[Beskargam]

Writing a paper on climate change and i have to find the bias for the theory that climate change is caused by both natural factors and human ones. Would you ladies and gents happen to know off the top of your head or be able to point me in the right direction?

additionaly open to discussion on climate change in general

[iamzack]

the climate is not changing that is a lie made up by libruls tryin to keep me from driving my hummer to the end of the driveway to get my mail every day

[Beskargam]

uh-huh. thats the other theory i have to write about

[StarSlayer]

Beware the..

G-R-E-E-N
             D-R-A-G-O-N

[Grizzly]

The caused by human factors... ehrm... Just watch Al Gore?

[MR_T3D]

The caused by human factors... ehrm... Just watch Al Gore?

well, he zoomed in on just that recent upturn, and assumed exponential growth. People always manipulate graphs to prove their point if they're trying to prove a point.

[Mefustae]

Charts are awesome. So much easier than crafting arguments and discussion.

[lostllama]

I've recently been reading the Geological Society of London's statement on climate change: Climate change: evidence from the geological record.

The statement concludes that it is not possible to relate the global warming trend of the last 40 years to geological causes, and that there are several lines of evidence that point to an increase in anthropogenic CO₂ emissions accompanying this recent warming. Evidence of a sudden global warming event 55 million years ago at the end of the Paleocene epoch (and other earlier events) provides a basis for the amount of atmospheric carbon from natural sources that would have been responsible for such an increase in global temperature. If a projection of current anthropogenic carbon emissions is made into the next few centuries, then the total amount of atmospheric carbon could approach that of the 55 million year event. The warming induced by this may trigger the release of carbon from natural reservoirs like frozen methane gas hydrates under the ocean, wetlands and other natural sources - like a positive feedback mechanism, some of this carbon could also contribute to the rise in the global temperature. Together with the human-induced emissions it could raise it by at least 5-6ºC or more.

You are searching for the bias for the theory that both natural and human factors are responsible for climate change, so the statement may be of use to you as it suggests that there could be a link between the two. At least, that's what I'm getting from it.

[Bobboau]

the best argument for bias towards global warming can be evidenced in this very thread, look at the reaction you get from suggesting it, and this is just in a little gamer forum, imagine what asking that question would get you if you worked in a place that was founded with anthropogenic co2 caused global warming. that said, they wouldn't have founded such a place if they didn't think there was a good reason to.

[Mikes]

mention the frog metaphor

(I.e. if you raise temperature in a cooking pot slowly enough a frog won't notice he is getting cooked until its too late for him to move out. lol)

[Janos]

The caused by human factors... ehrm... Just watch Al Gore?

well, he zoomed in on just that recent upturn, and assumed exponential growth. People always manipulate graphs to prove their point if they're trying to prove a point.

It's almost if... almost like this completely ignores the timescale because it is like... mixing geological timescale with historic...

Like... it's almost as someone who posts this graph kinda misses the point about speed and only looks at temperature..

[Titan]

Even if global warming is bullcrap, we're running out of oil and I don't wanna keep breathing that **** in. 

[Bobboau]

I wish more people would focus on that issue, rather than the global warming, because that truly is irrefutable, there is no denying that there is a limited amount of oil, and everyone knows that car exhaust is nasty. more importantly, more efficient vehicles mean more profitable vehicles for who ever is driving them.

[Grizzly]

Even if global warming is bullcrap, we're running out of oil and I don't wanna keep breathing that **** in. 

Good point. People seem to miss that.

[Drogoth]

Even if global warming is bullcrap, we're running out of oil and I don't wanna keep breathing that **** in. 

Good point. People seem to miss that.

Agreed. IMHO, it doesn't matter WHY the icecaps are melting, or why climate is changing. The fact of the matter is, it IS changing and what are we going to do about it. Getting hung up on who/what is to blame is a complete waste of time

[Grizzly]

Even if global warming is bullcrap, we're running out of oil and I don't wanna keep breathing that **** in. 

Good point. People seem to miss that.

Agreed. IMHO, it doesn't matter WHY the icecaps are melting, or why climate is changing. The fact of the matter is, it IS changing and what are we going to do about it. Getting hung up on who/what is to blame is a complete waste of time

I was more onto the matter of our dwindling energy supplies. But yeah, that too.

[QuantumDelta]

The thing about science is it's not there to oblige moral misgivings or ease guilty consciences, it's there to explain why **** happens, what **** happens, and how **** happens, then go on to make predictions about what **** happens next.

It's up to everyone else to sort out the practicalities.

[Spicious]

Agreed. IMHO, it doesn't matter WHY the icecaps are melting, or why climate is changing. The fact of the matter is, it IS changing and what are we going to do about it. Getting hung up on who/what is to blame is a complete waste of time

Actually, it does matter. If we know what's causing it, we can potentially exert some control over it.
Would you have suggested the same approach with the Ozone hole?
Would you continue to use asbestos?

[Drogoth]

Agreed. IMHO, it doesn't matter WHY the icecaps are melting, or why climate is changing. The fact of the matter is, it IS changing and what are we going to do about it. Getting hung up on who/what is to blame is a complete waste of time

Actually, it does matter. If we know what's causing it, we can potentially exert some control over it.
Would you have suggested the same approach with the Ozone hole?
Would you continue to use asbestos?

Point taken. I still find this argument over whether its natural or manmade annoying though, because often the people who say its natural also propose no plan to save the dozens of cities that will sink.

[Spicious]

The chain of argument goes something along the lines of:
<insert fallacious argument that it's not man made here> -> it's natural -> natural is good -> business as usual -> continue the rape and pillage