Anthropocentric Climate Change?

Are human caused emissions contributing to a global warming or is it just purely natural climate change? The only way to make the models consistent is to factor in Human CO2 emissions, but could there be something more?

I thought of human-caused climate change as a fact, but many deny it, why?
I suspected that it was for political and economic reasons, but could there be more to this debate than I thought?

Bi0Hazard: Facts everyone agrees on are that climate is changing and people are helping change it. Question is how much people are helping, whether it's an insignificant amount or whether it's the primary cause.

Man can't control the weather. That's a simple fact.

Global warming is kind of like overpopulation; it's just an excuse for the government to be more interfering in our lives. "Well I think the world is overpopulated". Then go kill yourself. You want to reduce the world's population so badly, then be part of the solution and go kill yourself. And then you got governments with this "overpopulated" philosophy and like in China, if you have more than 1 child, the government will take the pregnant mother by gunpoint to open up her belly and do a forced abortion (with no painkillers and still conscious). The same is true with global warming. Some people, like Bill Nye, believe that "climate change deniers" should be put in jail. Same wicked philosophy.

Besides, plants absorb all the CO2 before anything else really. The more CO2 that's emitted into the atmosphere the faster the trees grow and soak it back up. Plants like that stuff. We couldn't warm the earth up if we tried to.

admin: Facts everyone agrees on are that climate is changing and people are helping change it.
There are people who deny this.

admin: *Deny this specifically:
and people are helping change it.

Bi0Hazard: The argument I've seen is always that any changes to the climate humans make are negligible. I don't think anyone would deny, for example, that building a greenhouse creates a microclimate. People can definitely affect climate, the only question is how much.

admin: Maybe its because you don't live in the U.S.
Here are figures:





Source: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/public-views-on-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/

You may dwell on the term "mostly" in the above statistics, but there really isn't strong belief among those that believe it is natural causes that there needs to be contribution to some extent.

Also, here is a video of a short debate/argument on Human induced climate change:

admin: Of course, this isn't scientific consensus, just general population, but that was my point.

Bi0Hazard: There's a big difference between saying humans have zero effect on climate, and saying humans are making the climate warmer. Everyone agrees humans can affect climate. Is this significant enough to warm or otherwise affect the whole planet in any meaningful way is the question.

Krazy: Man can't control the weather. That's a simple fact.

Man can't (yet) control the weather but he can and is changing the global climate. That's a simple fact.

Global warming is kind of like overpopulation; it's just an excuse for the government to be more interfering in our lives. "Well I think the world is overpopulated". Then go kill yourself. You want to reduce the world's population so badly, then be part of the solution and go kill yourself.

Global warming is nothing like overpopulation. It has nothing to do with interfering with our lives and everything to do with restricting the ability of big polluters to keep on polluting without concern for the environment and for future generations. Far from interfering with personal freedoms it is about curtailing corporate selfishness (quick and dirty profits) without regard to consequences. (The less said about your "solution" to overpopulation the better).

And then you got governments with this "overpopulated" philosophy and like in China, if you have more than 1 child, the government will take the pregnant mother by gunpoint to open up her belly and do a forced abortion (with no painkillers and still conscious).

Wow, such ignorance. At gunpoint you say? No painkillers you say? There was no policy of forced abortions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy#Implementation

The measure was temporary, did not apply to the entire population and has been in the process of being phased out since 2015. Such ignorance.

The same is true with global warming. Some people, like Bill Nye, believe that "climate change deniers" should be put in jail. Same wicked philosophy.

One person making a silly comment is not a government policy. I fail to see the connection. Perhaps you could explain it to us.

Besides, plants absorb all the CO2 before anything else really. The more CO2 that's emitted into the atmosphere the faster the trees grow and soak it back up. Plants like that stuff. We couldn't warm the earth up if we tried to.

