Climate change - the real question

[whosinpower]

All this talk and fluff about emails being hacked, about scientists discarding raw data got me to thinking.
I am no scientist, but it seems to me there is a basic key question that needs to be addressed. I think some groups or individuals would rather not answer the question, or even acknowledge that this is the entire crux of the matter.

Currently, right now, there are an estimated 6.6 BILLION human beings living on this planet.
Do you think that 6.6 billion human beings with their lifestyles and technology could affect or change climate on Earth? That is the question. Yes or no.

I see allot of postings here about science, its flaws and misgivings. I see allot of postings that claim that global warming or climate change is just a hoax. Would that then mean that 6.6 billion people have NO effect whatsoever on the planet, its environment and our ecosystem?

If the answer is no - there is nothing that mankind can do that would alter or change the natural course of changes in the earth's environment or atmosphere - well I find that really hard to accept.

If the answer is yes, then we owe it to our future generations to give them the planet in as good or better shape than when we occupied it. I'm not sure if that means carbon sequestration, but it does mean change. Stealing emails, publishing them, invoking doubt in science is all an attempt to stall that change. It changes the narrative. It is insidious and it robs our grandchildren of a clean safe productive and robust environment.

[lapfog_1]

1. Let's see...

"Do you think that 6.6 billion human beings with their lifestyles and technology could affect or change climate on Earth? That is the question. Yes or no."

This isn't a question (or the right question). Of course we can, and we HAVE. Provably, demonstrably.

We could turn this planet into an almost lifeless wasteland with our current arsenal of nuclear weapons.
We have introduced non-native species of plants and animals to entire continents, with devastating impacts.
We have already caused (directly or indirectly) the extinction of probably hundreds, if not thousands of species through the modification of their habitats.
We have greatly reduced the numbers of others, almost to extinction.

We have created a large hole in the earth's protective Ozone layer through the release of CFC's.

We have already done all this. It's in our history books. There are not vast herds of buffalo roaming the plains of North America anymore. But there ARE 10s of thousands of horses and cattle here. All due to mankind. And without a great deal of technological help.

All of these things have changed the "climate" a bit, one way or another (or could).

The real question you want to ask is "Is the release of CO2 and other green house gasses, by the billions of tons every year, going to or have already affected the climate?"

There isn't any need to wonder IF ITS POSSIBLE that man's activities affect climate, only to wonder if specific activities can and are changing the climate of the planet.

That's the real question.

I know my answer, and the answer of many hundreds of climate scientists that I've worked with in the past.

[whosinpower]

2. I took it back a level on purpose

The premise was along the line of climategate, questioning the rationale of losing/destroying/not keeping raw data - from a previous posting here.

I believe you wrote quite clearly debunking that, and the conspiracy theory which is circulating that global warming is a hoax.

It seems to me, that if we can agree that human civilization can and does affect climate - regardless of whether or not it is due to man's greenhouse gas emissions, we owe it to the future to at least try to make our planet sound for our children's children. Even if it is not entirely manmade - we are not making it better with our own contribution of emissions. We owe it to them.

To ignore the evidence, to challenge the findings due to raw data, delays action and changes the narrative. But it does not address the real changes we are witnessing right now. It does not address the melting ice caps - only the way of measuring it. But they are still melting, regardless of the arguement on when or how the data was calibrated.

Taken to its logical conclusion, if those who deny global warming as a hoax, would also be in that camp that perhaps thinks that the earth has natural cycles and there is nothing we can do that would alter that fact. That whatever civilization does has no bearing on the earth's natural cycles. Is that not what the conspiracy theorists are saying, in essence?

By the way, I enjoyed reading your previous postings. I am not a scientist, just a concerned citizen who wants her future generations to be able to breath clean air, drink safe water, enjoy nature, the environment just as she did.

[tabatha]

3. Even if there were no climate change.

The use of oil is detrimental to the planet in a thousand ways.

There is abundant energy from the sun that could be used in place of carbon-based fuels.

Getting carbon-based fuels out of the earth is incredibly destructive.

We have a huge problem with plastic accumulation in the ocean - where do plastics come from.... oil.

I find this hacking of others emails just to smear serious, sincere work done by scientists incredibly abhorrent - close to murder in fact, which it is. It is the murder of innocents through unending pollution, mostly brought about by oil. The comments I have seen by skeptics on various boards, has been one of the most disheartening things I have encountered. They are smearing climate researchers beyond belief - if they are so concerned about ethics, etc, why are they not concerned even more by something worse - the ongoing, daily trashing of the planet. That is far bigger. I bet these skeptics are the kind that hike into the wilderness, and leave all their trash behind them - that litter the waterways, the ocean, etc. They are just big bullies who want to dominate and use everything to destruction.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. That's not the real question.

Why is it not the real question? Because it's been firmly established that yes, humans are causing global warming.

"I see allot of postings here about science, its flaws and misgivings. I see allot of postings that claim that global warming or climate change is just a hoax."

Yes, but those posters are liars and trolls.

[Johonny]

5. I've actually had people tell me that they believe that humans

can't affect their environment. They don't believe in global warming because they find it hard to believe humans can produce such huge affects. They say it's arrogant to believe humans could have such power. They do this while living in the heart of LA. I wonder if they know what LA would look like if humans hadn't been around. Oh well that's the counter argument. It appeals to people that want simplicity in their life or believe humans that claim sweeping changes are some how challenging god or claiming to have god like abilities. It's an odd argument but very effective on some people.

[tabatha]

6. Yeah, how did they clean up the air in London?

Why is there so much mercury in fish?

Why did Pelicans recover after DDT was banned? Why were they affected when it was used.

It is just simply a matter of physics and chemistry. But if one does not understand that, then there is no hope.