LogFAQs > #892798507

kind9 posted...

Isn't it true that the earth constantly goes through periods of warming and cooling? If it is true then is there any point in debating climate change? Or is the argument that the current warming trend is caused by our own carbon emissions? If so is there actual evidence supporting this?

Yes, which is why we're panicking when glaciers are melting away and revealing things like viking settlements. In general, though, one camp is blaming the bulk of changes on human activity while the other is pointing out that it's either natural or the data is being distorted.

In general, the whole movement hinges on the idea that carbon dioxide output heats up the planet. I'm not sure how they actually tie that together other than a correlation argument. It's usually just accepted as a given.

Zangulus posted...

Yes, the argument is that were making it far worse than it needs to be. To the point we could make the planet inhospitable to ourselves.

Not a realistic concern regarding climate change. While rising water would force some human settlements would need to move, it would mostly just redraw the shorelines assuming that things like levees aren't built. Keep in mind that New Orleans has been under sea level for ages.

Zangulus posted...

Oh, I dunno, a consensus of around 98% it scientists that study it say its rising much faster than previous cycles.

That's the commonly misstated version parroted by the media. The actual working is something along the lines of, "97% of climate change scientists who took a position on climate change found that human activity is contributing to climate change" but some of the scientists who were cited claimed that their work was misrepresented.

Humorously, Jon Oliver -- one of the loudest parrots who once marched out 97 people he purported to be scientists to illustrate it -- has hypocritically insisted on other subjects that getting 97% of people to agree on anything makes it bullshit.
---

(\/)(\/)|-|
In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash