This should get interesting.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

A new CBC poll found that 44% of Canadians think humans are mostly responsible for global warming. The rest, 56%, think we are not responsible or only partly responsible(17%).

 

I found that surprising because it seems like every time this topic comes up, very few take a questioning approach or position. The science is all so absolute in "most" peoples minds, or so I thought! Before you say it, they can't all be conservatives since they only represented approx. 35% of the vote.:)

 

So, what could be going on here? Are people questioning the science, given the exaggerations of the past? Maybe most people realize experts are just making educated guesses and quite often they turn out to be wrong?

 

I was surprised by the findings and already a scientist suggested the majority are ignorant. Any alternate opinions?

[Guest st*****ens**ors]

If those who think humans are partly responsible for global warming are grouped with those who think we are solely responsible, the divide shifts to 61% and 39%, which is closer to where I'd have guessed the numbers would shake out.

 

There is research that suggests a slow and gradual warming of the earth has been taking place over the last millennium, and that human activity has greatly accelerated it, so I don't think the "partially responsible" position is entirely indefensible.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Nicely done, the way you claimed ownership of the "partly believes in AGW" to your side, Cuch. Not to be a shit disturber(yeah, right!) but does that now mean the scientist I mentioned who previously.suggested that the majority was ignorant, he was now referring to believers in human influenced climate change? :)

 

Personally, I put myself in the partly believes camp. I have a hard time accepting blindly any authority that suggests an increase in a naturally occurring gas which represents .04% of our atmosphere to something like .05% due to human activity can have a greater impact than other factors which have been warming and cooling our climate for hundreds of millions of years. Especially any authority that has been quite wrong in the past.

 

I'm still curious where cerbies cast their lot. Mostly, partly or not at all?

[Guest st*****ens**ors]

Ummm. No?

 

I was just suggesting that how one frames a question and collates the responses can have a significant impact on how an issue is presented. I think the majority of Canadian accept the reality of human influence on global warming and the necessity of human action to remediate the trend. When a study suggests otherwise, I'm curious about how the question was framed and the results were presented. Papers are sold, after all, by controversy, not consensus.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Agreed. Nothing is more controversial than "the sky is falling!". I too get curious about how questions and articles are framed and presented.

 

Can I count you in the "mostly" camp then?

[Guest st*****ens**ors]

Oh, I'm in the mostly camp, without question.

 

Thanks, by the way, for such engaging threads.

[overdone 273]

believers in human influenced climate change

 

Personally, I put myself in the partly believes camp.

 

and people who'd be in this camp, like our clueless leader, Zoolander's french cousin

 

should be outraged that we're still bringing in a average city of almost 300,000 a year and have been for well over a decade now

 

bottomline, if you delude yourself into thinking you're an "environmentalist"

 

how many people have you killed?

 

cause that's the only way "climate change" is going to "reverse" "stop"

 

the human population is out of whack at 7+ billion

 

less people-less pollution-less energy-less food production

 

but instead we get idiots who want to do the opposite

 

point out the one place in the world that's overpopulated that is soooo great to live?

 

our immigration policy, David Suzuki is a hypocritical douche, but he got one thing right, we don't need more people here

 

we need a policy on our natural birthrate, get it back to 2, natural replacement, keep our pop steady, more people doesn't equal a better quality of life

 

if you care about climate change, less people is the answer, not more

 

there was nothing wrong with Canada with 25, 30 million, we don't need 50+

 

and neither does the environment

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

and people who'd be in this camp, like our clueless leader, Zoolander's french cousin

 

should be outraged that we're still bringing in a average city of almost 300,000 a year and have been for well over a decade now

 

bottomline, if you delude yourself into thinking you're an "environmentalist"

 

how many people have you killed?

 

cause that's the only way "climate change" is going to "reverse" "stop"

 

the human population is out of whack at 7+ billion

 

less people-less pollution-less energy-less food production

 

but instead we get idiots who want to do the opposite

 

point out the one place in the world that's overpopulated that is soooo great to live?

 

our immigration policy, David Suzuki is a hypocritical douche, but he got one thing right, we don't need more people here

 

we need a policy on our natural birthrate, get it back to 2, natural replacement, keep our pop steady, more people doesn't equal a better quality of life

 

if you care about climate change, less people is the answer, not more

 

there was nothing wrong with Canada with 25, 30 million, we don't need 50+

 

and neither does the environment

 

Strong opinions there! So I'll put you in the "not at all" camp? I'm not sure if you're a non-believer in AGW or if you just have a problem with Liberals, population. That may be a topic for another thread.

[overdone 273]

clearly you can't read between the lines

 

obviously going from 1 to 7+ billion people on the planet, in barely the last 100 or so years, has had an effect

 

it's basic exponential math, diminishing returns

 

but deluding yourself into believing the same people who created or caused the problem will solve it, no, I don't "believe" it's going to happen, cause the solution is getting rid of 5-6 billion of us

 

there's a Doc, called Sand Wars

 

http://sand-wars.com/

 

 

 

completely related to people, too many people, which is the same cause of the problem which you're discussing

 

balance is the key, and you need to decimate the human population to bring it back into balance, bottom-line

 

letting it happen here, bringing in people from areas where they overpopulated, isn't going to help or solve anything

 

only one way to reduce pollution, less people, less need

 

cause you aren't going to get people to stop consuming

 

we're selfish, insatiable animals, all you have to do is look at history to see that

[Guest st*****ens**ors]

You may be entirely correct in your conclusions, overdone, but it's worth pointing out a couple of things.

 

1. The OP question had nothing to do with finding a solution to climate change. It simply asked whether Lyla members believed that climate change was caused by human activity. You're squaring up for a fight that, as far as I can see, isn't happening.

 

2. Unless I've missed something, no one suggested in any post that increasing Canada's population was a potential way to address climate change. It sounds as though you're provoked by the refugee issue, and wanting to debate it here. There is a thread for that discussion somewhere in General Discussion.

 

3. The sneering tone of "clearly you can't read between the lines," and, frankly both of your posts on this topic seems a little out of place in a discussion that has been otherwise friendly.

 

clearly you can't read between the lines

 

obviously going from 1 to 7+ billion people on the planet, in barely the last 100 or so years, has had an effect

 

it's basic exponential math, diminishing returns

 

but deluding yourself into believing the same people who created or caused the problem will solve it, no, I don't "believe" it's going to happen, cause the solution is getting rid of 5-6 billion of us

 

there's a Doc, called Sand Wars

 

http://sand-wars.com/

 

 

 

completely related to people, too many people, which is the same cause of the problem which you're discussing

 

balance is the key, and you need to decimate the human population to bring it back into balance, bottom-line

 

letting it happen here, bringing in people from areas where they overpopulated, isn't going to help or solve anything

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Quoting Overdone: "cause the solution is getting rid of 5-6 billion of us".

 

Okay.

 

Who are we starting with? Do you want to be in the first "batch"???

 

Just being purely provocative here...

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

I may be wrong, but I have seen many scientfic shows that show how something like 60% of all greenhouse gas was in fact before the humans and our industrial age. Such as volcano activites and the decomposing of dinasours.

On the time line of history, humans are actually a very small fraction of what has already occured. NOT SAYING that we have not contributed to this and rapidly did increase. But the facts are there was greenhouse effects, global warming which lead us into ice ages.

It shows that we must maintain a balance with what we have left in our atmosphere.

We are not the single cause, but a factor. And as humans we have the power to change our part. Will we? Have we?

When I was a 15 yr old kid...I worked for greenpeace. My project was on this very issue! So sad it took hundreds of doors being slammed in my face, threats, and litterly chased of property to now FINALLY is a dinner table topic!

 

OOOPSY many spelling errors...SORRY autocorrect wont work on my phone for some odd reason lol.

[Brad 49548]

Conclusions made by scientists do turn out to be mistaken of course, and science is meant to work based on new evidence. That is, as new evidence is discovered the conclusions will change. Science is a process of discovering what is most likely the truth, but must by its own definition always be open to new evidence.

 

That said, I can't think of any other topic where scientists have such a consensus of opinion but the general population balks at it, or clings to a very small dissenting opinion. Perhaps the only comparison I can make is the distrust people have for vaccines because they believe a few celebrities and a discredited study over a mountain of evidence and legion of scientists and doctors.

 

Being a skeptic and a critical thinker is one thing (and a positive thing) but I think in this case the doubt people have mostly comes down to the fact they don't want to believe we're at fault or responsible.

[overdone 273]

Quoting Overdone: "cause the solution is getting rid of 5-6 billion of us".

 

Okay.

 

Who are we starting with? Do you want to be in the first "batch"???

 

Just being purely provocative here...

 

like it or not, pointing out the obvious would be the 2 countries that are the most overpopulated

 

India and China

 

the have between 2-3 billion of the 7

 

or at least quit letting them send their problem to other areas of the world

 

it isn't the 1880's, not even the 1950's, that outdated ideology that we need people to populate the bush, to look after the old, is no longer needed

 

a policy on our birthrate is what's needed

 

selective immigration to supplement the difference, sure, but to continue to send us on the path that obviously doesn't work is moronic

 

in the news the other day, 4 countries, guess which one's?

 

are responsible for 49% of the GHG, in 2010 numbers (that's if you can even believe the BS from China/India/Russia, that low, cause they're so reputable, lol)

 

China, USA, India, Russia, they have about 3.1 billion

 

almost half the world's pop

 

and China and India, aren't even getting started, wait till they're up to the standard we are

 

which they've already stated, f-you, whitey, we're not cutting back on polluting, you did it, now it's our turn, till we get rich like you

 

it's a basic numbers game, like it or not

 

going after Canada, Tonga, ain't going to make a difference

 

you need to cut where it will count

[Helena D'Orville 33237]

Wow. Just saying "wow', Overdone. I can't even believe what you write. And you decide too who to eliminate on this planet??? Wow....

 

As I don't want to "highjack" this thread and let members debating about climate changes and green issues of our planet, it will be my last post in this thread.

 

Let's go back to this interesting discussion the OP started in the first place ;-)

[Studio 110 by Sophia 150333]

Not meaning to hijack a thread but feel is relevant ...

A really good read is Dan Browns Inferno! It discuses over population in a way that will for evermore make you think!

 

Do not read if you are ultra parinod...is very realistic in shades of sci fy....just sayin..you have been warned lol.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Thanks for the responses. Overdone, your handle is appropriate :). I don't disagree with you that overpopulation is a root cause of our planets woes but saying "you need to decimate the human population' as a solution is overdone or carrying things to excess. Surely there is a more balanced approach to a .85 degree rise in temperature over the last 50 years?

 

Brad, I guess I put myself in with the "somewhat skeptical" population and I'll explain my reasons. I'm naturally a person that doesn't accept things on face value. Also, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that represents .o4% of our atmosphere. How can a small human caused increase from say .04 to .05 have so much more of an effect than solar output, naturally occurring water vapor, volcanic activity and cyclical cooling and warming that has been going on for hundreds of millions of years. Not to mention the wrong assumptions science has made in the past and their own admission that climate predicting is not hard science. It seems reasonable to ask questions about all this but whenever someone does that they get shut down and shamed. Never a good way to get people to join their cause.

 

I think this whole AGW issue should be approached from a pollution angle. Resolving pollution will also alleviate climate concerns, to whatever degree is "humanly" possible. Climate deniers can't deny that our planet is not becoming heavily polluted nor that we can influence that aspect, at least.

 

Finally, will keeping billions of people energy deprived even make a difference? Easy for us to say "do as I say, not as I did". Also, what is the economic impact of abrupt change?

 

I prefer less fear mongering and more considered action that gets us there via technology and political will over a reasonable time frame. We are already looking at alternate energy sources, technological advances, etc., as there is only so much oil(or sand) in the ground.

 

My post was not suggesting that our climate is not changing. I just wondered how many think we are it's main cause for changing. Thanks again for the responses.

[Brad 49548]

Stevemcqueen, I don't think you're asking unreasonable questions, and I do agree it's generally healthy not to take things at face value. You certainly seem to have given it thought rather than just a knee-jerk reaction one way or another.

