Are we going to be able to stop Climate Change?

[Thumpalumpacus]

We have been pumping increasing amounts of greenhouse gases in to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.

The rate is now 2.4 million pounds per second. Do you honestly think this is somehow normal or natural? That it is just a fluke that this correlates with visible climate change?

If you believe that this is not a potential disaster, then you don't science well at all.

And yet scientist are divided on this ?.

In what proportions?

[IanHulett]

And yet scientist are divided on this ?.

In what proportions?

I've heard it through a grape vine known as Statistics that it was 97%(accepting) to 3%(not accepting). *use sarcastic tone* So, yeah, there's a large division among scientists.

[IATIA]

And yet scientist are divided on this ?.

In what proportions?

Are not proportions irrelevant? If only one scientist has pertinent data that the others have ignored or not included for some reason, does that make the one scientist wrong because everyone else says otherwise? What is important is whether or not the minority opinion is more valid than the majority opinion. After all, the majority believe in god.

[Chas]

In what proportions?

Are not proportions irrelevant? If only one scientist has pertinent data that the others have ignored or not included for some reason, does that make the one scientist wrong because everyone else says otherwise? What is important is whether or not the minority opinion is more valid than the majority opinion.

They all have the same data. The minority opinion is just that - opinion.

After all, the majority believe in god.

Not the majority of scientists.

[IATIA]

They all have the same data. The minority opinion is just that - opinion.

I have not read all the data from all the scientists, so I cannot comment on that other than to say I believe they all are expressing opinions when forecasting the future of our climate.

Not the majority of scientists.

That was simply an analogy and was not directed at the scientists.

[Aoi Magi]

If humans relied solely on nature for it's survival, it would be screwed ten times over. Mankind is good at adapting to changes in the most unnatural ways possible, and I am pretty sure both parties will keep on showing middle fingers to each other and still keep on coexisting. And if all fails and the blue ball turns red or gray, we will just move to a new rock.

[Homeless Nutter]

It seems that there are too many people who live in a fantasy world where there is no Climate Change, and whenever we show them evidence to the contrary, they give bogus rebuttals that have no legitimacy. I'm literally scared for the lives of my nieces and nephew, and my kids if me and my girlfriend ever decide to have any, probably not, but no rush. Will we be able to stop Climate change from killing us before we pass the tipping point?

You only have to worry if you're poor. Once a few hundred million poor people die or become homeless because of raising sea-levels, everyone will happily join in the effort to save what's left. Of course - the rich will become even richer at that point, since the value of real estate that's not covered with seawater will skyrocket. Which is why they're not too keen to act yet...

[downbeatplumb]

People don't realise that climate and weather are different things.

Some people, maybe most? However, climate is just as unpredictable as weather and probably more so. We do not know and are still studying why the climate is as it is now, let alone what it will be.

What we do know is the effect of some gases that we are unleashing into the environment are harmful and we are simultaneously retarding the planets natural cooling processes by for example preventing rivers from reaching the sea, cutting down trees in a harmful way, having more cattle etc etc etc.

If we were actively trying to screw up the planet we as a species would be doing exactly what we are doing.

Possibly using more hairspray.

[Darkstar]

Are we going to be able to stop climate change? The real question is if we are even going to try. My guess: not until we're thoroughly and nigh-irreversibly screwed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In what proportions?

Are not proportions irrelevant? If only one scientist has pertinent data that the others have ignored or not included for some reason, does that make the one scientist wrong because everyone else says otherwise? What is important is whether or not the minority opinion is more valid than the majority opinion. After all, the majority believe in god.

Given the fact that peer review is vital in science, I'd say that numbers do actually matter. If that one scientist has his data reviewed and accepted by a number of scientists, I'm all ears. Whatcha got?

Unlike theists, peer reviewers actually look at the data they're reviewing, which renders your comparison artificial and nugatory.

So no: proportions aren't irrelevant.