Are humans really responsible for climate change?

[Centerpiece]

10 hours ago, Rue said:

What silliness. Of course pollution and in particular air pollution and water pollution are global in nature. The fact that pollution occurs worldwide does not auromatically equate them as being part of a global illu inati conspiracy. In fact the interest groups that  are defending the pollution not the people challenging them are if anything the globalist powers you talk about and there is no conspiracy. The oil companies are global and exist. So are the multi national polluters like Dow Chemical, DuPont.

 

What the heck are you talking about?........I'm not talking about pollution - Canadians and most global citizens care about clean water, clean air and sustainable forests - and we've made great strides over the past 50 years in looking after the environment. My post was about the Climate Change scam and it's CO2 tunnel-vision. And please - please don't parrot Climate Barbie's use of the term "pollution" in place of CO2. Who or what is behind or influencing the UN agenda - which more and more drives globalist policies? Personally I don't know but it's clear that the agenda is driven by a globalist ideology - and it doesn't "just happen". And it's not the oil companies. So just who are these great "influencers"? Was/is it really the Maurice Strongs and Rothschilds of the world - I have no idea. I can't say I don't care because the UN has become an un-elected danger with Trudeau at the helm here in Canada.

[-TSS-]

If you believe in man-made climate change then in order to be logical you surely must be opposed to mass-immigration from low carbon footprint countries to high carbon footprint countries such as Finland or Canada. 

We are told that the carbon footprint of an average Finn is more than 10 times that of a person from the so-called development countries. 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Truth Detector said:

The real problem is knowing to what degree.  And there's no real way of calculating that, at least at this point in time.

Of course there is. Science has been used quite effectively to calculate and know about things to a very high degree for centuries now.

I wonder what political science knows and has to say about the existence of this global conspiracy of climate scientists and their allies to dominate the planet with their dictatorship?  Has anyone done any research into this? Any scholarly articles or papers on the topic?

What is the consensus?

[turningrite]

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 If anything is going to rescue middle class jobs, the environment, and keep democracy safe, it’s good global and national rules. 

It's becoming increasingly clear that this is a fantasy. Individual nation states, including in the West, must protect the interests of their own citizens. This is the only way democracy can be sustained. This doesn't preclude international cooperation but to be fair such cooperation must be accompanied by reciprocity: i.e. 'We'll do it provided you do it as well.' The problem with the current climate change agenda is that any progress made by cooperating states, mainly in the developed world, is being more than offset by rising emissions in the developing world. The current climate change strategy, then, is doomed and for the West is economically absurd. We are being told or made to sacrifice without adequate regard to the deleterious economic impacts we're absorbing, and these impacts are often most seriously felt by the least empowered. Thus, we witness reactions like the "yellow vest" movement in France, which could easily spread elsewhere. I believe that climate change is a valid concern. I don't, however, subscribe to globalist orthodoxy concerning the response to it. I think technology will have to drive the response as global "rules" that are observed by only some won't do the job.

[Shady]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Of course there is. Science has been used quite effectively to calculate and know about things to a very high degree for centuries now.

Not really.  Prediction, after prediction, after prediction have turned out to be well overstated.  

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

Not really.  Prediction, after prediction, after prediction have turned out to be well overstated.  

That's why I don't pay much attention to them.  Common sense says it would be impossible for humans not to affect the climate, given our numbers and technology. 

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

Not really.  Prediction, after prediction, after prediction have turned out to be well overstated.  

That's the beauty of science, it can zero in on and clearly state what's real.

In the meantime what do the vast VAST majority of political scientists say about the global dictatorship theory under discussion in this thread? 

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I don't pay much attention to them.  Common sense says it would be impossible for humans not to affect the climate, given our numbers and technology. 

Does science have anything to say about common sense? 

[Guest]

Just now, eyeball said:

Does science have anything to say about common sense? 

I don't know.  I don't even know where to look it up.

I don't even know who to ask where one would look it up.

[Shady]

13 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's the beauty of science, it can zero in on and clearly state what's real.

In the meantime what do the vast VAST majority of political scientists say about the global dictatorship theory under discussion in this thread? 

What real isn't what's in question.

[Shady]

15 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I don't pay much attention to them.  Common sense says it would be impossible for humans not to affect the climate, given our numbers and technology. 

I agree.  But as I already stated, it's impossible to calculate to what degree humans have an impact.  Is it 100%, 90%, 50%?  Etc.  Perhaps you missed that in my earlier post.

