{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
由Quantum編輯：
5/21/2013 9:33:15 AM
32
Where do YOU stand on Anthropogenic climate change?
AGW= Anthropogenic Global Warming/ Man Made Global Warming
1. You are a strong environmentalist.
2. You believe humanity is responsible for climate change, and something needs to be done about it.
3. You believe humanity is responsible for climate change, but you feel that the cost of any current solutions is too high (basically, you like/accept the current situation).
4. You do not believe in man made climate change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Now I am expressing a viewpoint. Vote [b]before you read the rest of the OP [/b]to ensure this is an unbiased thread.
----------------------------------------------------------
97.1% of climatologists who expressed an opinion on the subject believe anthropogenic global warming exists (man made climate change).
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article ->Full Article
[quote]We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[/quote]
-
Our species has had an effect on our climate. Our impact isn't able to be measured accurately enough but I certainly don't think we are the main reason for why the climate is changing at the rate it is. We shouldn't burn gallons and gallons of oil every day but we should continue to create vapour trails from planes because some things that we do are actually making our effect on the planet smaller. Environmentalists have scared us into believing that it is bad news too and that we are harming the planet. But the planet isn't actually being harmed here, we are the ones that are being harmed. We will find a way to live through it though, Ester Boserup will prevail.
-
Whether it's anthropogenic or not is irrelevent, as it's still a major problem that needs to addressed soon if we are to save not only small islands in the Pacific, but also major economic hubs and nations nestled along the coast or below sea level.
-
11 回覆由Camnator編輯： 5/21/2013 9:13:38 AMListen, I don't think ANYONE is condoning pollution, I am all for cleaning our atmosphere. But to say with confidence that it IS for certain warming the planet is just RIDICULOUS to assume. Surely you can agree with that, I know you're an educated person, Quantum, even though we don't always agree.
-
1 回覆Anthropologic climate change is very real and is a serious concern for all beings on this planet.
-
3 回覆
-
1 回覆You should edit the title to "person made climate change" so that it is gender neutral and not offensive towards woman.
-
4 回覆-blam!- Global Warming. I'll be dead before it becomes my problem. Let your grandchildren sort it out.
-
20 回覆Considering it has never been proven and many scientists reject the idea, it is beyond foolish to give humanity that much credit. It's an insult to nature.
-
10 回覆A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals. [url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_agw_smoking_gun.html[/url]
-
8 回覆由U920628編輯： 5/20/2013 2:12:19 PMYou think we've left the Ice Age behind? Fool. The fact of the matter is that the earth has natural cycles. We've been on the decline from an Ice Age for 10,000 years approx. In 10'000 more years, the earth will start to freeze back up, and there's nothing you can do about it. Remember [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]Global Cooling[/url]? Long range investigations predict global cooling, short range predict global warming, it's historical patterning, nothing new.
-
3 回覆
-
2 回覆由kgj編輯： 5/21/2013 4:24:02 AMI don't know. I really don't. I've seen both stances on the issue. Michael Crichton believed it to not be true. And I love me some Michael Crichton...
-
7 回覆I hate the environmental hysteria that comes along with it. I try to do my part. I'm increasingly doubtful that this is Americas problem though. It seems the green movement is targeting America even though there are so many other countries that do so much worse. I feel bad when I look at all the rare earths bellow us but we are still forced to buy them from china because we don't want to damage habitats. How much money is here but the environment is more valuable. *sigh* While China can ruin the oceans and blacken the skies all to their own benefit.
-
9 回覆
-
1 回覆I'm a strong environmentalist, but I don't see the difference between that and the second option.
-
1 回覆
