Do you believe global climate change is man-made?

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Prinnctopher's Belt, Dec 13, 2009.


Do you believe global climate change is caused solely, or 90+%, by man?

  1. Yes

    18 vote(s)
  2. No

    28 vote(s)
  3. Unsure

    5 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    People aren't getting the fact that the whole man-made climate change model exists to justify mass depopulation. How else do you solve the problem of some perceived man-made global catastrophe because man allegedly uses too many resources? Get rid of man. This is the exact logic behind coaxing the masses into believing this man-made climate change propaganda, and commoners jump on the bandwagon without a second thought; that's what's frightening is how easily people are manipulated through common fear tactics.

    Do you believe that climate change is very likely attributed solely to man?
  2. Confusticated

    Confusticated Well-Known Member

    No. This is called a "meltdown". If anyone isn't familiar with it, wiki it.
    It's called the earths natural process.
    This had been happening since the worlds existance, and it's not about to stop!
  3. lonercarrot

    lonercarrot Well-Known Member

    Nope. Even if we say that CO2 is the cause of climate change, the world produces more CO2 than man ever could come close to producing. The world has always gone through cooling and warming patterns. Our planet is 4.5 billion years old, if we thinkg less than 2 centuries of some very questionable data can determine anything about our climate, we're fools.
  4. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    Yurp. Though I don't much care either way. Changing to renewable sources of energy is a step forward for humanity, no matter what reason is behind the change.
  5. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Climate change used to justify mass depopulation? No offense but that sounds like a pretty baseless conspiracy theory. Where are you basing this linkage from? The solutions being proposed in response to man-made climate change deal with fuel efficiency, reducing our carbon emissions, and easing up on environmental degradation. If done right, none of this would require the Malthusian solution you see as being supported.

    As for climate change, I believe it is a combination of both. A part of it may be natural but in the end our unnatural contributions are making it worse. Sure, the world produces a lot of carbon on it's own - but that is a natural process that nature can reach equilibrium with. When we're spewing an extra 70 to 80 billion tons of the stuff (and that doesn't include the other gasses), we're worsening the problem.

    We have to remember that what we've been doing to this planet is not natural. Deforestation, pollution on a mass scale, and over-extraction aren't things that Earth was ever prepared to simply set right. At the very least we have to concede that what we're doing is only making the problem worse. Just as much evidence exists to support that as to refute it, and anyone who simply says that the data is wrong is no better than their opponents who say the same thing of them.
  6. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    Man will destroy himself first with his foolish ways. The earth will survive us.
  7. Emptysoul

    Emptysoul Well-Known Member

    What is going with so called 'global warming' etc is natural. the plannet goes in cycles and were in one of the warming ones.
    Sure we arnt helping by pumping loads of gasses into the atmosphere, destroying habitats, deforistation and generaly damaging the planit. we might be incresing the speed but its more or less an insignificant percentage in the planets natural proccess
  8. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    But there is as much evidence stating its 100% natural as there is stating it isn't. Sure, we don't know as much about how we influence the world and it's climate, but we know even little about how it all actually works.
  9. TWF

    TWF Well-Known Member

    CO2 levels in the atmosphere have no doubt risen. Its just linking the current rising in temperatures and melting of the ice caps to the cause, could it be natural process or is it man-produced gasses getting trapped into the atmosphere thus heating up the earth?

    About that, I have no fucking idea but this whole ''global warming is not man-made'' episode mainly seems to be based on conspiracies, like the scientists who supposedly hid figures of earth temperatures dropping or the whole new world order deception episode, the leaked data, and the simplest of them all no real temperature rises noticed.

    I haven't put too much research into it but I will. For now I think man definetely contributes to it, but I'm questioning the lethality of it, the crisis of our current situation, is everybody overhyping how much man contributes, is the earth just following a natural process sped up by human activity?
  10. nok1888

    nok1888 Well-Known Member

    I dont think its man made but we certainly dont help it in any way
  11. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Its common sense that the more carbon dioxide and pollutants in the atmosphere, the warmer the temp

    its called the greenhouse effect. Its very easy to understand.

    The greenhouse effect is the heating of the surface of a planet or moon due to the presence of an atmosphere containing gases that absorb and emit infrared radiation.[1] Thus, greenhouse gases trap heat within the surface-troposphere system


    Now when you understand that carbon dioxide levels have risen over the last century far faster than naturally occurring patterns

    Then it becomes common sense..........................

    This is general science 101 people

    Thats how I view it anyway :)
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 13, 2009
  12. TWF

    TWF Well-Known Member

    Yeah but the question is whether its overhyped, the uncertainty surrounding this issue lies around whether the government made it up just to recieve more tax, leaked data emerged and there's even scientist coming out denying the dangers of global warming.

