On the topic of climate change...

[u9y42]

After Reddit's Science sub banned non peer-reviewed sources regarding climate change denial and reading the comments on another thread here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.0), I was wondering what your views are in relation to the effects humans have on the climate. I've included 3 options so far, but let me know if I'm missing other views on the subject.

EDIT: included 3 extra options in the poll. I'm not sure those that voted can change their choice though, and it's probably not a good idea to reset the counter.

[bryant.coleman]

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has increased by around 30% during the last 150 years or so. And the lion's share of that increase occurred within the last 50 years. Scientific study has proven that the burning of fossil fuels, both by thermal power plants and by automobiles has caused much of that increase.

The only options to save our planet are:

1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy

2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels

3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa

[Mike Christ]

I think it's funny that some people are so unconcerned about human rights that they really have nothing more to be active about than the weather.

[bryant.coleman]

I think it's funny that some people are so unconcerned about human rights that they really have nothing more to be active about than the weather.

Human rights must be respected. But that doesn't mean that we should destroy the earth and its wildlife. And preserving the earth for the future generations will ensure that the human rights are indeed respected.

[Hawker]

Pollution and deforestation are an inevitable side-effect of the economic growth that is lifting the poorest people out of degradation.  Both cause the climate to change and we should be looking at ways to reduce them.  Deforestation is particularly damaging.

[AnonyMint]

Climate change has been going on for millions of years as evidenced for example in ice core data, Ice Ages, etc..

Your poll is worded such that when we vote for the middle choice it is as if it is implied that climate change means global warming.

No! The climate is oscillating. I voted the middle choice with this interpretation of "climate change is real".

Pollution and deforestation are an inevitable side-effect of the economic growth that is lifting the poorest people out of degradation.  Both cause the climate to change and we should be looking at ways to reduce them.  Deforestation is particularly damaging.

This was one of the causes of the fall of Rome after 400 A.D.

The earth and the human species survived and much more development followed.

The problem was caused by excessive debt and the misallocation of resources caused when everyone can do the same thing because everyone can borrow.

Currently we have $150 trillion in global debt, $quadrillion in derivatives, and another $quadrillion in unfunded social commitments.

[bryant.coleman]

Pollution and deforestation are an inevitable side-effect of the economic growth that is lifting the poorest people out of degradation.  Both cause the climate to change and we should be looking at ways to reduce them.  Deforestation is particularly damaging.

No. Only the big corporates and the oligarchs are gaining from destroying the environment. If you don't believe me, go to Brazil. The very people who cut down and burn 2 million hectares of rain forest every year doesn't earn more than $10 a day. On the other hand, the Soya giants who illegally possess the ex-forest land soon after are making thousands of usd per acre.

[Hawker]

Pollution and deforestation are an inevitable side-effect of the economic growth that is lifting the poorest people out of degradation.  Both cause the climate to change and we should be looking at ways to reduce them.  Deforestation is particularly damaging.

No. Only the big corporates and the oligarchs are gaining from destroying the environment. If you don't believe me, go to Brazil. The very people who cut down and burn 2 million hectares of rain forest every year doesn't earn more than $10 a day. On the other hand, the Soya giants who illegally possess the ex-forest land soon after are making thousands of usd per acre.

Regardless of who you think benefits, deforestation is still a bad idea. 

[pedrog]

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere has increased by around 30% during the last 150 years or so. And the lion's share of that increase occurred within the last 50 years. Scientific study has proven that the burning of fossil fuels, both by thermal power plants and by automobiles has caused much of that increase.

The only options to save our planet are:

1. Replace thermal energy with nuclear energy

2. Replace gasoline / diesel oil with bio-fuels

3. Prevent the loss of forest, especially in the Amazon Basin, Indonesia and Central Africa

I'll go with the first one, the new generation of reactors is very safe and efficient, ally that with electric cars and everyone will breath cleaner air.

I think it's funny that some people are so unconcerned about human rights that they really have nothing more to be active about than the weather.

Future generations have the right to a clean planet.

[bryant.coleman]

Regardless of who you think benefits, deforestation is still a bad idea. 

Definitely it is. Unfortunately we are not able to prevent it or even to slow the rate down in many parts of equatorial Africa, Asia and South America.

The replacement of primary forest with timber plantations is also another bad idea, as it kills the biodiversity.

[Vod]

Future generations have the right to a clean planet.

Such a right does not exist.