Where are these "magic" plants which are going to soak up the excess CO2 from our burning of fossil fuels. Are they the trees in the forests we have cut down and turned into wood chips perhaps? Are they are in the millions of hectares of land we clear yearly for agriculture and animal grazing perhaps? Are they in the arable lands which are returned to bare soil after a crop is grown? The truth is that existing plant life cannot absorb the excess CO2. The oceans have been absorbing some (hence gradual increases in acidity) but the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere is continuing to rise. You cannot argue with facts:

https://www.co2.earth

Plant life is not absorbing the increased levels of CO2. That is just wishful thinking.

Bi0Hazard: The position of climate change deniers keeps shifting as the evidence for climate change keeps mounting. There are five identifiable stages of denial:

1. Deny that the climate is changing
2. Deny human activity is the cause
3. Deny that climate change is a problem
4. Deny that humans can do anything about it
5. Deny that any action we take will make a difference in the long run

Most deniers started at stage 1 although they won't admit it now. The less intelligent are still stuck on stages 2 and 3. They will attribute global warming to some unknown cause or pretend that rapid climate change is natural and therefore not an issue. My feeling is that the smarter ones have progressed to stage 4. They acknowledge the problem (reluctantly) but plead that nature cannot be controlled. There are very few at stage 5 (a self fulfilling prophecy if we wait long enough) in my opinion.

Krazy: I would hardly consider what man has been up to regarding climate change to be anywhere near "control".

Plants absorb CO2, we kill the plants, CO2 is not absorbed, the planet gets hotter. Tada, we warmed up the plant, because we know what to do and tried to.

Sadly, we are killing off plant life and NOT trying to warm the earth, we keep killing off the plant life, the earth keeps getting warmer, deny that killing off plant life has an effect, and the earth gets warmer.

dee-em: Since you like nature so much, why don't you go live out in the forest like the natives?

dee-em: If you want to believe that we make the sea level rise, that's fine. If you want to believe that we make the earth warmer, and that makes you happy, fine.

When you start making legislation controlling how much electricity I can use, how much water, whether I can burn stuff on my own property, you got a problem. That's my buisness. You mind your own business. Same thing with businesses. Let them do what they do. Don't meddle with their affairs.

Krazy: Great argument Krazy. Since you like pollution so much why don't you set up house inside a coal-fired power station?

Krazy: If you want to believe that we make the sea level rise, that's fine.

I don't want to believe it. I am forced to by the evidence.

If you want to believe that we make the earth warmer, and that makes you happy, fine.

It's not about making me happy. It actually makes me sad. However, I have to accept reality.

When you start making legislation controlling how much electricity I can use,

I'm not aware of any such legislation. You are free to use as much as you want if you can afford it.

how much water,

Again, I'm not aware of any such legislation. It would seem you are drinking something but it isn't water.

whether I can burn stuff on my own property, you got a problem.

It may be your property but the air belongs to all of us.

Same thing with businesses. Let them do what they do. Don't meddle with their affairs.

No. I would rather that they were socially responsible. You may not like it but there have always been regulations on businesses and there always will be.

dee-em: Since you like pollution so much why don't you set up house inside a coal-fired power station?
I never said I liked pollution. Bad analogy. And why do you have to use my same wording? Aren't you intelligent enough to use your own words? You did the same thing earlier.

It may be your property but the air belongs to all of us
I like to see your receipt.

Krazy: I never said I liked pollution. Bad analogy.

I'm fairly sure I never said I wanted to renounce the comforts of civilization either when you told me I should go and live in the forest like a native. "Bad analogy". I'm only returning the favour. As to you not liking pollution, that is just a lie. You have already stated that you want to be free to burn stuff on your own property unfettered by any regulation. What is that if not air pollution?

I like to see your receipt.

As I said, it is a shared resource. I don't claim to own it personally. You do by your insistence that you have a right to pollute it at will. Are you having difficulty with this concept?

Krazy: And why do you have to use my same wording? Aren't you intelligent enough to use your own words? You did the same thing earlier.

It's one way to mock someone. The intelligent know how to do parody. The unintelligent mistake it for imitation and flattery.

dee-em: You're obviously upset in this conversation. I won't trigger your sensitivities any further.