As amazing as apocalypse always sounds, since it stood up the last 200 generations, I'm not holding my breath.

What the climate change deniers are doing is almost the opposite of skepticism. They are refusing to accept the mountain of evidence that is before them. Sometimes they even start saying nonsense like 'where's the proof?', showing that they don't even understand the difference between science and algebra. — andrewk

What is the mountain of evidence that global warming is a bad thing?

What is ironic is all the people who reject science and it's explanations, and how these same people propose that what isn't experienced doesn't really exist, yet they use "science" to promote one of their political positions. This is another great example of how people don't integrate their knowledge from all domains of investigation into a consistent whole.

Another thing these people don't seem to realize is what other domains of science - domains that have a greater amount of evidence than does "global warming by man" - like evolution by natural selection. This whole argument about man-made global warming is ridiculous when we realize that humans are as natural as everything else. We are not separate from nature, so to make these assertions that the climate is changing due to some non-natural causes (man), is non-sensical. Would these same people be complaining if elephants were causing climate change - or would it simply be natural change?

The Earth changes - and that includes everything on it. Global catastrophes and extinction events occurred well before human beings came on the scene. Other organisms can change their environment and given enough time and enough population growth, they can have widespread consequences to the Earth.

Human beings are natural outcomes and produce natural effects on their environment. Those that don't take this into account haven't yet taken the objective high ground on this issue.

It's amazing how the climate change 'scepticism' of a few political and corporate elites, who have pretty obvious hidden agendas (money, ideology & power), somehow got picked up and perpetuated by regular people as if they themselves are the ones who need to continue getting those campaign donations for re-election or making those millions and billions from oil shares and profits. It's equivalent to the rich and powerful convincing the poor old proles to willingly vote in their favour at the expense of their own best interests.

It's very unlikely climate change deniers have the relevant training to even know how to go about mounting realistic opposition to climate change theory in the first place. Frankly, probably no one here really knows whether humans are contributing (the denial of which therefore means conveniently that humans are safe to engage in any practices that maximise capital without having to sacrifice any of it for the sake of the planet - see paragraph one). Fortunately, we have a group of individuals whose job it is to find the evidence and let us know one way or the other. If someone wants me to listen to a priori lay-questions posturing as credible opposition instead of yielding to professionals with mountains of actual empirical evidence, they're going to have to lobotomise me (which will also be the fate of anyone who accuses me of appealing to authority). The people who call themselves 'climate sceptics' don't seem to realise that before you can even start properly debunking something, a pretty deep understanding of the subject is required first.

Anyone who wants to be intellectually honest when it comes to climate change theory ought to accept the conclusions of scientists. Ought to. Even if it's all wrong and the deniers were on the right side of the debate all along. If it turns out that all these scientists are wrong, we were still right to accept it because we had (as far as we knew, which is the best we can ever do) very good justifications for doing so. The same cannot be said currently of the deniers because they will only be accidentally right, since their arguments will not be what debunks climate change theory. That will be the job of actual scientists.

The question isn't whether or not man is causing changes to his environment. There is no doubt that he is. But the sun is also causing changes to our environment and the sun changes, and those changes have nothing to do with human activity. The question should be, "Is this natural change?" If you believe in the theory of natural selection, (if you believe in climate change, then you should believe in this too), then there is no questions that man is a part of nature and anything man does is natural - which includes capitalism, computer programming, cooking your meal, etc. Every organism fills it's natural niche differently, so to say that the way one organism makes it's life is natural while another isn't is inconsistent.

Man is certainly part of nature, and our activities are "natural" for us. But using the term "natural" here confuses factors outside of human activity (like solar radiation) and activities that are purely human, like burning coal to make steel.

You are right, though, that many people wrongly locate human activity above or outside nature. But just because we "act naturally" doesn't mean what we are doing is beneficial to ourselves in the long run.

The question should be, "Is this natural change?" — Harry Hindu

to say that the way one organism makes it's life is natural while another isn't is inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

?

The poll is very poorly constructed. It isn't a "yes" or "no" question. There should be a "to some extent" option.

Isn't that what we're talking about here, global catastrophe? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no problem calling global warming a catastrophe, but what I was referring to is an actual event resulting from global warming which would actually cause immediate human death. A massively deadly hurricane striking the U.S would be one such example. Extended and widespread heat/drought could be another. But these are not guaranteed to happen as climate change progresses, they are just possibilities. My point is that we don't yet know which will turn out to be the sharpest edge of global warming, and it is entirely possible our population will continue to grow despite things being made more difficult.

