So if we say "man-influenced", you would be satisfied?

Since I'm not immortal or even quite as old as The Earth I am not concerned with saving Planet Earth. Earth will be just fine until our Sun swallows it up. I'm only concerned with Humanity's place on it, that there will still be one, and what Humanity can do and has done to influence that, so that's why I left that option out. To me the semantics of "made vs/ influenced" is too easily misconstrued and matters not one whit.

It's rather obvious that your first sentence is real and true with one extremely important caveat - We haven't the technology to influence our home planet's magnetic field let alone polarity but we do have and have exercised substantial and profound (to Us) influence over climate.

Your second sentence is one I see repeatedly since it is the only possible raison d'etre Big Oil can come up with to make the claim that someone is getting rich off of "The Human Caused Climate Change Hoax" since they are getting rich off of denying it (talk about Poles flipping!) and History shows Status Quo is a powerful force, likely to win out. The hubris of deny-ers amazes me since it isn't as if one requires higher Math or expensive equipment to verify it is not a Hoax. There are actually people ready to trust that NASA/ESA recently discovered a 20km lake of unfrozen water roughly a kilometer under the surface of Mars' South Pole but question NASA/ESA and 55 other institutions and individuals recorded measurements, photos, and films documenting the change and Humanity's role in it right here on Earth!.

I'm afraid I strongly disagree with your 3rd and last sentence since I don't find it comical at all but rather disgusting and terribly tragic. How many ways? I suppose until a poll like this one has zero deniers of the all too obvious facts and nobody is going to be smug about having come to that conclusion early since the consequences, all of them, are likely beyond our imagination Bad. This is a case where I yearn to be wrong, but I likely am not. At this point all we can hope for regarding the future, if there is to be one, for Humanity that "Bad" will be a struggle that ultimately results in Growth and Maturity required to "reach the Stars".

this was confusing.
i should've clarified: in my opinion, doubting humanity's influence on global warming is akin to believing in Intelligent Design. there.

https://xkcd.com/1732/
be sure to scroll down to the end, otherwise you won't get it.

the same could be said about these redundant replies of yours...

Hay Hazel! Yes, it's very true that climate change didn't start with us. That was my main point in my last post above.

If there's $$$ to be made, I'd say probably a big contribution, particularly when you're talking about the "lobby groups" and alike...

Hey ntubski! Don't always see a lot of posts from yourself, I guess you're a bit like me in that: I pick and choose what I do and don't reply to, even sometimes when I do know the answer(s).

It's not about me or even yourself being "satisfied", we can be satisfied all we want - that doesn't change anything. It doesn't stop climate change, but yes, that would be a far more accurate description in my view.

I don't think you can "save" a planet from natural fundamental processes.

I understand your point enorbet. Fair enough. I said what I said above because I can't vote in the current poll. I can't vote "Yes", I can't vote "No" because climate change is not a hoax and it's foolish IMHO to deny what's as clear as day - it IS happening, there's no doubt about that in my mind. And I can't vote "Jury Isn't In Yet" because I once again think it's clear that the climate IS changing.

My point is that it cannot be "man-made" if it's been happening since before we graced the poor Earth.

This week's New Scientist has several articles on global warming, including a rather ominous one about changing ocean currents.

I'll throw some stuff in here too.

Think of the average acreage of farmland that is farmed using modern practices....

They pump anhydrous ammonia directly into the ground. This stuff is deadly, not only to humans but also the microbiology, who are necessary for healthy soil.

Since the soil is dead, they need to constantly fertilize their fields. Who cares that most fertilizers are deadly to soil life. There is no soil life anyways

Time to plant. They buy the latest Max, Advantage Plus, Highest yield, whatever, whatever, genetically modified herbicide tolerant seeds. These seed and the plants are toxic to insects, including beneficial ones like bees.

Later, nature's bare soil response team(weeds) kicks in to protect the soil from erosion and moisture loss. This is of course very undesirable. Break out the herbicide. The killer does its job and continues to kill the soil. Not to mention the next rain will carry it into the water supply. Hmm aquatic life is dying!?? But How???


