gives:
Joint Science Academies' Statement [http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf]: " It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."
[spoiler]The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK.[239] The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.[/spoiler]
Science academies back Kyoto [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1335872.stm]
Of course, what counts is the evidence, and not necessarily what all the modern, independent, renowned science organizations say, but it is a very good indication these days.
Wikipedia articles vary wildly in quality, but the article on Global Warming is excellent, as far as I can tell.

You are right in that correlation does not imply causation, however greenhouse gases and their effect on the climate are very well understood and studied. In the long run, both the sun and greenhouse gases drive the climate. CO2 is the most effective greenhouse gas, because it remains in the atmosphere for decades to centuries and it absorbs a great amount of heat radiation.
The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can both drive the climate and be a positive feedback. This is very nicely explained in potholer54's video series.
Taking all the natural cycles, background fluctuations and other sources of greenhouse gases into consideration, all the evidence so far points to human activities being the main cause of the recent episode of Global Warming.
The cycles about ice ages you mentioned are mostly irrelevant because these cycles need many thousands of years.

 

[Strazdas]

"i leave my lights off" as oppsed to what? do some people actually leave the house and leave the lights on?

Meet my father, my sister and my neighbors.

What is this i dont even
what the hell? i mean i understand some can be enviromental ignorant, but are they so rich that they can totally ignore any bills? if i were to leave all my lights on all the time my monthly pay wouldnt be enough!

snippity snip

Your example and ran about correlation is pointless, because we got causation. You woudl be correct if all we had was corelation. BUt its not, sicne we got direct causation.

 

[Dragonbums]

Anyone who doesn't believe in global warming is an idiot, since the a change in the earth's temperature is a measurable and indisputable fact. The question shouldn't however be whether or not you believe in global warming, but whether global warming is caused by humans, or whether it's a natural phenomenon.

Global Warming in the basic sense that the temperature of Earth is globally warming is a natural occurrence.
I'm fairly certain at some point long before the Ice Age, Earth had a global temperature higher than this.

What isn't natural though is how fast it's going. Which is why it's causing so many problems. Animals aside from a select few can't adapt that fast and thus are on a fast track to extinction.

And you haven't thought that some animals were supposed to naturally go extinct at this point in the Earth's life?

I do both believe in global warming and know it to be true (since measurable facts aren't something that you can choose to not believe.)

Of course animals go extinct. It has happened since inception. I don't think I ever questioned such a thing.

However when one animal goes extinct, another takes it place, lest the ecosystem gets imbalanced.
Animals now however are on the verge of extinction at such a fast rate that for some environments there isn't really a replacement for said animal.

 

[TWRule]

No, because I don't subscribe to the scientific worldview.

Before someone attacks me - this does not mean I am denying that scientists gathered such-and-such data through various experiments. It also doesn't mean I endorse negligence to our 'environment(s)'. I'm not concerned about any scientific doomsday scenarios.

 

[Quaxar]

No, because I don't subscribe to the scientific worldview.

Before someone attacks me - this does not mean I am denying that scientists gathered such-and-such data through various experiments. It also doesn't mean I endorse negligence to our 'environment(s)'. I'm not concerned about any scientific doomsday scenarios.

Don't take that as an attack but it's just kind of a weird statement. What the hell is a "scientific worldview"?
And also, what's the alternative, rolling dice for every single decision?

 

[TWRule]

No, because I don't subscribe to the scientific worldview.

Before someone attacks me - this does not mean I am denying that scientists gathered such-and-such data through various experiments. It also doesn't mean I endorse negligence to our 'environment(s)'. I'm not concerned about any scientific doomsday scenarios.

Don't take that as an attack but it's just kind of a weird statement. What the hell is a "scientific worldview"?
And also, what's the alternative, rolling dice for every single decision?

I'm referring to a worldview that broadly follows the dictates of modern science, i.e. that everything, including us, is entirely material (sub-atomic particles), that the universe is governed by universal, impersonal natural laws apprehendable by science, that humanity as we know it originated through a series of accidents of natural selection, etc.

There are plenty of alternatives; broadly, religious or philosophical worldviews (each of which contains many, potentially infinite possibilities), for instance.

I'm not sure what you mean about decision-making. Does anyone require scientific consensuses to decide how to live their lives?

 

[Innegativeion]

I'm referring to a worldview that broadly follows the dictates of modern science,

You mean... proven facts and theories substantiated by hard evidence?

i.e. that everything, including us, is entirely material (sub-atomic particles)

Everything is made up of information. That information just tends to be expressed as energy and subatomic particles.

I've always felt the insistence that if something is tangible, it's automatically less special than "soul", "spirit", or whatever to be entirely arbitrary.

, that the universe is governed by universal, impersonal natural laws apprehendable by science,

As opposed to laws that are flexible, and bend to our needs? Because if that is the case, please tell me more.

that humanity as we know it originated through a series of accidents of natural selection, etc.

Natural Selection is no more composed of "accidents" than is the romance between your parents that resulted in your conception.

 

[Wyes]

Oh man, this is a can of worms. It's nice to see however the the majority of Escapists do believe in climate change caused by human activity.

No. But I do believe in climate change. This planet has gone from subtropical temperatures when dinosaurs roamed the earth, ice ages, etc. I'm still all for trying to keep the air clean. The environment needs respect and due care.
We're also changing from an circular orbit around the sun to an elliptical orbit, like an oval. We're going to be closer and farther at certain points.

I'm really not sure what the first part of this is trying to say. The second part however is even weirder. The Earth's orbit is not 'changing' from a circular orbit to an elliptical orbit, it has always been an elliptical orbit. However, the difference in distance caused by the eccentricity of Earth's orbit has very little effect on temperatures (e.g. some people seem to think this causes the seasons, which is really easy to disprove, because of the fact that the hemispheres have the opposite seasons occurring at the same time). Even if it did have a noticeable effect, it happens on a yearly scale - cause y'know, the whole point of the year as a measurement of time is its how long it takes the Earth to complete one orbit of the Sun.

Ahh, okay. You want a term like, "diminishing effect", or somesuch. Logarithms are used for measurement, so the above phrase on its own wouldn't mean anything.

A logarithm is not strictly used for measurement - they describe a particular kind of behaviour. They are useful for displaying measurements, but that is not all they do. Logarithmic behaviour is a type of behaviour that shows extremely large changes at first but then quickly dies off to a slower change. See this link [http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Plot+log%28x%29+between+0+and+20] for a plot of a logarithm.

snip

I understand your concerns, but it is important to remember that what we want does not change what is. While it is true there are a lot of political agendas behind the green movement and it's hard to disentangle it all, the actual science behind climate change is solid and without agenda. Science merely reports the facts. If you find actual scientific papers (which may be behind a pay wall, which has always irked me), you will find they are without any kind of political bias. Those papers show that man-made climate change is, unfortunately, a reality.

Now, as for how people like those in your family who earn their living working for oil companies and the like - this is honestly a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I suspect that a wise strategy would be to retrain a lot of these people to work in the clean energy industry. This would obviously be a gradual process, outright banning fossil fuels would be economically disastrous. You must also remember however that we cannot afford to destroy the environment because it puts some people in a hard place financially. Yes it sucks, but that's reality.

 

[TWRule]

I'm referring to a worldview that broadly follows the dictates of modern science,

You mean... proven facts and theories substantiated by hard evidence?

i.e. that everything, including us, is entirely material (sub-atomic particles)

Everything is made up of information. That information just tends to be expressed as energy and subatomic particles.

I've always felt the insistence that if something is tangible, it's automatically less special than "soul", "spirit", or whatever to be entirely arbitrary.

, that the universe is governed by universal, impersonal natural laws apprehendable by science,

As opposed to laws that are flexible, and bend to our needs? Because if that is the case, please tell me more.

that humanity as we know it originated through a series of accidents of natural selection, etc.

Natural Selection is no more composed of "accidents" than is the romance between your parents that resulted in your conception.

I'm not interested in a fruitless debate with someone who is intent on straw-manning me; I was giving a broad response addressed to the general question of the person that asked in good faith what I meant in my answer to the thread topic.

 

[Innegativeion]

*snip*

I'm just baffled how someone can "not subscribe" to science.

It's like... "I don't subscribe to the idea that 2+2=4"

or

"I don't subscribe to the idea that the sky is blue"

It's fucking science. It doesn't get much more matter-of-fact than science. The only thing that can refute science is new information... brought about by more science. There's a reason we've been refining this shit for thousands of years.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Regardless on the debate of belief versus evidence, and the real question of whether everyone in this thread thinks active steps should be taken toward change, I like to input this image each time.

 

[TWRule]

*snip*

I'm just baffled how someone can "not subscribe" to science.

It's like... "I don't subscribe to the idea that 2+2=4"

or

"I don't subscribe to the idea that the sky is blue"

It's fucking science. It doesn't get much more matter-of-fact than science. The only thing that can refute science is new information... brought about by more science. There's a reason we've been refining this shit for thousands of years.

I said 'the scientific worldview' and explained what I meant by that. I did not say 'science'.

You've made it pretty clear that even if I had any intention of dislodging you from your current way of thinking (I do not), it would be a futile effort. You're welcome to your view - I just don't share it. Thanks.