Poll - Does man contribute to global temperature increases?

Assuming the average global temperature is increasing, is mankind contributing ?

  • No, mankind is not contributing to the global temperature increase.

    Votes: 66 52.8%
  • Yes, mankind is contributing to the global temperature increase.

    Votes: 59 47.2%

  • Total voters
    125

Ron Earp

Admin
Lots and lots of discussion. Time for a poll.

For the sake of this poll you'll need to assume the average mean temperature of the earth is increasing. That said, is man contributing at all to this global increase in temperature? Yay or nay.

The poll is simplistic and has an assumption that the average global temperature is increasing. My reason for this assumption is I'm trying to learn more about what folks think about man's role in the climate without having a debate poll over temperature increases or not.
 
Yay.
With zero meteorological knowledge (aviation weather courses in pilot school included :eek:) ), logic says there has to be ‘some’ contribution by man, if for no other reason than the acres of concrete we’ve laid out/built on. However!!! That ‘some’ means greater than zero. I seriously question how much greater than zero it really is, and whether that contribution has any significant effect on the world’s climate cycles. For the same reason, I question the ability of Man (even assuming everyone on earth actually participates) to alter the climate. It seems a little arrogant to think we can affect Nature one way or the other.
Should we husband our resources, seek energy alternatives (how about nukes) and minimize pollution? Sure, who could argue that? But the approach has to be within reason. Should we spend untold trillions and strangle the world economies to try to make some decimal zero zero one reduction in world CO2, or whatever? Assuming we actually can? Should we kill off a few millions of people in the poorer nations while their governments spend the cash (which we’re going to give them, and of course they’ll spend it ALL on greenhouse gas management) on ‘world government’ clean up programs?
Hell no!
So what’s the answer? There isn’t one. As long as we have politicians (to the international power/exponent) %^$#*ing up the decision making, nothing of any sense is gonna happen. Mimi is right: sit back and see what happens. Somehow, I think Nature will muddle through just fine, in spite of us!
 

Dave Wood

Lifetime Supporter
I think what little man contributes is minimalized by any number of earth's own activities. One volcanic eruption, spews more in the environment than man has contributed in decades. And volcanoes erupt several times a year, many under the ocean.
I have been "green" since the early 60s. I have built and use wind generators, solar ovens as well as other "developing technologies" as early as 1974. The ISSUE I have with the whole "green" mentality is they ignore WHAT man does that contributes and want to allow it to continue..but tax it. IF we are serious about the "greenhouse" gases man makes WHY do we not ban plastic bottles and return to glass bottles. Produce once and sterilize repeatedly. It also lessens oil demand. While it won't eliminate the litter problem so many people exercise regularly, at least the bottles can be picked up and recycled for some $$. There would be an incentive for people to walk the ditches and collect bottles. Now, I walk our mile long frontage and collect plastic bottles that go into the landfill....OH...but let's not change that, let's tax the users and not the producers. Putting a refundable deposit on plastic bottles avoids the fact that they still consume millions of barrels of oil every year and are rapidly consuming landfills. Typical political solutions. Give tax credits to companies to pollute and then let them buy "pollution credits" and then tax everyone else for a bunch of idiotic "solutions". If those guys had ANY clue, the country wouldn't be in the dumper. When the politicions stop using limos and flying on my dime everywhere, I might have an interest in listening, but as the biggest bunch of hypocrits I have ever seen spewing this nonsense, Screw 'em.
This seems like a way to control developing countries as they emerge from poverty with the same technology that we did. Also , it gives all those morons in DC another reason to attack countries..."they refuse to abide by international agreements to limit CO emissions". Oh yeah, this is great idea...NOT!
We also produce literally millions and millions of cars every year...for what?? So a bunch of over indebted fools can keep up with the Jones'? Most likely to keep the overpaid union fools employed. Hell we could probably reduce the country's greenhouse gases, by over half,if we fire everyone in DC. It would at least be a great start.
So , when they start returning to environmentally sound practices that we pushed aside, I'll pay more attention. Until then, back off.
 
Yes for Mike --- he about covered it ! Would be nice if we all greened up a bit and somehow checked population growth.
Cheers, Merry Xmas and fun new year to all, Dick
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I'm with Mike, too....I know we contribute somewhat to the CO2 content in the atmosphere, no way we can continue our present lifestyle without it.

I'm just not convinced that we humans caused greenhouse gasses to rise to the level that has alarmed the scientists. Just think how massive the atmosphere is, I mean unlike the oceans it covers the entire planet and to much greater altitudes than the depths of the oceans. That is an incredible volume.....not convinced that all of mankind can have the magnitude of effect it would take to cause the global temperature to rise.

I am, on the other hand, firmly convinced that the earth undergoes periodic cycles of heating and cooling, has since the elements in space coalesced into a planet. As far as I am concerned, we're just seeing the beginning of yet another of those natural cycles, and once the earth has undergone it's heating cycle, we'll see yet another cooling cycle.

Now, when that happens, do you suppose the scientists and politicians will insist that we give up our hybrid low-polluting cars and drive hot rodded gas guzzlers without catylitic convertors :idea: so that the earth will warm up again?

I hope so :thumbsup: , but the chances are about 100% that I won't be around anymore when we get there.

Doug
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I'm with both Mike and Dave. While I know that we pollute the atmosphere and the earth and think we should stop doing that, the people we elected into office pay lip service to stopping pollution, while dreaming up ways to regulate and tax us even more. That huge farcical cocktail party that just finished in Copenhagen is an example of their total hypocrisy.
It is total arrogance to think that we can affect climate in any but the minutest way. A bit like King Canute trying to stem the tide.