I'm not having any children - my bloodline ends with me.  Why should I deny myself use of the planet so that someone else's children can use it instead?  I have just as much right to use it as they do.  It's unfortunate that use of the planet pollutes said planet, but everyone does it.

[bryant.coleman]

Such a right does not exist.

It is not for you to decide.

I'm not having any children - my bloodline ends with me.  Why should I deny myself use of the planet so that someone else's children can use it instead?  I have just as much right to use it as they do.  It's unfortunate that use of the planet pollutes said planet, but everyone does it.

Because the planet is not your sole property. Some 7 billion plus people, and trillions of other living organisms have the right to live on it. You are most welcome to destroy something that you have the sole ownership of. But as far as clean air and drinking water is concerned, you have no authority or permission to destroy them. 

[pedrog]

Future generations have the right to a clean planet.

Such a right does not exist.

I'm not having any children - my bloodline ends with me.  Why should I deny myself use of the planet so that someone else's children can use it instead?  I have just as much right to use it as they do.  It's unfortunate that use of the planet pollutes said planet, but everyone does it.

I'm with you on that boat.

I've grown up and live near an industrial zone, the river that passes in my small town was considered, a few years ago, the most polluted in Europe, when I was a young teenage boy that river had a different color every day. In the past 10 years a lot was made to clean the water, I still wouldn't swim in that water.

I heard the stories from older people about they fishing and swimming in the clear waters of the river, I only see dark water now.

I know rights are what they are but now we know better.

[Wilikon]

Regardless of who you think benefits, deforestation is still a bad idea. 

Definitely it is. Unfortunately we are not able to prevent it or even to slow the rate down in many parts of equatorial Africa, Asia and South America.

The replacement of primary forest with timber plantations is also another bad idea, as it kills the biodiversity.

Here is another bad idea regarding deforestation
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-raising-cane-the-trouble-with-brazils-much-celebrated-ethanol-mi/

From the same website celebrating banning climate change deniers on reddit... It must be true then.

[MaxwellsDemon]

I think this poll is irrelevant, because belief doesn't enter into it. That's the beauty of scientific facts - they're going to stay the same, no matter what you think about them. The world is going to stay round even if you really believe it's flat.

As for the policy enacted in regard to these scientific facts, that's something we should all debate. We're all entitled to our political opinion, and we should certainly have our say when it comes to responding to climate change. Hence, a better poll might ask whether or not we believe in carbon regulation and taxation, cap and trade schemes, alternative energy subsidies, and other such environmental policy. But whether or not we believe in the existence of anthropogenic climate change is entirely irrelevant.

[bryant.coleman]

Here is another bad idea regarding deforestation
http://grist.org/article/2010-04-13-raising-cane-the-trouble-with-brazils-much-celebrated-ethanol-mi/

From the same website celebrating banning climate change deniers on reddit... It must be true then.

That doesn't mean that ethanol is a bad idea. No deforestation should be conducted for cane farming. A lot of fallow and barren land is available for cultivating cane, if irrigation schemes can be implemented properly.

And Brazil is a horrible place. Anyone can cut down the forest and anyone can massacre the tribal people. No one is going to be prosecuted. Lawless country. Entire timber / agricultural industry is in the hands of the organized mafias.

[Lethn]

I think we know fuck all and we need far more data to come to a conclusion that global warming is actually going to be a problem as well as human caused climate change which I view as two different things, the people out their who bring out only a few years of global temperature data ( which I remember reading were based off averages anyway ) and declare they know everything really piss me off especially when you take into account the Earth itself is billions of years old and we have very little actual evidence as to the cycles of the planet.

p.s. OP your poll sucks and is very skewed in favour of climate change not being man made and doesn't go into any detail lol. I haven't dismissed the possibility entirely because there is at least circumstantial evidence pointing to Carbon Dioxide affecting planetary temperature

I believe the only way we're going to tell whether or not man made climate change is causing a problem is if we do the opposite of polluting the earth with Carbon Dioxide and put in a ton of Oxygen instead to see if that has any affect.

[Elwar]

The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?

Not too confident that the globe is warming? Have to hedge your bets in case of global cooling?

[Lethn]

That is also true, people have gotten so antsy about it a lot of scientists refuse to call it global warming anymore

[bryant.coleman]

The only question that needs to be asked is why is it now referred to as "climate change" instead of "global warming"?

Because global warming is not the only side-effect of the rising Carbon di Oxide levels that we face. The ongoing droughts in many parts of the world, for example is another aftermath of rising CO2 levels. So climate change is the ideal terminology.