Yeah so global warming huh...

[bryanbutler]

The consensus - yes, there's still a consensus and has been for quite some time - agrees that it's well over 50%.

...

Even though Bryanbutler said "there are other contributions to global warming" there is a paucity of evidence to support that assertion.

sigh.

your own statement says that up to 50% is caused by other than man. or, well, pick your percentage depending on your definition of "well over."

you really don't want to argue that there are no other contributions to global warming, do you? that's a non-starter.

[Pogues]

For obvious (I assume) reasons, it's very difficult to pinpoint a specific percentage.

The consensus - yes, there's still a consensus and has been for quite some time - agrees that it's well over 50%. That's why they - again, the overwhelming consensus - can say that man is the number one factor in all warming since 1950. Even more to the point, the consensus is that humans are responsible for 100% of the warming since 1950.

Again, not an "Al Gore and Democrats" thing. It's a science thing. And scientists are in extremely strong agreement about this. Even though Bryanbutler said "there are other contributions to global warming" there is a paucity of evidence to support that assertion. Mainstream science, and the IPCC is by far the best source for this information, indicates that humans are most likely responsible for ALL global warming in the last 55 years.

We just need less people. We haven't had a good world war since 2 ended in 1945...perhaps we need to look for solutions that are easy to execute.

[Pogues]

sigh.

your own statement says that up to 50% is caused by other than man. or, well, pick your percentage depending on your definition of "well over."

you really don't want to argue that there are no other contributions to global warming, do you? that's a non-starter.

Well, the consensus 100% is a number over the consensus "over 50%".

[GwynnInTheHall]

To me it's pretty simple. Natural global warming occurs cyclically over millennium barring a catastrophic event. It's very much like a naturally occurring fire in that it happens and eventually burns itself out with regrowth returning the burned area to it's original or near original state. However when Humans enter the equation it's like adding a never ending supply of lighter fluid to the fire so it never goes out, burns hotter and releases toxins into the air that a naturally burning fire does not.

Climate change does occur naturally, but we have hastened it and perpetuated it. And created new issues not normally found in the natural cycle of climate change. We may or may not be too late to do anything about it based on which model you choose to believe, but as Lucky said why not err on the side of caution? Why not put the environmental future ahead of present day profit? If we're wrong, some folks have a few less dollars in their portfolios and the earth is a little healthier. If we're not, our time on earth will be over. well at least those of us who cannot afford to build structures to wait out the catastrophic events brought on by climate change in it's worse scenario.

However, all this discussion does not mask the fact that to simply deny that ANY climate change exists or portray it as a myth is not only incorrect. It's dangerous and those in office who hold these false beliefs should not be making policy regarding environmental issues.

Put it this way, would you like an Atheist in charge of regulating the Nation's churches? That's exactly what we have right now regarding our Government and Climate change.

Pascals wager, brilliant reference Lucky.

[Erik]

Can we start a new thread on this? Every time this one gets bumped, it reminds me that Roto Rooter existed.

[Fresno Bob]

so since my bait was ruined I'll just ask straight out.

What percentage of climate change is directly attributed to Humans?

What are the other contributing factors to climate change and their percentage of effect on the equation?

How does the Human element exacerbate those naturally occurring elements or does it?

1.) A very significant amount, I'd argue 90%
2.) Cyclical Elements based on Earth wobble, very longwave, measurable in thousands of years intervals
3.) Accelerates trends considerably, by orders of magnitude

[Teenwolf]

To me it's pretty simple. Natural global warming occurs cyclically over millennium barring a catastrophic event. It's very much like a naturally occurring fire in that it happens and eventually burns itself out with regrowth returning the burned area to it's original or near original state. However when Humans enter the equation it's like adding a never ending supply of lighter fluid to the fire so it never goes out, burns hotter and releases toxins into the air that a naturally burning fire does not.

Climate change does occur naturally, but we have hastened it and perpetuated it. And created new issues not normally found in the natural cycle of climate change. We may or may not be too late to do anything about it based on which model you choose to believe, but as Lucky said why not err on the side of caution? Why not put the environmental future ahead of present day profit? If we're wrong, some folks have a few less dollars in their portfolios and the earth is a little healthier. If we're not, our time on earth will be over. well at least those of us who cannot afford to build structures to wait out the catastrophic events brought on by climate change in it's worse scenario.

However, all this discussion does not mask the fact that to simply deny that ANY climate change exists or portray it as a myth is not only incorrect. It's dangerous and those in office who hold these false beliefs should not be making policy regarding environmental issues.

Put it this way, would you like an Atheist in charge of regulating the Nation's churches? That's exactly what we have right now regarding our Government and Climate change.

Pascals wager, brilliant reference Lucky.

It's not about stock portfolios, it's about North American consumption and waste. If North American life were the norm, we would need 5 earths to collect all our garbage. It's about convenience, and nobody will relinquish convenience by choice. Not enough people anyway.

Going vegan lowers your carbon footprint something like 70%. Meat consumption is killing our planet, as we clearcut forests and destroy the ecosystem to create grazing land for animals. But, y'know... bacon...

That's why we're completely, irreversibly doomed. Because we convince ourselves that devastating the planet is just a part of everyday life. We convince ourselves by painting all of our garbage trucks green and putting recycling signs on them. We pull the wool over our own eyes.

[johnnya24]

It's not about stock portfolios, it's about North American consumption and waste. If North American life were the norm, we would need 5 earths to collect all our garbage. It's about convenience, and nobody will relinquish convenience by choice. Not enough people anyway.

Going vegan lowers your carbon footprint something like 70%. Meat consumption is killing our planet, as we clearcut forests and destroy the ecosystem to create grazing land for animals. But, y'know... bacon...

That's why we're completely, irreversibly doomed. Because we convince ourselves that devastating the planet is just a part of everyday life. We convince ourselves by painting all of our garbage trucks green and putting recycling signs on them. We pull the wool over our own eyes.

Throwing matchsticks at a tsunami I'm afraid. The population of the planet in 2100 will be 11+ billion. We'll be farming rats and insects for protein.

[onejayhawk]

Throwing matchsticks at a tsunami I'm afraid. The population of the planet in 2100 will be 11+ billion. We'll be farming rats and insects for protein.

With only 11 billion people? Get real.

We raise enough food now to feed a billion more people than are on the planet. Hunger is a political problem. Like the climate, overpopulation is a largely a fairy tale. The sky is not falling.

J

[GwynnInTheHall]

With only 11 billion people? Get real.

We raise enough food now to feed a billion more people than are on the planet. Hunger is a political problem. Like the climate, overpopulation is a largely a fairy tale. The sky is not falling.

J

Is there room next to you at that rock you're living under?

BTW, Thanks for finally moving your fixation of me from the 3 year old memes to the new one.

[Teenwolf]

Throwing matchsticks at a tsunami I'm afraid. The population of the planet in 2100 will be 11+ billion. We'll be farming rats and insects for protein.

Or a million plant based protein sources. How is cutting 70% of your carbon footprint insignificant?

The last 40 years have seen the number of animals on planet earth cut in half. This is largely due to de-forestation to graze animals for food, or to grow crops to feed animals to feed us. The lack of efficiency in food production is what's killing the planet. Period.

Convenience is the reason this will never change. We're too comfortable to accept that we need to change our behaviour in a serious way. We deserve the grave we're digging.

[Judge Jude]

The last 40 years have seen the number of animals on planet earth cut in half.

The World Wildlife Fund was involved in that claim, so there are questions about objectivity (as with all interest groups). from this link

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983

Stephen Buckland, co-director of the National Centre for Statistical Ecology in the UK, told BBC News: "It is clear that declines are occurring, and at a more rapid rate in tropical areas with high diversity than in temperate areas where much of our diversity was lost long ago.

"But there is the question in the Living Planet Index of why some populations are monitored when others are not. Those in decline are perhaps of greater interest, and hence more likely to be monitored, than those that are stable or increasing. For practical reasons, populations that are more impacted by man are more easily monitored.

"Further, the quality of the data is highly variable from one population to another, and some population trends are likely to be biased. So is there a decline? Certainly. Are animal numbers around 52% lower than 40 years ago? Probably not."

...............

so there is a significant issue here, but a less objective source may have overstated it. that always seems to be a problem in discussions, because it's distracting if the harm or change may be even modestly exaggerated. I don't think the left or the right are more or less likely to be involved. humans like to accept as fact conclusions that jibe with their preconceptions.

[Teenwolf]

The World Wildlife Fund was involved in that claim, so there are questions about objectivity (as with all interest groups). from this link

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418983

Stephen Buckland, co-director of the National Centre for Statistical Ecology in the UK, told BBC News: "It is clear that declines are occurring, and at a more rapid rate in tropical areas with high diversity than in temperate areas where much of our diversity was lost long ago.

"But there is the question in the Living Planet Index of why some populations are monitored when others are not. Those in decline are perhaps of greater interest, and hence more likely to be monitored, than those that are stable or increasing. For practical reasons, populations that are more impacted by man are more easily monitored.

"Further, the quality of the data is highly variable from one population to another, and some population trends are likely to be biased. So is there a decline? Certainly. Are animal numbers around 52% lower than 40 years ago? Probably not."

...............

so there is a significant issue here, but a less objective source may have overstated it. that always seems to be a problem in discussions, because it's distracting if the harm or change may be even modestly exaggerated. I don't think the left or the right are more or less likely to be involved. humans like to accept as fact conclusions that jibe with their preconceptions.

Right... maybe not quite 52%.... maybe only 30% of the planet's animals have disappeared over the last 40 years. But is that sustainable in any possible way? When the most dense ecosystems are the ones being affected the hardest?

My opinion is this is not sustainable, continuing to use more land for animal grazing and GMO tofu for animals to eat. Debating over how much environmental devastation is occurring totally misses the point. This is not sustainable.

[Pogues]

Going vegan lowers your carbon footprint something like 70%. Meat consumption is killing our planet, as we clearcut forests and destroy the ecosystem to create grazing land for animals. But, y'know... bacon...

I find that rather hard to believe. I'm sure going vegan cuts your carbon footprint, but 70%? I'd need to see data to buy into that.

[The Feral Slasher]

I find that rather hard to believe. I'm sure going vegan cuts your carbon footprint, but 70%? I'd need to see data to buy into that.

I'd assume they mean 70% of your footprint associated with food, not total carbon footprint. Still would want to see documentation. I've also seen claims about how much water is associated with bringing meat to market. That may be a big deal soon also.