Will climate change and other such hurtles, like running out of fossil fuels, result in a net loss of human life on earth? I bet no.

Have you ever tried harvesting garden crops off a piece of land for decades with out putting anything back? — Metaphysician Undercover

By rotating crops, fallowing fields, and growing diverse plants you can actually effectively manage soil nutrition. Building naturally self-sustaining agricultural systems is messier than monoculture (see: permaculture) and you will get less calories per acre, but each year instead of needing more fertilizer to combat nutrient depletion, soil quality is naturally improved. Different plants absorb and deposit different nutrients from and into the soil, which is how ecosystems become more productive with only water and sunlight as external inputs.

? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yeah, this is almost beautiful, isn't it? I've heard quite a few anti-AGW "arguments", but I suppose it takes a philosophy fan to take it to such a surreal level of idiocy.

The question isn't whether or not man is causing changes to his environment. There is no doubt that he is. But the sun is also causing changes to our environment and the sun changes, and those changes have nothing to do with human activity. The question should be, "Is this natural change?" If you believe in the theory of natural selection, (if you believe in climate change, then you should believe in this too), then there is no questions that man is a part of nature and anything man does is natural - which includes capitalism, computer programming, cooking your meal, etc. Every organism fills it's natural niche differently, so to say that the way one organism makes it's life is natural while another isn't is inconsistent. — Harry Hindu

So it's natural because it's man-made? As, I suppose, is everything except the supernatural? That's one way to look at it, but I think the man-made/natural distinction is useful and you're kind of missing the point by making a rather trivial semantic point. What is natural in this context is obviously in contrast to what is man-made: nature as uneffected by man.

I think the better question is to what extent is man causing climate change? And what should we do about it? Naomi Klein has a few suggestions on the latter, and also provides plenty of authoritative sources with regards to the former in her published writings on this topic.

It doesn't much matter who shat on the carpet, it needs cleaning up.

It doesn't much matter who shat on the carpet, it needs cleaning up. — unenlightened

Yes, very good point. Although I was thinking of a better way of phrasing the original question, rather than scrapping it altogether in favour of a different question. There's also a difference in kind of these questions, since one is a question for science and the other is a question of ethics. I'm still interested in the former.

It doesn't much matter who shat on the carpet, it needs cleaning up. — unenlightened

I think it does matter. The global ecosystem is everyone's responsibility. Those who damage the ecosystem should be held accountable and must play a greater role in clean-up and preservation.

Without some form of deterrent policy I don't think things will work out well for nature. The best way to go about it is a carrot and stick policy. Incentive is equally important as penalty.

Climate change is nothing new for planet earth. From what I've read the earth has had a number of climate change events before (ice ages, supervolcanoes, asteroid hits, etc).

The only difference between the expected climate change of this time is faster than those in the past. This makes it difficult for life to adapt since it needs generations up on generations to make a successful adaptation to climate change.

Humans are affecting the environment - there's little doubt about that. However, I'm more worried about the speed of the change than the change per se.

The evidence to which I was referring was evidence of AGW, not that it is a bad thing. If you can't see why it would be a bad thing, I suggest you ask somebody in Bangladesh or South Sudan.

The evidence to which I was referring was evidence of AGW, not that it is a bad thing. If you can't see why it would be a bad thing, I suggest you ask somebody in Bangladesh or South Sudan. — andrewk

You mean the Bangladesh that achieved record rice and record total cereal production in 2015? Last year's harvest being marginally below that record. You mean the Bangladesh that has reduced malnourishment to the tune of $1billion due to increased crop yields, and still gaining land due to sedimentation?

If you think the problems in South Sudan are due to the climate, you are politically unaware. Visa fees for aid workers are now $10,000.

But we mustn't ignore the evidence and the best science and economics, such as the empirical fact that the biosphere has become 14% more productive since 1982, which is modeled to reduce the amount of land under agriculture by 11-17%. Human welfare does not seem to score well in virtue-signaling competitions, so I ask you to consider the wild animals!

And, we don't want our best science and economics to obscure the narrative, so let's deny them. Specifically let's deny the result that global warming is expected to be beneficial up to 3 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures, of which we have achieved 0.8 degrees.

By the time we hit 3 degrees of warming, the Bangladeshis will be as rich as the present day Dutch, and quite able to afford sophisticated flood defences.

