Do you believe climate change is real? (poll)

If it's not in the bible then it can't be true.

The reason we havent invested more into space is because the religious extremists of the world have been fighting against science for about 2000 years.

And climate change is real. To some degree(ha) at the very least.

Climate change is happening, belief has nothing to do with it. The only debatable facet is the impact it is having on the planet, and to what degree humans are contributing to that impact.

Climate change happens all the time. Yes it's real.

Climate change is very real. It is just happening so slowly that no one cares to do anything about it.

This pretty much covers it.

As real as OP is a troll.

Meh. We will know in a hundred years... won't we?

Yes, this is common sense.

It's a lose-lose scenario either way you look at it.

We either accept climate change is happening (and it is, which sucks) and do something about it.

Or we don't accept that it is happening, and we go back to adding lead to our fuel, setting our rivers on fire, and leaking chemicals into the environment because we've become more lax in our environmental protection (which also sucks) since allegedly there's nothing to worry about.

Yes, I most definitely believe that it is happening and that we are directly affecting it. The funny thing is that those who don't feel that we should do more to rectify our impact on it because the alternatives are too expensive fail to realize that it's much more expensive to do nothing.

I'm in the middle with it when it comes to human activity and its contribution to climate change. I think there's much more that we need to consider.

It's neither a doom's day prophecy nor a hoax.

Now, just simply climate changing, yeah that's real.

Damn, I would have never thought you were a climate change denier.

Of course, it's happening. It's in the cause where people are in disagreement.

It wouldn't be a big deal if we were all nomadic like other animals. They simply move with the shift in climate.

Actually being ignorant enough to ask whether climate change is real is indicative of a Trump supporter. Climate change is a fact, the only thing at debate is the degree of man's role in it.

Only someone lacking a functioning brain could see the evidence in front of them and deny it's happening. And that's the problem, so many morons are trying to still figure out if humans are/have caused it that they've lost sight of what is really important: FIXING THE GODDAMNED ENVIRONMENT.

Humans have definitely had an impact since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but even if it's considered "negligible" by some, it's irrelevant to the current issues at hand. Denying climate change is akin to denying evolution or gravity at this point. It makes you look silly, foolish and in some cases just stupid.

You would think "the most powerful Atlantic hurricane in recorded history" would be enough for some people...

This was a cold summer. Climate change is fake. If it supposedly gets warmer, why was this summer so damn cold? Explain that.

Does that sound about right?

They're not the most powerful in History though. Strongest storms were last century.

Don't you drive a big rig truck? I'm sure that's good for the envirorment.

You mean the century of the industrial revolution? Or right after?

I dont know if these are the most powerful storms in history, that's a silly argument and not pertinent. However what is, is the rate we see these strong storms at combined melting ice, unprecedented droughts, temperature change in oceans, etc. The things that any climatologist who you will listen on any other subject and youll accept it, tells you.

Tell me, why do you think its so important that we genetically modify seeds right now?

@kod: You mean a weather cycle?

This is NOT a question on whether we belive it is real or not. IT IS. It is measurable. IT EXISTS!

The only thing one could argue about is how much of it is man made. But only an idiot would think it's 0%.

Hmm, this is a easy one.

Is the climate changing of course it is. And while we humans defentially have something to do with it, there is no proof that there is not other factors involved.

And also climate change is not all bad

Scientists clearly state that other factors are involved, however the quick rise we're seeing now is primarily human driven. The latest IPCC reports indicates that humans are the main cause with high certainty (over 95%). It's not 'something to do with it', it's the MAIN contributing factor.

Seriously, this information is readily available by simply visiting the IPCC or NASA websites.

I'm in agreement with the vast majority of scientists in this country and the world. It's real and it's going to have serious implications.

It's inevitable at this point. We're destined for this.

This, shit has not yet really hit the fan though, once it does the human crisis will be appalling. If you think the migration crisis in Europe is bad now, wait for climate change to make some of the areas in the world uninhabitable. The current migration crisis will look like a Sunday excursion next to it. I think humanity is approaching a crossroad in its existence and it's not clear how well it will rise up to the challenge.

Doesn't the climate always change? It has always changed hasn't it? I think climate change is real.

And I also think that IF human activity severely impacts the climate in a negative way, then we must work towards minimizing that for sure, but we MUST learn to live with it. Because you're not going to convince the whole world to work together on this (heck we can't even get Trump to). What the smart countries are doing, is look into floating houses and roads, and using atmospheric heat to water crops, underground farming, etc. Cause you need to start to work on that now, if you want to have something build in say 50 or even 20 years.

It's real and humans do have an impact, however I'm not sure how large. I think earth will find a way to cool it down, maybe a super volcano or two erupting? Haha

These... "measures" if you really want to call them that, have already been taken. its why there's this 10-15 year gap between when we really started seeing these things happen and when they were originally estimated. There were too many variables for climatologists to take into account and this has created a slight delay.... but it is just a delay, not a solution.

What we should do is follow what futurama did.

@kod: what happens when the comet is out of ice? Wait, what am I thinking? Not our problem haha!

facts don't require our belief

Yes but it's not very important

uhh hell yes. Just look at Houston, its had 3--500 year storms in the past 5 years. The probability of even 1 happening in any given year is 1/500. So you can do the math, its 1/500*1/500*1/500*1/500*1/500. The chances of it happening naturally are almost ZERO. Of course when something big that is outside of our model affects those numbers (climate change), that's when you have the impossible becoming possible. Its nuts, the crazy destructive storms like Sandy, Katrina, Harvey, now Irma. Whats the common pattern between all of these? Its all happened since the new millennia.

You know whats funny, the older generation with their greed screwed things up that bad by not following the advice of scientists. They ignored, ignored, ignored for the greater part of the last 50 years, and now we're at a point that ignoring the problem isn't possible. In fact, at this point the only affordable option is to pump sulphates into the atmosphere on a massive scale, ie mimic the action of volcanoes. That would cool down the temperature and counteract the warming trend of the earth. Of course, geo-engineering, or geo-chemistry experiments aren't something you should consider...when its on your own home, unless of course your a bunch of crackpots. But here we are anyway, we probably will do some level of geo engineering to buy us time while we shift away from fossil fuels.

You clearly do not understand science, they do not work in absolutes when it comes to climate change, they work in theories.

And they never stated that human is the ONLY reason.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that they were sure with in a 95% confidence level that we are the main contributor, something which you doubted in your original post. This completely aligns with your second assertion that they don't deal with absolutes. I also clearly stated that no one believes were are the sole cause...just the main cause. So again, what point are you trying to make?

- That scientists don't deal with absolutes in situations like these? We've already confirmed that they don't.

- That scientists aren't aware of other factors involved? They are and it's clearly documented in their findings, leading back to their 95% certainty on humans being the main contributing cause.

Secondly, I certainly do understand science to a high degree considering I have a masters and have contributed to peer reviewed literature (albeit not in climate science).

Only a 95 percent certainty that we're causing climate change? We can't act on that!

A miniscule chance that the historical evidence is wrong and upper income tax cuts will trickle down? I like those odds!

In science established theories are as close to "absolutes" as you get.

Also, everyone understands that humans are not the only thing that can cause climate change, but of the 40,000 papers done worldwide over the past 50 years, we've can definitely say without question, that these changes are due to mankind.

I find it funny that you guys who seem to want to ride this wave of "yah but climate change is natural, how do you know its not a natural event?", don't seem to understand this in the very least. Frankly, its a very simple answer and im sure its been explained to you a thousand times. If its a natural event it will take thousands of years to do what we did in less than 200. The only way this could happen in the time span we've seen ti in and still be natural, is if we had something like 10,000 volcanoes going off all at once. In short... we'd know and there would be zero questions.

So even if we wanted to say that at least part of what we are seeing is natural and not man made, yah... i mean i guess you could the climate is ever changing. But you need to realize that it would be a truth so small in significance, that it would be immeasurable. Unless of course you can show us those volcanoes.

Try picking up a basic science book... any science book... chemistry, biology, geology... anything.

You may want to pick up that book before you start to act all superior. No scientist works in "absolutes" , they work in theories. And i never said it was all natural, you may want to read what i wrote. I said Humans are not the ONLY reason. so please learn to read mate.

How hard can it be for you to understand that? i know you distrust governments and want a anarchist world, but at least try to work within common sense.

Did you read what i wrote? you seem to keep having a problem.

And no they don´t work in % sure, they work in one thing and that is theories, while its the best possible explanation it´s still a theory.

And if you understood science to a high degree you would know this, also no scientist uses stupid things like "95% confidence", they keep to the facts at hand and present their best findings in which they have complete confidence in. But it remains a theory when we deal with things like Climate change.

Scientific theories are not the same thing as theories in general FYI.

.......... so without mentioning my career to you yet again, i will just go into explaining what a "scientific theory" is for you since you dont seem to understand it.