After a successful harvest, the field is once more bare for over winter, except for a few herbicide resistant weeds.

Fields with this treatment, develop soil compaction. Which means it can no longer hold water like it should. When it rains there is HUGE amounts of runoff, When the sun shines its hard as a rock. In the spring it's one sloppy mess. Drainage tile to the rescue. Now the water can run off even faster and the weed killer reaches your water supply so much quicker.


So how would this affect the climate? Think about it...How many acres are farm this way? They contribute next to nothing the environment, hold very little water. Hence drought and flooding is a common side effect. Not to mention the chemicals involved.


Modern Farming is only a small factor in so called climate change, but don't underestimate it.

I think that view supposes we are somehow separate from those processes and we are not. If you insulate your house sufficiently when you exercise you will actually raise the temperature in your home as your elevated body heat is transmitted throughout your home. So if you become uncomfortably hot in that situation you would just keep on exercising and deny your effect on your environment? Everything that can happen is Natural. Unnatural and Supernatural are lies.


You are dodging the issue by arguing pure semantics. Either humans are sufficiently numerous and productive to affect climate or they are not. Period.

My point was that you can't stop a natural process, not how "separate" we are or ain't from it. I wasn't "supposing" anymore than that.

Causing something, and merely effecting something ain't necessarily one of the same thing.

Often times the first sign of tyranny (in any form) is the absence of and/or refusal to allow opposing views. Notice how the for "man made climate change" group, cannot allow/permit an opposing/differing view, its either man made or its wrong, its this groups way or no way. That's not science its tyranny.

Ref: Tyranny of the mind https://www.monticello.org/site/jeff...-god-quotation
Tyranny of the Majority https://edsitement.neh.gov/curriculu...ranny-majority
Tyranny of Science https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/...nny-of-science

It's really cause and effect in many ways.

The cause: is a natural process that would have happened regardless of our presence on this Earth or not; that is being accelerated (but not caused) by us humans.

The effect: wilder weather, more destructive storms, hotter and colder temperatures, etc

If it were not for our "contribution", the same would have taken many, many more years/decades/etc to happen instead. And it therefore cannot be "man-made" if it's fundamentally a "natural process".

While I agree that first of all: we all have a "stake" in it. And yes, we should try and limit the effects of climate change. But to be realistic, we can only try and slow it down - we still can't actually stop it from happening. I really don't understand this left/right bullsh*t.

Well said. Nothing more to add.

I don't think anyone disagrees with you all that much. I think you may have just gotten a bad read of the poll text: "Human Caused Climate Change is Real?" This is definitely a poll of whether or not you think anthropogenic climate change is real.

You suggest that the Earth would have naturally reached the point we are at now, much later. I'm wondering if that's true? It's my understanding that before the industrial revolution Co2 was relatively static relative to afterwards.

How do you get a "tyrannical my way or the highway" scenario out of a binary situation? Precisely what Science does is to formulate a hypothesis and then attempt to "punch holes in it". If no holes can be punched then it is accepted that is "bulletproof" at least up to the parameters tested. One binary situation for an illustration is whether the earth is flat or roughly a globe. It can't be both. One or the other is accurate and correct and if one side amasses patterned data that constitutes the preponderance of evidence, that side is more likely to be correct. Whether or not the argument is concluded or not depends entirely on whether or not the opposing view has amassed a similar body of objective data or has barely a leg to stand on. That is not tyranny. That is critical thought. "Open Mindedness" doesn't mean accepting all wild claims regardless of evidence.

The Science is clear. It would be far more comfortable if the data read differently but unfortunately it does not, firstly whether humanity is a part of the cause or not, then secondarily if it is , then can it also reverse that effect.

While Myk267 makes a valid point regarding what trends did actually exist before the Industrial Revolution which may lead to a firmer reduction of any gap that may exist between "caused" or "affected and accelerated", I care not about the distinction.

If I'm a passenger in a car that is being driven dangerously fast given weather conditions because it is raining cats and dogs, I don't care about any argumentative distinction between what will cause the likely upcoming accident, the rain or the car's velocity. I just want the driver to ease off the gas

well said!