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

You mean the Bangladesh that achieved record rice and record total cereal production in 2015? Last year's harvest being marginally below that record. You mean the Bangladesh that has reduced malnourishment to the tune of $1billion due to increased crop yields, and still gaining land due to sedimentation? — tom

Yes, that Bangladesh. I think andrewk is referring to the widely-known prediction that Bangladesh, whatever their present magnificent record, is the country most likely to be adversely affected by anthropogenic climate change. Here's a recent article about it.

The facts are that Bangladesh is gaining land, has suffered no increase in cyclones, and has benefited enormously from CO2 fertilization.

I don't see that I disagreed with these facts.

By the time we hit 3 degrees of warming, the Bangladeshis will be as rich as the present day Dutch, and quite able to afford sophisticated flood defences. — tom

uhuh... The Pretence of Knowledge

Copenhagen Consensus is, in general, a bit weird. I mean, if I fiddle with the discount rate I get totally different results when looking at this from a pure cost-benefit approach. It's not very sensible.

Here's another nice statistic I read today from the WHO: 25% of infant mortality is caused by man-made pollution.

Man is certainly part of nature, and our activities are "natural" for us. But using the term "natural" here confuses factors outside of human activity (like solar radiation) and activities that are purely human, like burning coal to make steel. — Bitter Crank

This is like saying that a star burning hydrogen and helium to make other heavier elements in it's core is purely solar and we shouldn't be confusing this with the "natural" production of these elements. Stars are polluting the universe with these heavier elements. Coal is made naturally by natural forces, and because humans are natural, steel is also produced naturally. Shit and piss are produced naturally. CO2 is produced naturally by every organism that breathes oxygen.

You are right, though, that many people wrongly locate human activity above or outside nature. But just because we "act naturally" doesn't mean what we are doing is beneficial to ourselves in the long run. — Bitter Crank

Now you are making a value statement and values are man-made. Who is to say that what is right for humans is right for the rest of nature? Who is to say that humans deserve to continue to exist? I'm sure if lions had their way, there would be no competitors, like hyenas, for resources. Hyenas would be extinct. I'm sure that we'd want to eliminate every virus and dangerous bacteria from existence. Do we have that right?

Throughout the history of the Earth, there have been mass extinctions and massive environmental and geological change over a short period of time. Were all those changes bad? It led to us, but what about all those animals and environments that are now destroyed thanks to natural forces that led to us? Climate Changers seem to be incapable of stepping back and looking at the big picture.

Another thing: China is one of the worst, if not THE worst polluters on Earth. If Climate Changers really want to put their money where their mouth is, why not go to China and make your claims there? After all, the U.S. has probably spent more money and energy to limit pollution than any other country yet these people still lambaste Americans more than any other country. This is what the left is known for - selective outrage. Anything the U.S. does will be a waste if other countries like China and India don't pull their own weight here. All the effort of Climate Changers will be wasted.

Another thing: China is one of the worst, if not THE worst polluters on Earth. If Climate Changers really want to put their money where their mouth is, why not go to China and make your claims there? After all, the U.S. has probably spent more money and energy to limit pollution than any other country yet these people still lambaste Americans more than any other country. This is what the left is known for - selective outrage. — Harry Hindu

That's fallacious reasoning. Just because China is the worst polluter doesn't absolve every other country from doing what needs to be done. Moreover, China's expenditure in reneweable energy is also the largest in the world (2015) USD 103 billion compared to USD 44 billion in the US. Considering the choices Trump is making the "selective" outrage is spot on.

As the climate changes, there will be winners and losers. In the US, for instance, the southwestern region will probably be a loser and the northern plains probably a winner. Far more people live in the SW US than in the northern plains, however.

It is also the case that some places will first be winners, then losers; others first losers then winners. How, exactly, and who will be demonstrated over time.

It is also the case that disasters like South Sudan owe a great deal to bad politics. Famines often have political as well as environmental causes.

Then there are economic factors, like having passed peak oil, that come into play. Over time oil is becoming more difficult and expensive to produce, and there will be less of it. This alone will make it more expensive and difficult to adapt to particular climate changes.

So, point being, crises are multidimensional.

why not go to China and make your claims there? — Harry Hindu

My sublime thought is available to the Chinese via the Internet. I am sure there hang on every word.

That's fallacious reasoning. Just because China is the worst polluter doesn't absolve every other country from doing what needs to be done. — Benkei

Actually, it makes what every other country needs to do worthless. What good is it for every other country to do something when the world's largest populations and polluters are doing nothing to very little?