In the world of science when we deem something a scientific theory, it means we are describing a process that through study we are able to prove is factual. So for example, evolution. We know 100% as a worldly fact that evolution takes place but within this fact we have varying degree's of understanding. Another example would be gravity. We know 100% as a worldly fact that gravity takes place but within this we have varying degrees of understanding. Let me extend this further to you. The process of climate change is 100% a worldly fact, but within this process we simply do not have all the details. One more step further, man made climate change, we know is 100% a worldly fact. We might not know everything about it, but as with every other scientific theory, its a worldly fact.

Sadly because people are fairly bad at language, the world "theory" shifted to basically "hypothesis" for the longest time.... i suspect that was due to bad teachers or dumb students. Then it really seemed like the religious community attempted to remove all meaning from it by using the word as a general idea, basically. If this is now an official definition for the term then it will only be because of people like yourself not grasping its definition and misusing it. So when you say "But it remains a theory when we deal with things like Climate change.", us in the scientific community look at this, laugh, and remind you that youre saying "But it remains a theory when we deal with things like gravity.", as if this some how conveys what you want it to. Maybe if you didnt get bored after reading for a grand total of 10 seconds, you'd know these things.

Don't much care since I have no control over it. Pointless worrying. The world will do what it's gonna do.

You have some control.........

Without mentioning it, you did anyways. Like the passive approach there. You must have watched a lot of Matlock

And i do understand what a scientific theory is. And since this is your ballgame, you should know that all you can do is provide a plausible explanation based on the understanding of the evidence brought to you. Do you always have all the facts, of course not,

Did the scientists once think the world was flat, yes, was it disproved, yes. Does that change the fact that for a long time people was "absolute" sure the world was flat , Nope. But let´s take something more down to earth, scientists also thought the earth was the center of the universe, according to the evidence they had, they were sure. But we all know better today.

So since you are a scientist can we agree that Climate Change is real and that humans play a part in that? ( as iv said the whole time)

I don't think you do because you never seem to use it properly.

When describing and determining a process you do not need all the "facts" of that process to understand if the process itself is factual. i thought i explained that pretty well the first time around. So again back to the examples since you seem to get lost here, we might understand 40% of how gravity works, functions, its make up, etc. But that does not mean we are not able to demonstrate that it is factual. Because you cannot seem to grasp this very basic concept, you're completely missing that you mentioning these details we do or do not know, does not affect whether or not we can factually state if said process does or does not take place.

No religious nutbags did, who at best practiced alchemy, some well before alchemy. This concept was however disproved by later science. In short, this claim was made long before we had any idea of what the scientific process was, when we answered things with "the god of the sun" or "god of water".

So again, you're describing something that was widely believed prior to any actual scientific process, rather when religion ruled. And again, much like the flat earth thing, you now know that this is not true because of that scientific process... not because some random, external force or person decided to correct the information. You seem to not understand the self correcting nature of the scientific process and i gotta say, im not shocked. You cant use theory correctly. You cite alchemy as science. And you use the scientific methods self correcting nature as a tool against itself.

You needed quite a bit of correcting on the statement i originally responded to and since then you've continued to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding even basic terms.

You must really love to hear yourself speak.

Just answer one thing, since there is no reason to keep running in circles with you. --> So since you are a scientist can we agree that Climate Change is real and that humans play a part in that?

Just answer that, debating the rest with you is like running into a wall constantly, it goes no where since nothing iv said is factual wrong.

Jesus Christ it's like talking to a parrot (an incoherent one at that). Of course they work in %, it's statistical in nature. Are you arguing that scientists don't use statistical analysis and probabilities?

'they work in one thing and that is theories' - What the hell is this even supposed to mean? Are you attempting to deride the term theory by comparing it to the colloquial definition? Theories are comprehensive explanations of natural phenomena supported by decades of research and findings.

"also no scientist uses stupid things like "95% confidence" - Now I hope you're trolling, because if you aren't it shows how completely inept and scientifically illiterate you are. Have you ever heard of P values or the term 'statistically significant'?

Really?

You clearly don't. Based on your comments above.

Did the scientists once think the world was flat, yes, was it disproved, yes. Does that change the fact that for a long time people was "absolute" sure the world was flat , Nope. But let´s take something more down to earth, scientists also thought the earth was the center of the universe, according to the evidence they had, they were sure. But we all know better today.

Wrong. Ancient Egyptians not only mathematically proved the earth was round, but other early civilizations also calculated the diameter of the earth.

People have known the earth to be round for ages. The myth that people believed the earth to be flat came from later generations.

Scientists did not say that, that was the religious tools. Geocentrism was never a scientific theory.