• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Says It's Plants, Not Humans, that are the Cause of Climate Change

PoS said:
If something else caused climate change before mankind existed, then where is your proof that its human beings that are causing climate change now?
Click to expand...

In the scientific data. Do you ever look at it? Who exactly has said that it is humans who have caused ALL climate change? You’re not making any sense.
 
Last edited:
Ive done more research than you have. The only links youve posted are from the usual blogs that are full of biased propaganda that fails to prove anything.

First of all, the "97% of scientists claim that humans are causing it" has been debunked years ago, and anyone with common sense knows that just isnt true.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

For every study that claims humans are causing CC, there are contradictory studies that say the opposite:

See post #1

Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

notrickszone.com

There Is No Climate Emergency, Say 500 Experts in Letter to the United Nations

The video above is from Friends of Science, a Canada-based “non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals.” On the same day last week that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech...
www.aei.org

watsup said:
In the scientific data. Do you ever look at it? Who exactly has said that it is humans who have caused ALL climate change? You’re not making any sense.
Click to expand...

You and the rest of your ilk, thats who. Youve been harping it on every single thread in this forum.
 

Now you are simply lying. Literally NO ONE has ever said that it is humans that are the cause of every single climate change that has ever occurred. That is totally ridiculous.
And I have never mentioned the “97%” study. But it is true that he great bulk of climate scientists have done research and produced data that shows that human-produced CO2 is indeed the cause of THIS global warming/climate change. The article that you originally cited in no way negated that, as you concluded. It was basically another lie on your part. You do know that you lose credibility when you don’t post the truth, right?
 
Antiwar said:
Again:

I'll take the bait, on all three highlighted points and #68.
Click to expand...
Consider my first statement,
the consequences are only dire for not solving our energy problem.
If we do not have fuel for our Trucks, Ships, Jets, and agricultural equipment, billions will die.
Estimates that Earth could only support between 1 and 3 billion without fossil fuels,
should be sobering, in light of the fact that we have some 7.9 billion people alive.
Even the worst estimates of climate change do not have Billions of people dying.
Statement #2
CO2 from fossil fuels will run down on it's own
We only have a limited supply of fossil fuels, it will ether run out, or more likely price itself out of the market.
In any case it is unlikely that we can sustain the current level of production for many years,
and the new discoveries have higher price tags and higher levels of difficulty.
statement #3
our energy problem
Globally Humanity has an energy problem, we cannot move forward unless everyone who wants to live a fist would life style
has that option. Fossil fuels will not get us there. Solar and Wind stored as hydrocarbon fuels is one of the few possibility on the table currently,
and the only one with an existing demand and infrasturcture.
 
First of all, let me thank you for making me aware of the Forbes article. My quest is for knowledge and that report did bring me additional knowledge. Nonetheless, that article did not change my point of view. In all the posts I have put up, I talk about the probabilities and though it may not be 97%, it is still higher than 50% and to me, that is enough.

One thing about your article that caught my attention is this:

If you look at the literature, the specific meaning of the 97% claim is: 97 percent of climate scientists agree that there is a global warming trend and that human beings are the main cause--that is, that we are over 50% responsible.

My contention all along is that humans are partly to blame (at least 50%) for the Global Warming trend and means that there is a problem that we are causing that can be fixed.

One thing that has occurred and that is not opinion is that:

Extreme Weather Events Have Increased Significantly in the Last 20 Years​

Two-thirds of Americans say extreme weather events across the country have been occurring more often than in the past. Far fewer say they’re happening about as often (28%), and only 4% say they are happening less often, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. The findings come amid reports that climate change has contributed to an increase in weather-related disasters.

On top of that, there is 100% proof that increased levels of Carbon Dioxide have diminished air quality and that has opened the door for more illnesses to occur.

Does carbon dioxide reduce air quality?

Carbon dioxide also indirectly impacts the more visible form of air pollution – smog. By increasing temperature and humidity, carbon dioxide emissions increase the formation of smog, which has adverse effects on respiratory health

To finish it all off, none of my posts have suggested we get "rid of" Oil or Carbon. I have clearly stated that our dependence and use of them should be reduced.............not eliminated.

Like everything in life, the middle road is best. All extremes are wrong. The burning of Oil and Carbon is now at extreme levels. It should be curtailed. Cutting all use of Oil and Coal is the other extreme. I do not support either.
 
Oh no, you dont get to have it both ways. If you agree that humans didnt cause climate change in the past, you cant just do a 180 and dismiss all other factors that could be causing climate change now. There are contradictory studies for every one that claims humans are doing it, so spare me the great bulk nonsense.


Luckyone said:
/snip
Click to expand...
Thank you for being calm and collected in your rebuttals. I appreciate it because I can see that you have an open mind as compared to your colleagues.

As far as whether humans are to blame for part of the climate change, I consider it a possibility, but there are several important factors that makes me skeptical.

Firstly, we cannot truly measure how much CO2 we as a species have been producing since our earliest history. Without exact and quantified observation, we cannot truly know our impact as compared with other forms of life on this planet.

Climate is a complex system that has many different factors affecting it- from the sun, to volcanoes, to clouds, to plant growth, etc. Science has barely begun to analyze how it all works out. Yes, there are indeed limits to science, so to suddenly arrive to one single conclusion is foolhardy, since climate change consistently happens even without human beings being involved.

As for extreme weather events increasing, much of that quantification is based on monetary damages. But that can be explained that due to more humans on the planet now than ever before, disasters would naturally be more monetarily destructive because we've built more things that nature can destroy.

As for the CO2 being the boogeyman in all this, many activists stress it because it's the only known variable we know. However, other factors like the Sun's heat output, cloud formations and all that, cannot be accurately predicted, so to focus on one factor when there may be other suspects involved doesnt make for a very complete study. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

And all of these predictions are based on computer modeling, which is a very inexact science since every simulation can be modified depending on how much data you input. So in the end, its mostly made up stuff.

I'm all for less pollution, but lets not kid ourselves, there are some things we will have to live with for now (like oil and gas) until we invent more efficient fuels.
 

We cannot measure how much CO2 we as a species have been producing since our ancient history? Really??????



Globally, power generation emits nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year. The U.S., with over 8,000 power plants out of the more than 50,000 worldwide, accounts for about 25 percent of that total or 2.8 billion tons

Let me stress this. Multiply this picture by 58,000 plants in the world. These plants were not available and producing in ancient history. Common sense (if science was not convincing enough) would say that this is a human-made problem.



No, the severity of the weather events including the amount of deaths and injuries incurred is the main reason given for saying it is a major event.

See pic above
PoS said:
I'm all for less pollution, but lets not kid ourselves, there are some things we will have to live with for now (like oil and gas) until we invent more efficient fuels.
Click to expand...
See pic above and consider that it is not the use of oil and carbon products that it causing the big problem. It is the excessive use of them that is causing the problem. Additionally, it is human greed that is causing the problem. Many green energy products could be used to replace "some" of these problems but it does "cost" more to use them and therefore the people in charge of the factories "personally" decide to put profits over nature's health.

What should be done world-wide is put some requirements that force the use of green energy up to a point.

The excessive use of fossil fuels is what is causing the problem. This is something that was NOT happening in ancient history.

By the way, I am not biased against anyone or anything. I search for knowledge. As such, I will always treat everyone with respect and patience as long as they don't show biased ignorance and blind-by-choice actions.
 
I had grilled asparagus for dinner.
 
Luckyone said:
We cannot measure how much CO2 we as a species have been producing since our ancient history? Really??????
Click to expand...
Yup.

EU's farm animals 'produce more emissions than cars and vans combined'

Greenpeace says bloc must get a grip on reducing greenhouse gases from livestock or risk missing Paris agreement targets
www.theguardian.com

Trees and soil at the forest’s edge store more carbon than we thought, studies reveal

Trees and soils keep a lot of carbon trapped in the forest, pulling it from the atmosphere, where it can do more harm than good. In fact, roughly 30% of the carbon generated from fossil fuel burning is captured by forests. “That’s CO2 that’s not in the atmosphere,” said Boston University...
news.mongabay.com

There's actually way more carbon in soil than there is in the air. Farming produces a tremendous amount of it, moreso than heavy industry.

Let's see if your "common sense" can figure this out.

No, the severity of the weather events including the amount of deaths and injuries incurred is the main reason given for saying it is a major event.
Click to expand...

More people in the world, more deaths. Common sense, again.

See pic above and consider that it is not the use of oil and carbon products that it causing the big problem. It is the excessive use of them that is causing the problem.
Click to expand...

How do you know this? Once again I can link you to multiple studies that points to other causes of climate change. See post #1

CaughtInThe said:
I had grilled asparagus for dinner.
Click to expand...
Congrats youve contributed to climate change.
 

All that you are doing is showing that you haven’t a clue about the science of climate change, plus holding dear your outright lie that anyone at all has ever said that humans are the cause of ALL climate change. Embarrass yourself with such nonsense if you wish, but I will continue to point it out.
 

Blah blah blah. Nothing more than a list of standard talking points that we’ve heard from every single denier that has ever showed up here.
 
eohrnberger said:
Are those two things the same thing? No, they are not.

Enough of your false equivalencies.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? You went on a rant about "new data" supposedly being rejected by "the left" about the sun causing climate change

Except to support this claim you posted links that are:
1) Not new information at all
2) Not rejected by the left
3) Actually support AGW
4) Actively deny the claim you were supporting
 
The study contains only proxy data. While their model may be accurate according to the proxy data they are using, the proxy data itself is demonstrably bogus. They are only looking at proxy data from M13, and excluding data from M1 through M12. M13 only covers the last 900 years, which is from the end of the Medieval Warming Period to present day. So they are only factoring in the Little-Ice Age and the current Modern Warming Period that began in ~1850.

They complete ignore the Medieval Warming Period, the cold Dark Ages period, the Roman Warming Period, and the exceedingly long Minoan Warming Period where global temperatures were between 2°C and 3°C warmer than today.

As you correctly noted, they are using proxy data, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Since thermometers were not invented and there is no observed temperature data prior to 1724, all temperature data is "proxy data" by definition. Tree rings, sea bed core samples, and ice-core samples, are just a few of the many ways we can obtain proxy data. Some are more reliable than others. In this particular study their proxy data comes from Langfjordjøkelen ice cap in Arctic Norway.

While that proxy data may be indicative of the temperature anomaly in northern Norway over the last 900 years, it is not an indicator of the temperature anomaly world-wide.

If you only look at the temperature changes over the last 900 years, as this study does, then you do not get a clear picture of the temperature anomalies that have been occurring over the last 11,700 years. The entire Holocene Interglacial Period has to be taken into consideration or it just becomes cherry-picked data to serve a politicial agenda.

 
Rexedgar said:
It’s not my habit……


What about other factors? The two that come to my mind first are deforestation and paving. Do these factor in to your understanding of effects on the environment?
Click to expand...
They certainly effect the environment. However, there is no indication that either has any effect on the climate. You are able comprehend the difference between the environment and the climate I hope.
 
It could take much longer than a few hundred years as well. Particularly in the northern latitudes. 85% of Alaska is still covered in permafrost 11,700 years after the interglacial period began. The tree line is just south of the Brooks Range, where black spruce trees can be 400+ years old and yet only 5 to 6 feet tall because they only have about one month out of twelve when they can actually grow.

The biggest change in albedo would have occurred during the melting of the glaciers in the northern hemisphere, and it would not be changing by very much over the last ~8,000 years. Vegetation will not change albedo, melting ice-caps and melting continent-wide glaciers changes the albedo.
 
code1211 said:
When an agency of government presents itself as an authority on science and absolute fact, this should raise red flags for everyone.

This is simply and obviously just one more example of the Big Lie presented by those who wish to control.
Click to expand...
Which is why nobody should trust anything the IPCC publishes. The IPCC is a government body that cherry-picks and misrepresents data from peer-reviewed studies to suit a very particular political ideology.

The IPCC, however, does not write peer-reviewed studies, and I can find no fault with this particular study. There is no reason to doubt their data from Langfjordjøkelen ice cap in Arctic Norway. However, that is just one data point over the last ~900 years. It would be moronic to extrapolate that single data point and apply it world-wide as being indicative of the present. Nor does the study attempt to do any such thing. They are merely reporting what the temperature has been like for the last 900 years over northern Norway.
 
Wouldn't that be a hoot if the truth is plants cause the climate problem. How would democrats deal with that one?
 
Actually, the current ice-age, a.k.a. Quaternary Ice-Age, began 2.58 million years ago and is the fifth known ice-age in Earth's history. Ice-ages occur whenever there is between an 8°C and 10°C drop in global mean temperatures. Ice-ages include very long periods of glaciation, and brief interglacial periods when temperature increase by a few degrees. There have been more than 50 glacial and interglacial periods since the current ice-age began. We just happen to be 11,700 years into the latest interglacial period, but eventually this interglacial period will end and another very long glacial period will begin yet again.

The last interglacial period was called the Eemian, and it occurred between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago. Then another 100,000-year glacial period begin, peaking ~27,000 years ago. The Holocene Interglacial Period really began 15,000 years ago, but was suddenly interrupted by the Younger Dryas that caused Earth to slip back into another glacial period for another 3,300 years.

FYI: The current mean global temperature is 14.8°C. When Earth is not experiencing an ice-age the mean global temperature is 22° ± 1°C.
 
Last edited:
Integrityrespec said:
Wouldn't that be a hoot if the truth is plants cause the climate problem. How would democrats deal with that one?
Click to expand...
The productivity of plants is the result of the climate, not the other way around. The Sahara was once lush and green, dotted with thousands of lakes 9,000+ years ago, but as the orbit of the planet changed so did the climate, which ultimately provided us with the Sahara desert that we have come to know today.
 
LOL back to your fallacies again. Keep failing.

I agree with your points, which is why I said to take the OP study with a very big grain of salt.
 
Glitch said:
They certainly effect the environment. However, there is no indication that either has any effect on the climate. You are able comprehend the difference between the environment and the climate I hope.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that deforestation and paving land do not impact the climate?
 
The discussion's moved on beyond that.
If you can't advance with the discussion, that's not really my problem.
Have a nice Saturday.
 
Do you think the removal of trees over the centuries has any effect on climate change?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…