    You could well all be fooled by the authorities, no harm questioning if you have base evidence and if there's clear reason for suspicion.
  13. Ziggy

    Ziggy Antiquitie's Friend

    When the issue of global warming was first raised, everyone was against it, especially the government. The scientists were a bunch of nutters talking rubbish. It's taken years to make the government accept it as a reality, and now suddenly they're behind it all?
  14. nolonger

    nolonger Well-Known Member

    It can all just be the cycle of the planet, many parts used to be the opposite climate of what they are today. Maybe it's the planet itself trying to get rid of us? Maybe it IS man made. Hopefully we'll adapt to a different climate before it reaches breaking point. Not like it matters to us at this point in time. We all die and I don't think climate change will directly kill anyone at the moment.
  15. Reki

    Reki Well-Known Member

    When you say mass depopulation I'm assuming you're talking about a new system to regulate childbirth. Depopulation by mass genocide is as horrific as it is ridiculous and simplistic and there is no way you could honestly believe the government sees that as the best course of action or has the power to pull it off.
  16. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Anytime the Gov. does anything good or to help the underpriviledged or to make society a better and more fair place, the corporate propaganda is to label them as the enemy and too big.

    for instance. Wall St regulation - Gov is the enemy

    Taxing the Rich - Gov is the enemy

    Social Security - Gov is the enemy

    Medicare - Gov is the enemy


    Yet take note that they dont bitch when the Gov grows dramatically by creating homeland security

    or when the NSA uses roving wiretaps on teh American ppl and the FBI issues national security letters.

    and of course we had to bail out the banks.
  17. Scully

    Scully Well-Known Member


    We're just ignorant fools, and we like it.
  18. nos nomed

    nos nomed Well-Known Member

    The amount of polutants humans create is small compared to the amount the earth creates itself. Enough oil leaks up through the ocean floor a day to equal 100 exxon valdeze crashes. Gas pockets open constantly releasing toxic fumes into the atmosphere. There is an area just above antarctica where the hole in the ozone has existed for a very long time. Its a collecting place based on wind currents for heavy gases. So to think that humans are causing such a drastic change is a bit overzealous.
    Now our solar system works much like an atom the planets are electrons and the sun is the nucleus. Inertia causes the planets to move away from the sun while gravity pulls them back causing what is known as planetary orbit. As a planet slows it's orbit becomes smaller and it comes closer to the sun getting hotter but causing it to gain momentum(slingshot effect) pushing it slowly back out to the far reach of its orbit thus creating periods of tropical weather on earth(think dinosaurs) and opposite or Ice ages. Both of which we are inbetween.

    Now the tricky part is to decide which way we are headed. We have a clearly documented Ice age but was there an opposite between then and now. We have the floods spoke of in the bible and even though non-religious this idea surely was based on some story of experience as since has determined that around the same time there appeared to be a heightened sea level(glaciers melting maybe) and a massive decrease in the population of the world, but was that a hot period or some other cosmic occurence.

    Finally though creating cancer is still creating cancer and we should strive to achieve a better harmony with our environment. It is however unfortunate that the activist who call for green reform fight every single attempt that is made in this endeavor(they wouldn't let the terminator put solar panels in an arrid unused part of the desert in california because the panels might somehow affect a snake, rodent, and owl that lived in the area.
  19. KittyGirl

    KittyGirl Well-Known Member

    I dunno~ all I know is that we're screwed and whatever happens is meant to happen.
    I just hope that the Earth does survive... until... you know- it explodes or whatever. XD
  20. me1

    me1 Well-Known Member

    Tell us about the 'simplistic greenhouse effect', Bob? Which gasses are most potent? Is there are any synergistic effects between two different gasses that would make the total effect greater than the accumulative sum of their own individual potentials to cause greater warmth? For example, while gas 'a' might have a greater potency, by itself, to cause 'Greenhouse effect' than gas 'b' and consequently it would logically follow that if you had two atmospheres with the same total volume of gas, but the first one contained only gas 'a', while the second one was a mixture of say 80% gas 'a' and 20% gas 'b' that the first atmosphere, absent any synergistic effect, would have the greater capacity for causing 'Greenhouse effect' than the latter simply because the gas that makes up its total is a more potent 'Greenhouse gas'.
    But, factoring in any synergistic effect between the two gasses the latter atmosphere would exceed the former in its ability to do so as the total effect would greater than the accumulative sum of the individual parts.

    Is there really a greater amount of gasses -in total- in our atmosphere than at any other time in recorded history?

    What about all the other gasses in our atmosphere that are 'greenhouse gasses' such as the most potent and abundant of all, water vapor? Water vapor levels fluctuate wildly, is any accompanying temperature variation observed?

    I have read that CO2 levels have been higher in the past than they currently are. Also, that all periods of sustained cooling have begun at a point in time when CO2 levels were at their highest, and vice versa, that all periods of sustained heating began at a point in time when CO2 levels in the atmosphere were at the highest. Odd isnt it?

    How does anyone know whether or not CO2 levels rising or lowering are the -cause- or, more likely, the -effect- of temperature rises?

    Why is ice melting above or in the vicinity of oceans as opposed to further inland, if it is atmospheric temperature rises of around 0.6 degrees that are the cause of the problem? This as opposed to oceanic temperature rises. How does the atmosphere control/influence the climate of the planet as opposed to the ocean, with its far greater heat storage capacity of around 1000 times that of the atmosphere?

    Is precipitation increasing? Because if it is then this would point to the oceans, not the air, increasing in temperature, as warm air has a greater capacity for water storage than cold air. If the atmosphere heats up we would expect -less- rain, not more, whereas if the ocean heats up we would expect more evaporation and consequently more rain.

    Incidently, CO2 is not, in and of itself, a 'pollutant'. That said, if there is finite number of plants, with a finite amount of CO2 utilisation capacity, then any excess would probably be deemed a pollutant.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.