Humans caused climate change; now they must solve it

The effects of accelerated urbanization are what have caused the excess heating in the heavily overpopulated areas. But of course, blame everything on cow farts...

Humans caused what? Sorry, but that's a much too high and selfish overestimating. Humans cause just nothing, not anything on this planet and not anything in the universe. On the big time scale we are just nothing, in the best case a temporary detectable random occurrence.

Corporations and bankers and politicians driving humans into this grow grow grow mindset. Quality goes down, amount goes down prices go up. More trash created. Nations selling out their poor to get rich quick for “the party”.

meh

just enjoy your life in anyway you can. Get out of the cities, they rot the soul. No stopping human idiocracy.

All this once again brings me to the point that 8 billion humans are too many. Regulate it all you want but the more people you have one earth, the more junk you will produce for them and the more waste will be discarded by them. It is time for a major rethink of humanity and what it means. The 19th & 20th century attitude of bigger, better & more have to stop.

LOL. Nah, the title is an assertion. Just like everything else in this piece. Evidence isn't your strong point, is it?

When a claim is in line with the general opinion of the scientific community it is valid to consider it true unless you can refute it, unless you react in the same way when an article talk about pathogens being the cause of infections. Do you?

Oh, if it's in the title, it must be true!

It is not only on the title, it is the scientific consensus, something that you have repeatedly failed to refute. That means there is no problem with considering it true and proved.

Are you just repeating what the scientific community of the world have proved? then they (and their evidence) supports what you say. But if you claim the opposite then you have to provide evidence and arguments to refute that consensus. Just repeating the claim when challenged only makes it obvious you have nothing to support it and it can be considered mistaken without problem.

Nobody with a science degree is a climate change "skeptic"

I like to think all with a science degree are skeptics to some degree - i.e. won't simply accept others' opinions without looking at the evidence. I think there's a difference between a "skeptic" and a "denier".

There are plenty of climatologists and other scientists who are "skeptical" of the human-caused climate change narrative.

The problem is that none of them has any actual evidence to justify real skepticism

They do have data, they're just usually prevented from getting it published in the captured journals, as was demonstrated by the Climate-Gate scandal.

I mean, is one person making youtube videos without showing any actual data wrong, or the whole scientific community of the world is?

A yes, like the "whole scientific community" or "scientific consensus" pushing the zoonotic origin or safe-and-effective narratives.

Science does not work by consensus

Thank you GreenPeas. Agree.

In fact, the "97% consensus of the IPCC" is not accurate. A majority of scientists drew no conclusion regarding anthropogenic climate change from their research. In a speech some years back pres. Obama stated that 97% of scientists agreed. This was calculated by eliminating the majority who garnered no opinion / inconclusive. 97% who had an opinion...

the public and media, not seeking to do any in-depth reading or investigation on their own, grab hold of sound bites.

Nobody with a science degree is a climate change "skeptic", so I think we can safely ignore them.

There are plenty of climatologists and other scientists who are "skeptical" of the human-caused climate change narrative.

that is the correction I made, using criteria for primary sources to qualify an article of divulgation to the general public, the text you quoted is terribly simple, there is no excuse for misunderstanding it as you are trying to do.

So you acknowledge this article is not a primary source--that's a good start.

The effects of humans upon the Earth's climate are far ranging.

There was an article I read in Scientific American positing that "The Little Ice Age" that is famous in Europe followed on the heels of the terrible Black Death plague that killed over a third of the people in Eurasia. After all of those deaths, a lot of land reverted to forest, which took CO2 out of the atmosphere, and a lot fewer green house gases were being put into the atmosphere, since there were fewer people. I have not read anything about similar climate effects in the Far East related to the bubonic epidemic. In those days humans' principle contribution to climate warming was clearing forests for agriculture, and burning wood for heat. The Industrial Revolution, with its burning of coal, was still hundreds of years in the future.

The first time I read about the increasing CO2 emissions that were being detected from Hawaii's Mauna Loa observatory was in the 1960s. At that time, while the increasing CO2 was considered noteworthy, scientists were not yet ready to link it to global warming.

A curious factoid is that without human intervention, the Earth would be heading toward another Ice Age, not uncontrolled Global Warming. How much worse would Global Warming be if we were headed out of an Ice Age, instead of toward one......assuming no intervention by humans.

What society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and the oceans boil and become steam?

Probably none with people, assuming humanity lasts the billion years it would take for the oceans to evaporate.

Only one (unreferenced) fact stated. No references, no quotes, no byline. If this was submitted as an assignment it would garner an "F".

Readers, if you consider yourself to be an open-minded, critical thinker please consider reading, watching lectures and interviews of Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg. These folks will provide objective, fact-based perspective.

..thanks.

zenzenToday  09:12 am JST

Only one (unreferenced) fact stated. No references, no quotes, no byline. If this was submitted as an assignment it would garner an "F".

Readers, if you consider yourself to be an open-minded, critical thinker please consider reading, watching lectures and interviews of Patrick Moore, Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry and Bjorn Lomborg. These folks will provide objective, fact-based perspective.

..thanks.

Facts and accountability aren't prerequisites to get a story published on this website. Just assertions that conform to a certain ragtag collection of left-wing beliefs. Coz it's the vibe.

Moderator: Please state where you disagree with the story and why. That is the best way to have a discussion.

Mother Nature at it again.

Even the title is enough to refute that claim. Why comment on a topic without even reading the title?

It is not only on the title, it is the scientific consensus, something that you have repeatedly failed to refute. That means there is no problem with considering it true and proved.

You have it backwards. Science does not work by consensus, it's nothing more than a logical fallacy. It only takes one scientist with empirical evidence to destroy the so-called consensus. But I'm sure you know that. There are scores of scientists, researchers etc in related fields who have a different take on the so-called consensus. But of course, the general public is blocked from hearing their views in corporate media and other tightly controlled mainstream publications. Control the info, control the narrative. Isn't that how it goes, virusrex?

lol At this point there is no need for references or footnotes for things that are now as apparent as the law of gravity.

Besides which, this isn't a scientic journal, and even if sources were cited, the usual suspects would cry about why some other contradictory evidence was ignored etc

Nobody with a science degree is a climate change "skeptic", so I think we can safely ignore them.

It's true that the poor are the most vulnerable to climate change. Unfortunately, they're concerned more with surviving today than with preparing for climate hazards that could come tomorrow. Someone needs to help them.

The whole point of the comment was that the criticism of the original comment didn't apply precisely because this is not a primary source.

Too bad you have not yet understood this very simple argument, doing that would be a very good start

Great example!

Finally understood that this article is not a primary source.

Imagine actual experts citing a news article!

Great example!

Finally understood that this article is not a primary source.

Good for you, now you only have left to understand the difference between something just agreeing with the scientific consensus and something that don't.

Imagine actual experts citing a news article!

That coincides with the consensus, why not? it is a valid tool when directed to the general public since that is precisely their purpose.

Of course the standard of evidence is completely different when someone is trying to disprove that consensus, in that case you would be trying to surpass the evidence that support that consensus and a news article is not nearly enough since you are required to bring primary sources that can do that.

It is not really a difficult concept, for example using a news article explaining the phases of the moon is valid, but using it to "prove" the moon is made of cheese obviously is not.

Oh, if it's in the title, it must be true!

You have it backwards

You are the one getting the whole thing backwards (and In a totally forced, illogical way)

Consensus is not the method for science to conclude things (that makes no sense) consensus is the product of science being done. When the whole community of scientists can reach the same conclusion by following validated methods and correcting each other mistakes until nobody can refute the results then a consensus is reached. Climate change is caused by humas, microbes cause infections, the Moon is not made of cheese, etc.

It is irrelevant if anyone insist on false, debunked information, when "scientists" can't produce evidence the consensus is not correct then they are simply wrong.

No censure, no blocking of anything (speciallyedia, that is irrelevant for consensus) simply people that can't accept being wrong so they baselessly claim the world is wong instead.

This has been going on for thousands, millions of years.

Aparently you don't understand the huge difference between a primary source and a text made to inform the public about things that the scientific consensus already consider proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

You weren't aware this article is not a primary source?

The denial of the climate crisis is stupid and suicidal. Our knowledge of physics and system theory tells us that in the wake of the inputs inserted by humans the climate system has become nonlinear and unstable. This system is full of malignant positive feedback loops that push it away from equilibrium. There are no stabilizing mechanisms whatsoever that can keep the climate system in equilibrium. But there is no need to be an expert: The rapid rise in temperature and humidity is visible to the naked eye. The catastrophic loss of our planet and the ultimate extermination of humanity are very near. But there still exists a remedy: Moving away from energizing ourselves from petroleum and carbon, and moving on to a new era of energizing ourselves from the sun's radiation and from heavy nuclei. That is easy to do, and should have been done a long time ago. However, there are powerful social forces that fight vehemently against this simple and obvious cure and against the attempt to salvage the planet and the human race. These enemies of the planet claim that moving to modern transportation based on electricity will ruin our society. But these petroleum lords and advocates do not explain how can the usage of efficient, economical, high performance and enjoyable electric cars ruin our society. What society will remain when the temperature rises to hundreds of degrees Celsius and the oceans boil and become steam?

virusrexToday  03:28 pm JST

Mother Nature at it again.

Even the title is enough to refute that claim. Why comment on a topic without even reading the title?

LOL. Nah, the title is an assertion. Just like everything else in this piece. Evidence isn't your strong point, is it?

The effects of accelerated urbanization are what have caused the excess heating in the heavily overpopulated areas. But of course, blame everything on cow farts...

That is completely irrelevant, the effects being experienced are global, not localized to "urbanized areas". This is like having a patient with high fever and using as an excuse that his hand was close to a lamp so it go heated up.

Only one (unreferenced) fact stated. No references, no quotes, no byline. If this was submitted as an assignment it would garner an "F".

Aparently you don't understand the huge difference between a primary source and a text made to inform the public about things that the scientific consensus already consider proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

Readers, if you consider yourself to be an open-minded, critical thinker please consider reading, watching lectures and interviews 

Recommending people to read things debunked multiple times and being claimed without actual evidence? that is worse than not reading anything.

If a claim contradicts what the scientific community of the whole planet supports as valid the minimum you need are primary sources, as in scientific reports with clear data, valid methods and well supported conclusions, "lectures and interviews" are what people without actual evidence recommend, in the same level as flat earthers.

Thank you GreenPeas. Agree.

You understand that agreeing with something that has been demonstrated wrong with arguments only means you are recognizing being wrong as well, right? Especially when you don't even argue in favor of the misrepresentation you quoted. Is like giving up before beginning.

In fact, the "97% consensus of the IPCC" is not accurate.

It is much higher, specially by now.

https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

Not even that, the scientific study about the consensus of science about climate change is also in consensus of the results

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta

I mean, it is either all the recognized institutions of science in the planet being wrong on something totally basic... or nameless people on the internet incapable of producing any evidence. The answer is easy.

the public and media, not seeking to do any in-depth reading or investigation on their own, grab hold of sound bites

Much worse than that are people that think the scientific discussion is made by the public or media, instead of actual primary sources in scientific journals. That is like thinking interplanetary travel is being done all thanks to comments in youtube videos.

Humans caused what? Sorry, but that's a much too high and selfish overestimating

Yes, on the part of people without any understanding of science thinking their conclusions based on ignorance are more valuable than the consensus of all the scientists of the world

You weren't aware this article is not a primary source?

that is the correction I made, using criteria for primary sources to qualify an article of divulgation to the general public, the text you quoted is terribly simple, there is no excuse for misunderstanding it as you are trying to do.

just enjoy your life in anyway you can. Get out of the cities

Unfortunately climate change is going to have global effects, getting out of the cities is not going to protect anybody from the man made disaster.

There are plenty of climatologists and other scientists who are "skeptical" of the human-caused climate change narrative.

The problem is that none of them has any actual evidence to justify real skepticism, so they are validly called just denialists. The same as "skeptics" that still defend things that are as disproved as the flat earth or negative thoughts causing infections.

I mean, is one person making youtube videos without showing any actual data wrong, or the whole scientific community of the world is?

So you acknowledge this article is not a primary source--that's a good start

The whole point of the comment was that the criticism of the original comment didn't apply precisely because this is not a primary source.

Too bad you have not yet understood this very simple argument, doing that would be a very good start

It seems to me that we humans are pretty smart when we feel like it. A little ingenuity seems within our grasp as a species. Of course, Mr. Oldyeller has a good point: we could use a few fewer people around. I bet if we put our minds to it we could do anything, like help clean up the climate.

(Interesting factoid: Cow burps are far more of a contributor to the atmosphere than the farts. FIY.)

They do have data, they're just usually prevented from getting it published in the captured journals, as was demonstrated by the Climate-Gate scandal.

In the era of self publication and preprints this excuse is ridiculous, nobody could be prevented from publishing anything they would like to, what peer review can prevent is for faulty science and obvious falsehoods to remain as scientific literature, which of course is the whole purpose of reviewing what other have published. This is why the "scandal" was not such a thing, heavily criticizing people that insisted on debunked claims is what the scientific method depends on to self correct and improve the conclusions reached. The only people that considered a scandal for lies to be called lies are those that want to manipulate the public for personal gain and for that depend on lies being propagated.

A yes, like the "whole scientific community" or "scientific consensus" pushing the zoonotic origin or safe-and-effective narratives.

It is not the fault of the scientific community that you are not capable of accepting what they have concluded, flat earthers (and other antiscientific propaganda groups) are in the same situation and they also use the same excuses, according to them everything is a global conspiracy pushing round-earth or sun-centrial narratives and that is why nobody can find any proof of what they want to believe.

Mother Nature at it again.