As for the amount China is spending; it is comparable to amount of pollution they create compared to the rest of the world, so yes, they should be spending more money that the US, duh. Any info on India, the 2nd largest population and polluter?

But yeah, you and Bitter can ignore the more interesting points about humans being natural causes to Earth's climate, and avoid those questions I posed in my previous post. Cherry-pickers.

But yeah, you and Bitter can ignore the more interesting points about humans being natural causes to Earth's climate — Harry Hindu

I thought I had agreed with you that humans are a part of nature, and therefore, what they do is "natural". But just being natural isn't in itself always good. Termites are natural too, and if they infest your house, it will eventually collapse as they eat--and weaken--the structure.

Cherry-pickers — Harry Hindu

Somebody has to pick the cherries.

Actually, it makes what every other country needs to do worthless. What good is it for every other country to do something when the world's largest populations and polluters are doing nothing to very little? — Harry Hindu

Actually it makes a lot of difference. A Dutch invention could be exported and used by other countries, for instance. A county can inspire others for demonstrating that co2 reduction and growth are possible (oh wait, the USA and China did exactly that).

And the amount of pollution China creates is largely driven by market demand in the West. So "blaming" them as solely responsible in a global economy is a bit silly. It is global warming after all.

You seem to be saying that climate change is natural because human beings are, well, natural and that all this fuss about man-made climate change is barking up the wrong tree.

However vehicles, factories, nuclear powerplants, etc. are not in any form of biological relationship with the ecosystem. There is not even a hint of it. The relationship (if you can call it that) between man-made artefacts and nature is a one-way street and it's jammed with garbage trucks loading tons of toxic pollutants.

Therefore, there's a significant difference between man-made artefacts and natural things. This difference has major consequences for the enviroment.

GLOBAL WARMING: Finding the Missing Heat ~ The real problem for those wishing to ignore the effect of human beings on the climate is the greenhouse effect. One can make any number of arguments that other factors will cause the climate to change, up to and including new ice ages and sunspots. But the fact is, the greenhouse effect is not only more significant than most such postulations, but totally predictable, as it can be modeled in the laboratory and extrapolated with fair accuracy to the entire planet. The problem has been for scientists is that planetary temperature models are partially based on ocean temperature. In fact as water covers most the planet, ocean temperature is extremely important. But the data is extremely sparse. Most of the data is surface temperature. Deep-water sensors are extremely rare. But initially scientists did not believe that was so significant, because they thought warm water rises, so heat would not be stored deeper down.

Then the early extrapolations predicted a greater increase in global temperature than was occurring. That is to say, we may be certain to a very high degree of accuracy how much heat there SHOULD be captured on the planet by greenhouse gases. We have very accurate data of how much greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere. But we don't know exactly where the heat is going that the gases capture.

Those with fiscal interest in denying climate change immediately trumpeted that scientists were deliberately misleading the public, somewhat to the confusion of scientists who have no motivation to do so.

In 2015, the general consensus was that the largest hole in the dataset was the effect of the icemelt from the Himalayas into the Indian Ocean. Recent spot surveys have indicated that deep-sea undercurrents from the Himalayan icemelt carry warm water deeper than originally thought, and that slipstreams of warmer and colder water form layers in the deep sea which are capturing heat way down below. So last year, an international consortium started deploying a network of about 60 'bouncing weatherbuoys' was distributed across the Indian ocean. The 'bouncing weatherbuoys' move very sensitive temperature and current sensors up and down the buoy cables to gather data across the entire ocean depth. This will increase the amount of data by something like five orders of magnitude, which was calculated to be the amount necessary to determine how much the deep sea is actually absorbing heat across the different slipstream layers, and how the heat is being distributed out of the Indian ocean into the pacific. That only serves to indicate how little data has been available on deep ocean currents. It will take at least several years for the first recomputations to be available, and so there hasnt been alot of news about it yet on the open Internet, because the scientists, from prior experience in this field, have no interest in promising any findings which might be more difficult to establish than they hope.

The general observation should be, if people really wish to challenge the scientific theory, they should be funding such experiments more, rather than withdrawing the funding for military purposes, as is currently happening in the USA. Nothing would delight the scientists more than to discover they are wrong about impending doom. Meanwhile, the search continues for the missing heat, as much as it can, while those who deny the inevitable consequences of the greenhouse effect ratchet up the rhetoric to claim that the second law of thermodynamics is pseudoscience created by fakes, by which same logic, car engines would not work. And that's the world as it is known today )