Journal Community


Explore Group

Do you believe humans are responsible for climate change?


This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.

What do you think is causing the warm-up?  Is it human activity on the planet, or a natural cycle?

(View more polls, discussions and hot topics)

« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon

    While humans do contribute to it by a fractional measure, the fact is that we have been emerging from the last Ice Age for the last 12,000 years and continue to do so. It is no wonder, however, that the continuing rapid growth of the human population, as well as its addition of elements to the ecosphere, is some cause for alarm at least in the short term. It will not really matter if anyone can determine for sure if humans have accelerated the global warming effect if we all choke to death in the smog. Just something to remind us, in case anyone cared to ask. Nature has a habit of being cyclical. There have been mass extinctions before, and if we are part of the next one it will not be because we changed anything. We have not been a consuming species long enough to appreciably effect the overall cycle. We are just intelligent enough to witness and record one (if we survive), and that makes the difference between previous die-offs and this one. The balance between elements in this warming will not change that much because it comprises a variety of factors, like precession, changes in orbit and revolutiion timing, changes in temperature gradients between atmospheric layers, changes in the electomagnetic field, and other natural effects. That we happen to be trapped here is only one of our problems. But I agree we need to examine our own consumption cycle to prevent future generations from inheriting our excesses. If we want to survive, we will have to adapt.

    2 Recommendations

  • There has been no detectable increase in GATA (globally averaged temperature anomaly) since 1998, despite all of the IPCC models predicting additional warming of 0.2C this decade.

    Having reached the peak in 1998, the subsequent decade-long plateau has been warm. The key point is that it has stopped escalating and the peak has passed. This is despite the claim that CO2 atmospheric concentration has increased above the levels predicted by the IPCC.

    The 1992-3 period was depressed by Mt Pinatubo eruptions, which kept down the average figures for the last decade.

    1 Recommendation

  • "What do you think is causing the warm-up? Is it human activity on the planet, or a natural cycle?"

    Why offer only 2 options? There are a number of scientific theories, and none have yet been proved or disproved.

    Some scientists contend the acceleration in 1980-98 was no greater than occurred in 1910-1940 and earlier periods, so it was just a normal fluctuation. Others believe it was the effect of a 1500-year natural cycle. Some believe it was caused by an increase in solar radiation since the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850.

    Some scientists have shown that the twentieth-century warming was connected to solar magnetic changes which affect cosmic rays. Some point to a 4% decrease in high cloud cover. Others, such as Professor Lindzen, believe there is a first-round greenhouse effect, which is then almost eliminated by negative feedbacks.

    Only one theory has the full weight of the UN and green activists behind it. That theory has received massive funding and PR support and has almost succeeded in bulldozing all other contenders off the stage.


  • Natural cycle is what it looks like and , no, I do not believe humans are responsible for climate change. Even if CO2 emissions have the potential to warm the planet a degree or two more than it should, why are temperatures dropping and some scientists are predicting a 30-year ice age if we are about to spend billions of money to "cool" the planet?

    Based on the story above, it seems we could save billions by letting the planet cool itself as it has since the earth was made. Why spend the investment when climate change aided by the water vapor from oceans that cover 75% of the globe is doing the job for us?


  • (News Flash) The National Academy of Science has fallen into line (the usual argument from authority rather than based on any new science - it's depressing). In fact, NAS is evidently basing its position on the discredited IPCC results and go even further, claiming that latest research shows sea levels will be higher by 2100. I had no trouble uncovering what must be an even later research report via the internet which argues that sea levels have in fact been dropping recently. In any event, sea levels are unrelated to whether man is making a significant contribution to climate change. For those who aren't familiar with, and/or would like a review of the basic climate science, including references to many other websites maintained or frequented by credible skeptics* (and books), see the "google doc" at:

    *Lindzen at MIT states flatly that the term skeptic is misleading in this case because it implies that there is at least some credibility or plausability in the opponent's position.



    partially. climate change is inevitable. it could be a whole lot worse than what is forecasted in the next 50-100 years.


« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.


Your Groups Here…



Most Active Discussions