 

However, I don't think that because scientists have got it wrong in the past is necessarily a great reason not to act based on the current consensus.

 

Science as a process is always questioning and examining and seeking more evidence to strive towards knowledge. And sure, I can't claim it's not possible that it will turn out to be wrong in regard to the current understanding of climate change, but (in my view) a rationale person goes based off the best evidence currently available.

 

The overwhelming consensus and current evidence is that human activity is the driving force behind the current climate change. True, there are papers and individuals and Internet articles to the contrary, but they are given a disproportionate amount of attention by outlets with a specific agenda, which make the general population more doubtful than is warranted.

 

I don't know enough about cars to speak in detail about why my breaks might not be working. But if 99% of mechanics who have spent their lives training and studying the matter all agree on what the cause is, I'm going to act under their guidance, even if it's tempting to go with the 1% who says everything is actually fine and I should just keep coasting downhill (or claim even if there is something wrong with them it's out of my control so I shouldn't let it inconvenience me...)

 

Basically, I grant our current understanding (of all things!) is constantly evolving and being refined or corrected, but the only thing a rational person or species can do is act based on the best evidence they have at the time. I suppose we may disagree on what the best evidence is in fact pointing to. It's my belief people give disproportionate weight to arguments against human-driven climate change because (consciously or unconsciously) we don't want to think it's our fault or that we have to make meaningful changes to fix things.

 

I do like some of your other points. It makes me think it's worth asking what's to lose by assuming it's human-led and seeking solutions to limit our pollution...

 

• If climate change is as drastically dangerous and human-led as the consensus of scientists agree, then we may just save our planet and species.
  
• If climate change is in fact going to be minimal or isn't human-caused, then we may put ourselves through some needless economic woes trying to curtail it, but will still have a healthier, cleaner environment.
  

Purely from a risk-management standpoint, it seems worth taking it seriously. Anyway, I agree with you I think our best chances will be technology led (interesting we have faith in that science! :)).

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Thanks for your response, Brad. Your brake analogy is not a good one because most mechanics will lie to you and tell you that you need new brakes. :) LOL

 

I have no problem with a common sense approach as the benefits to a cleaner planet are many. I'm not sure we have to stop burning oil immediately though.

 

I always enjoy reading your posts.

[Phaedrus 209521]

That said, I can't think of any other topic where scientists have such a consensus of opinion but the general population balks at it, or clings to a very small dissenting opinion. Perhaps the only comparison I can make is the distrust people have for vaccines because they believe a few celebrities and a discredited study over a mountain of evidence and legion of scientists and doctors.

 

Another good analogy would be the link between smoking and lung cancer. Back in the 70s, that was basically proven... but just as with the climate change "debate" these days there were some very deep-pocketed corporations with an overriding interest in obscuring the scientific consensus as much as possible, and they managed to make it appear that the issue was far from settled for a very long time.

[overdone 273]

Thanks for the responses. Overdone, your handle is appropriate :). I don't disagree with you that overpopulation is a root cause of our planets woes but saying "you need to decimate the human population' as a solution is overdone or carrying things to excess. Surely there is a more balanced approach to a .85 degree rise in temperature over the last 50 years?

 

there are, they're already here, but it ain't going to happen

 

but those ways can't support a population of 7+ billion in the same type of lifestyle that people desire

 

if it was it would have already, you're eastern Liberals, Chretien signed it, GHG rose under him, they'll rise again, under this new worthless deal

 

you need to stop expanding, people are the cause of that expansion, basic math

 

20yrs from now, the GHG will be above what they wanted to restrict them to, there will be close to 9 billion, probably

 

there's a episode of VICE, titled Meathooked and end of Water

 

this is the typical behaviour of mankind, create a problem, think up another one to solve it

 

or better yet delude yourself into thinking it's not a problem

 

I'm not "choosing" who needs to go, I'm just pointing out the obvious

 

it's a numbers game, basic math

 

any other animal and we would have already culled it

 

exponential math, diminishing returns, it's already happening

 

the solution is less people, like it or not

 

wait till they start to come for our water, maybe you'll change your mind then, lol