[Shady]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

That's the beauty of science, it can zero in on and clearly state what's real.

In the meantime what do the vast VAST majority of political scientists say about the global dictatorship theory under discussion in this thread? 

I have no idea, I haven't been following it, and have no interest.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Truth Detector said:

I agree.  But as I already stated, it's impossible to calculate to what degree humans have an impact.  Is it 100%, 90%, 50%?  Etc.  Perhaps you missed that in my earlier post.

It's impossible to calculate an exact figure, but common sense says it is overwhelming, and quite obviously so.

[Shady]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It's impossible to calculate an exact figure, but common sense says it is overwhelming, and quite obviously so.

Possibly.  What's overwhelming though?  Overwhelming is subjective.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Truth Detector said:

Possibly.  What's overwhelming though?  Overwhelming is subjective.

I was thinking 97.451% myself, but I forgot to carry the 2.

[Shady]

Just now, bcsapper said:

I was thinking 97.451% myself, but I forgot to carry the 2.

And how did you come to that calculation?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Truth Detector said:

And how did you come to that calculation?

I didn't.  It was a joke, in response to yours about overwhelming being subjective where climate change is concerned.  I like it when we can all joke around.

[Shady]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

I didn't.  It was a joke, in response to yours about overwhelming being subjective where climate change is concerned.  I like it when we can all joke around.

It's not a joke.  Can you not discuss things like an adult?  It's a legitimate question if governments around the world are going to reorganize economies and impact people's lives.  To what degree do human cause climate change?  Stop acting like a religious zealot, offended by anyone asking questions regarding orthodoxy.

[Centerpiece]

50 minutes ago, turningrite said:

The problem with the current climate change agenda is that any progress made by cooperating states, mainly in the developed world, is being more than offset by rising emissions in the developing world. The current climate change strategy, then, is doomed and for the West is economically absurd. 

But that's really what the plan is! Like has always been said by the realists - follow the money. Transfer billions upon billions from the developed countries to the third world and in doing so, play havoc with our economies. The agenda is not to make any appreciative difference in the "battle for the future of Mankind" - it's to get the West to pay up and in hobbling our economies, to chip away at Capitalism. Even if you actually believe in the CO2 scam - any person in their right mind knows that we'll never even start to reduce emissions while China, India, Russia and others are growing their economies. Meanwhile, average global temperatures have been almost completely flat for 20 years - while CO2 has been rising.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

It's not a joke.  Can you not discuss things like an adult?  It's a legitimate question if governments around the world are going to reorganize economies and impact people's lives.  To what degree do human cause climate change?  Stop acting like a religious zealot, offended by anyone asking questions regarding orthodoxy.

Don't talk wet.  Anyone who denies the fact of human caused climate change is the zealot. 

At least we can agree that the evidence for human caused Climate Change is overwhelming, even if one of us might subjectively reduce the term to scant.

What governments do isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference.

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

It's not a joke.  Can you not discuss things like an adult?  It's a legitimate question if governments around the world are going to reorganize economies and impact people's lives.  To what degree do human cause climate change? 

Enough to cause the vast VAST majority of scientists to suggest that we need to reorganize our economies. The same thing the vast VAST majority said decades ago.

In the meantime is there anyone systematically studying how the planet is coming to be dominated by a global dictatorship of scientists and environmentalists?

This is an open question to anyone btw.  

[Zeitgeist]

21 minutes ago, Centerpiece said:

But that's really what the plan is! Like has always been said by the realists - follow the money. Transfer billions upon billions from the developed countries to the third world and in doing so, play havoc with our economies. The agenda is not to make any appreciative difference in the "battle for the future of Mankind" - it's to get the West to pay up and in hobbling our economies, to chip away at Capitalism. Even if you actually believe in the CO2 scam - any person in their right mind knows that we'll never even start to reduce emissions while China, India, Russia and others are growing their economies. Meanwhile, average global temperatures have been almost completely flat for 20 years - while CO2 has been rising.

It's really irresponsible to say that "average global temperatures have been almost completely flat for 20 years" when our warmest years on record have been in these past 20 years, and the temperatures are accelerating.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know.  I don't even know where to look it up.

I don't even know who to ask where one would look it up.

Well thankfully I can help you with that.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=common+sense+scientific+research

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

What real isn't what's in question.

Why not? 

[eyeball]

53 minutes ago, Truth Detector said:

I have no idea, I haven't been following it, and have no interest.

Do you have any interest is what climate scientists and environmentalists are following?