Ron, I can't participate in your poll because I do not accept the globe is warming, all the credible science I have studied shows in fact that it has been cooling over the last decade. I'll happily agree that the climate changes and has had cyclical periods of warming and cooling for billions of years.
 
I think man contributes minimally, not anywhere near the amount the guys that flew 1000+ private jets to Copenhagen think we do! But they have a huge monetary interest in that science or lack of!
 
Ah jeez, here we go again....

Personally, I don't know how someone can think we're not dramatically impacting the atmosphere, and consequently our weather, through our actions. Yes, the volume of the atmosphere is huge, but the amount of pollution we put into the atmosphere is absolutely enormous as well, and we're doing it every day, week and month for years and years. If you travel, take a look around the next time you're in a major industrial area - one single smoke stack (without scrubbers) can put a huge amount of particulate and gas pollution into the air over time. Now multiply that by millions of stacks worldwide and it's really quite shocking.

The related, but really quite different, issue that many here find objectionable is the issue of how governments around the world have chosen (or not) to "incentivize" changed behavior ie. taxation of behavior perceived to contribute to atmospheric pollution. True, that can be self-serving (to the gov't), in other words, just a rationale to tax the citizenry more and call it "environmental regulation" whilst fattening up the gov't coffers. But, frankly, even if that's the case, the bottom line is that human behavior on a macro scale rarely changes until it hits the pocket book, and a carbon tax does indeed tend to make people change behavior. We talk a lot about doing "green" things and how we support "green" products etc. but talk is cheap and it's really only economics that change human behavior on a grand scale. Here in the US, when gas hit $4.50/gallon, you couldn't give away 7.3ltr Ford pickups. If gas had instead been $2.50/gallon those trucks would have been selling just fine, just like they always had done.

As much as you hate it, gas guzzler taxes, carbon taxes, etc. do make people change behavior, whereas a lot of talk about "green" this or that is just talk. The real question is, are the tax-based "incentives" encouraging the right kind of behavioral changes, both on the individual side, and on the governmental side.....
 
I think nature has 2 or more sides, even a straight line has 2 ends.
Nature, has a nature of spilling.
Look, of instance how the most animals or plants gets offspring.
2 old makes 2 to 1.000.000 offspring.

Most lost ancient civalications was coursed by overcrowding, in other words polution.

Do we contribute, i think so.
But how much, i think growd of people worldwide have not so much influence as a hole.
3/5 of earth size is covert with water and that has more influence.
And dont forget the sun.

This is mine modest opinium.
 

Ron Earp

Admin
Ron, I can't participate in your poll because I do not accept the globe is warming,

Hey Pete, good man! You understand what I was getting at. Thanks.

I've not stated whether or not I think the globe is warming, however, for purposes of voting on this poll it is a premise of the poll. If you don't think the global temperature is increasing then you don't vote, Pete gets it. I imagine the results are already skewed because I bet one or two of the vocal folks who don't believe the mean temperature is increasing have already voted "no".
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Precisely the reason I did not vote Ron....

Being from MN, I am a poor person to judge any potential Global Warming. From my vantage point, the old girl's getting colder!!!! :stunned::veryangry::stunned:
 

Dave Wood

Lifetime Supporter
I guess for my post I acknowledge that the earth is warming, but that doesn't mean I think it will continue to warm. I don't. I fall in to that category that believes that the earth goes through cycles. Warming...cooling...warming...cooling. I think mankind is so infatuated with itself they believe they can solve anything....me...not so much. Let see, we are in a war on drugs...there are more drugs available than ever..the worst from pharmaceutical companies wanting some of the $$ action....we have had a long standing war on poverty and the numbers of impoverished has grown....the war on Cancer has worked out well too...but you couldn't tell it from my wife's treatment. I feel we go along merrily creating "solutions" that don't, and probably never will, work. Then we "fix" the next thing without even acknowledgeing that the last thing we "fixed" is still broken.
My observation is that most "solutions" are venues for large profits by close associates and FINANCIAL donors to those elected morons that "solved" the problem.
 

Keith

Moderator
So, split about down the middle. Interesting.

I think that's probably par for the course as none of us knows what to properly think in the almost total absence of trust unless you take the matter in blind faith. If there was even 25% scepticsim (for the concept global warming) I think the Jury must retire and discuss the case in more depth not just blindly accept the rhetoric from a bunch of budget seekers.

What I found most interesting was the rate at which the votes were cast in each category. It's "Good to be Green" therefore the pro votes were quick coming whereas the smaller (but accelerating) group of sceptics didn't want to be seen as Earth Killers until such time as the momentum of courage increased.

That has to be good for debate but is my "expert" more believable than your "expert? ":shrug:

My gut feeling is YES he most certainly IS.:thumbsup:

Not hard to work out which side of the fence I'm on....

And a smiley Christmas to you all....:)
 
I think the poll could be better worded. I think that man is contributing to warming, but I voted that we aren’t.

The fact is that we are putting C02 into the atmosphere, and C02 is a greenhouse gas. The thing is that the small amount that we are putting into the atmosphere is so insignificant that the amount of warming is minuscule. So I voted that we aren’t.

A good read about the amount of C02 that we put into the atmosphere is only .117% increase in the total greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere, not anything to get worked up about.

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers
 
Back
Top