• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

AGW Poll

Can CO2 from human activities affect climate?

  • CO2 from human activities CAN affect climate

    Votes: 103 95.4%

  • CO2 from human activities CANNOT affect climate

    Votes: 3 2.8%

  • On Planet X human CO2 only affects the atmosphere if our digestion of them is disrupted

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • Total voters
    108
Haig said:
Why do you have to use this kind of judgemental language in this debate? It seems particularly common from the AGW side but not exclusively.
Click to expand...

You don't do irony, it would seem.

But, if you want to offer an appropriate one-word descriptor instead of "denialist" then please do so. "Sceptic" is disallowed, however.
 
Haig said:
Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) NOT the other Sun outputs
Click to expand...

TSI = Total Solar Irradiance which is a measure of the total energy from the Sun reaching the Earth. About 1/2 of that is visible light, about 10% is ultraviolet, the rest is in the vast infrared spectrum. (Energy density in the visible spectrum is much much higher then any other band)
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Oh, dear, and there was me thinking we were getting somewhere. 56 people have managed to answer it, though saying that does technically risk being argumentum ad populum. Rather than argue on that basis, better to say "can" vs "cannot" just is not a false dilemma and you risk shifting down a notch on the graded scale of denialist stance that I just introduced in the "simple question" thread.
Click to expand...

I think I expressed my troubles with your treatment of the question already. There are a number of factors that influence my skepticism of the AGW focus; doesn't mean I reject other areas of human impact which may have indirect consequences to climate. It ranges everywhere from data bias, political incompetence, to focusing on issues unrelated to causes. I don't subscribe entirely to CO2 impacts on climate being entirely anthropogenic, but in the field I plan to practice in I have little issue in practicing sustainability because there are other factors dealing with human activity that have immediate consequences. And not every change in the landscape that's anthropogenic is CO2 related, you know this.

Positions like these aren't efficiently quantified using polls.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
I think I expressed my troubles with your treatment of the question already. There are a number of factors that influence my skepticism of the AGW focus; doesn't mean I reject other areas of human impact which may have indirect consequences to climate. It ranges everywhere from data bias, political incompetence, to focusing on issues unrelated to causes. I don't subscribe entirely to CO2 impacts on climate being entirely anthropogenic, but in the field I plan to practice in I have little issue in practicing sustainability because there are other factors dealing with human activity that have immediate consequences. And not every change in the landscape that's anthropogenic is CO2 related, you know this.

Positions like these aren't efficiently quantified using polls.
Click to expand...

Nope, I've read that three times and your point still eludes me. 70 other people have managed to vote and I'm still not sure what it is that makes you unable to; I'm not sure you really know either. The poll is not about the Big Picture. It's not about other things, it simply asks whether CO2 from human activities can affect climate.
 
I have tended to stay clear of GW threads in the past. Could others more familiar with the local celebrities name some names of those who hold strong opinions but who have not cast a vote yet to see whether they can be encouraged to take part.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
I have tended to stay clear of GW threads in the past. Could others more familiar with the local celebrities name some names of those who hold strong opinions but who have not cast a vote yet to see whether they can be encouraged to take part.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether or not they've voted, but I would mention Mhaze, kallsop, and Poptech to start. They seem to be the most rabid of the anti-AGW crowd around the Forums.
 
Haig said:
I don't agree:

“it varies over a 11 year cycle” This is misleading, the total sunspot cycle is over 22 years.

Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) NOT the other Sun outputs
Click to expand...

Haig, did you bother answering the poll for this thread? Do you believe that it is physically possible for human-released CO2 to affect the climate?

A simple yes or no would suffice.
 
Haig said:
I don't agree:

“it varies over a 11 year cycle” This is misleading, the total sunspot cycle is over 22 years.

Also, they are only measuring total solar irradiance (TSI) (sunlight) NOT the other Sun outputs
Click to expand...
Obviously the author is unqualified, but perhaps warmers must take whomever they can get these days.
 
mhaze said:
Obviously the author is unqualified, but perhaps warmers must take whomever they can get these days.
Click to expand...

Mhaze, did you bother answering the poll for this thread? Do you believe that it is physically possible for human-released CO2 to affect the climate?

A simple yes or no would suffice.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
Then it doesn't warrant my vote. Rhetorical questions are quite boring :\

*and no I won't derail further
Click to expand...

Well, that's a different way of evading giving a straight answer to a straight question. The question may not be about the whole Big Picture, but it's an essential part of it. If you find yourself incapable of having an opinion about this rather important part, it does preclude you from constructing an adequate argument about the whole thing. "Grizzly Bear can't even tell us whether human CO2 can affect climate under any circumstances. He's a closet Palin" would become an easy put-down from this time onwards.
 
Last edited:
The relevant answer is left off the list so that it can't be checked.

D) I believe human activity produced CO2 may influence climate change to some degree, but that the science has been so hopelessly corrupted by political and business interests, that we have no way of knowing what the truth is right now, nor if anything can actually be done about it in any significant way by murky schemes such as "carbon credits" or "carbon taxes".

That's the truly skeptical and logical answer to a poll on AGW.
 
Black or white only?
Where's the middle ground.

Poorly set up imho with insufficient choices.:boxedin:
 
Trevor from Toronto said:
The relevant answer is left off the list so that it can't be checked.

D) I believe human activity produced CO2 may influence climate change to some degree, but that the science has been so hopelessly corrupted by political and business interests, that we have no way of knowing what the truth is right now, nor if anything can actually be done about it in any significant way by murky schemes such as "carbon credits" or "carbon taxes".

That's the truly skeptical and logical answer to a poll on AGW.
Click to expand...

No, that's a very POLITICAL and STUPID answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom