Do you believe in global warming? 41



View Profile

In more recent years, global warming has been a hot topic for debate among everyone from scientists, to politicians, everyday citizens and even some religious groups.

Climate change believers insist that steadily rising atmospheric temperatures caused by pollution and greenhouse gases, which are eroding the earths protective ozone layer, are to blame for an increase in cases of extreme weather and rising sea levels caused by melting polar icecaps.

Climate change skeptics however disagree and believe that global warming is either non-existent, a natural occurrence of no lasting impact, or a hoax developed to further financial or political agendas.

What do you believe? Is global warming and climate change real? How are we impacted?

Starts at 60 Writers

The Starts at 60 writers team seek out interesting topics and write them especially for you.

  1. No. The seasons are just moving later. The Gregorian calendar with its leap year has not kept up with the seasons as expected. This time of year when I was at school was already frosty and warmer weather started early August with the hottest month December. Now warmer weather starts October and the hottest months are February/March.

    1 REPLY
    • Oh Fiona! I suppose you believe that daylight saving fades the curtains and curdles the milk as well!

  2. I am prepared to accept that global warming is happening, but I also believe that the actions of human beings and their CO2 manufacturing has very little, if anything to do with it and it is arrogant of the authorities to claim so. My belief is that what we are experiencing is something that has happened to the Earth on several, (if not many), previous occasions, something much more powerful than anything we mere mortals can create. That is, the Earth is in the course of extracting itself from the last ice-age, and it will go on doing so for many millennia to come before the process is reversed and the globe heads back towards the NEXT ice age. It is a completely normal phenomena and its progress through the ages is marked quite plainly in the ice fields which cover the polar regions at this time. This isn’t something that happens in a lifetime, or even a thousand lifetimes, it takes place over millions of years, and there is really nothing we can do about it, except for finding ways to live with it!

    3 REPLY
    • Well that is a worry. So there is nothing we can do to help. With 7 billion souls on board we are largely doomed unless we can somehow increase our agricultural output. Even if the climate were to be stable it’s unlikely we can avoid a world without enough food and if sea levels rise many people of the world who live in coastal areas will have to relocate. Countries like Australia and NZ will no doubt be invaded by bigger, hungry nations as we practice broad acre farming for meat production. This may have to change and our rolling hills terraced as in Java for intensive farming. I guess that would be better than going hungry.

    • I agree with you Brian, the climate has constantly changed since the earth was formed. There are far greater natural occurrences spill out far more CO2 than humankind. However, I also agree with reducing pollution in any form where it is economically possible to do so.
      CO2 taxes are designed to redistribute wealth and will have zero effect on climate change. They also reduce Australia’s inherent advantages over the rest of the world by way of our natural resources. Why destroy our economy just to give greenies good feelings?

    • The rate of the current change is much faster than any of the natural cycles you are talking about. Typically, those changes occurred over a period of thousands of years or more, not 50 years.

  3. Very sensible answers above. Gen Y and younger sound the belief that the Baby boomers ‘ruined Earth’. I say ‘Rubbish’.
    Scientists and meteorologists boost their salaries and research grants by saying this is mankinds fault. It’s purely cycles earth has been through before. I’m not about to move to higher ground, because seas aren’t rising anything like claimed by the climate change propagandists.

    2 REPLY
    • The sea levels are rising but the prediction of big rises are not meant for us – but for a later generation. We are just experiencing warmer weather and stronger storms. Whether it’s natural or human activity is something I don’t think ordinary people can know the answer to, but either way, whether we can help or just be victims, the future is grim. If there is nothing we can do we are doomed as the world population will need to decrease rather than increase. Billions of people going hungry would make mother earth a dangerous place. If we are dealing with human caused climate change as scientists declare, we may be able to slow the changes, but I’m not a scientists.

    • It is interesting to see that many people (deniers) simply refuse to put up proper evidence or accept the evidence that is there. Climate change, as demonstrated by many lines of evidence, from many different studies, independently checked for both findings and integrity of scientific method, have shown that Climate Change Is Real. The rate of change (increase) is unprecedented in at least the last 800. 000 years and this rate of increase is “unequivocally” the result of human emissions of green house gasses. The atmosphere is just 100km thick. If it was the same density all the way through it would be just 15km thick. It were as dense as the atmosphere we experience near sea level (where most people live) it would be just 6-7km thick. Every day we release energy from fossil fuels (plants grown thousands to millions of years ago) equivalent to more than 800 Nuclear bombs the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima Japan.

      What is 99 out of 100 medical researchers tell you, smoking causes cancer? What if 99 engineers out of 100 tell you a bridge is unsafe? OR 99 out of 100 car manufacturers tell you safety belts save lives. Who would you believe? What if you find out that in each case the 1 who was different worked respectively for a cigarette company, the company that built the bridge and motor firm that did not fit seat belts in their cars. Climate deniers are taking the equivalent point of view that some how the 297 professionals from different parts of the world and in different professions are some how the conspirators and ridiculous and we should follow the unsubstantiated evidence of the recalcitrant 3 that we would like to “believe”. Nobody is denying that the “truth is pretty inconvenient”. However, all the more reason for us all play our part in addressing it.

  4. Yes I believe in Global Warming in the same way I believe ice melts when you heat it!
    The science (collective analysis by thousands of scientists) states that the Ice shelves are melting, the oceans are rising and the reefs are bleaching because the temperatures are rising. The reason? Simple!
    Humanity has been releasing the stored Carbon Dioxide in fossil fuels, preserved in coal and oil over MILLIONS of years- at an ever increasing rate over about 100 years. CO2 doesn’t go away it remains in the oceans or the atmosphere.
    It acts as a blanket keeping more of the sun’s energy on earth – unless reabsorbed through plants – trees and plankton mostly. But with the recent and rapid increase in use of fossil fuels in India, China and the rest of Asia (almost 50% of the world’s population) the rate of increase is growing alarmingly. Meanwhile we have massive de-forestation in Asia and South America to grow cash crops. It’s all about humanity’s actions – mostly greedy humans who believe it has nothing to do with their actions but is just part of some mysterious “cycle”
    Chris Lane B.Sc.

  5. No, it is not a belief and the skeptics are the scientists. The denialist believe that climate change is either non-existent, a natural occurrence of no lasting impact, or a hoax developed to further financial or political agendas.
    Fiona seems to think that it’s the calendar is the problem.
    Brian Lee has a lot of beliefs and the brakes out the usual statement that it has always happened, ignoring the fact that the accelerated rate of change is unusual.
    Loraine Smith straight out denies we could affect the climate and then brings on the financial argument of personal benefits the scientists, but disregards the fact of the decades of profiteering by certain businesses, while polluting the environment with no responsibility of cleaning up their mess, leaving it to the someone else. As for not moving to higher ground, you might not but your decendants will. The storm surge is the greater concern as it is magnified by the small rise of sea levels.

  6. Unless a person has science qualification I’m reluctant to believe what they think. If I have a mark on my skin, I ask my doctor. If I have a funny noise coming from my car’s engine I ask a mechanic. Same with something as complex as Climate Change. Goodness me I don’t know, but there are certainly some disturbing tell-tale signs that the weather is different to when I was young. I grew up in Perth and remember the steady reliable weather and I remember Perth always had a range of rainfall figures and dams that came close to filling or overflowing every year. Now I see the dams at 25% full and getting lower and three decades of dramatically lowering rainfall – a 30% drop in 30 years is disturbing. My father and brother kept rainfall recordings since the 1920s on the family farm and it’s sure not what it used to be – just look at the Bureau of Meteorology records. These are not opinions, they are facts. Is it human induced or natural. I hope it’s human induced as then we may be able to ease the change, but if it’s natural then we are in trouble. Humans have witnesses big changes over relatively short periods of time in our past. In Europe there have been times when the climate changed dramatically and the population dropped – from 20,000 to 10,000 – they were times when there were few humans around. Now that we are talking of billions of people living in powerful countries with nuclear weapons, which can be used to invade, the story is different. My only consolation is that for me I probably won’t be alive long enough to see the pain of billions of people dying. If on the other hand the changes are human induced then perhaps a world of electric cars, solar powered desalination plants and a more vegetarian diet regime on planet earth may give us time to reduce the world population more gradually. In countries like Australia we can manage, but not if we are annexed by some other bigger nation. In some countries like Pakistan where the population has grown 4 fold in one generation and they still rely mostly on glacial melt in neighbouring countries, I don’t know what they can do, but thinking about a changing climate is probably not what is on their minds at present.

    1 REPLY
    • Oh Mr graham …
      Doctors & climate scientists are NOT analogous!

  7. Orthogonal to main question:
    The statement
    “Climate change believers insist that steadily rising atmospheric
    temperatures caused by pollution and greenhouse gases, which
    are eroding the earths protective ozone layer, …”
    is essentially incorrect. ie that is not what they believe.
    The mechanisms are unrelated to ozone depletion” – and the main area of dispute is over how sensitive the temperature rise in the overall climate is with respect to atmospheric CO2 levels.

    1 REPLY
    • Was going to write a comment about this. Ozone destruction was and is a separate problem, caused by CFCs which used to be used in fridges, air cons, and as a propellant in aerosol cans. CFCs also absorb heat and act as a greenhouse gas. However, none of the other greenhouse gases affect the ozone layer. Warming is not destroying the ozone layer. The chemistry behind both the ozone destruction and the trapping of heat in the atmosphere is well-known and understood.

      The thing is, due to a global agreement called the Montreal Protocol, nations agreed to stop production and using the gases that caused ozone destruction, so eventually, this issue will resolve itself. It will take a while due to the CFCs already up there, but we have agreed to do something about it, and it’s working.

      For the life of me, I can’t understand why people are so unwilling to solve the next big problem. To suggest that it is not even occuring is to ignore the data.
      The only debate scientists have is about the finer details. Will the temperature rise 2 degrees? or will it rise more than this? How quickly will the glaciers and polar ice caps melt? How quickly will sea levels rise? Will they rise by 1 metre in the next century, or 1.2 m? or 1.5 m? Will they ultimately rise 5 m or 7 m? How long will this take? How will natural ecosystems cope with the rapid changes? How many species will be at risk and maybe go extinct?

      Because scientists do not all agree on the extent and the rate of these changes, some have jumped on and said ‘Look, the scientists do not even agree! It must not be true.’ Sadly, the most recent indications are that some of the more extreme predictions about the extent and the rate are the ones that are coming true.

      By the way, there is a lot of money on the side of the denialists. Fossil fuel companies (coal, oil and gas) want to keep selling their product and keep making money. They want you to believe that there is not an issue. They have more money than anyone else to pour into this issue. The clandestinely fund websites that promote doubt. Rather like the tobaccos companies who knew of the problems with smoking but hid that knowledge for decades.

  8. The earths climate has been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so. There is nothing we can do to change that cycle. However pollution and air quality is another mater that needs to be addressed.

  9. No sensible person would deny that climate change exists. The question is whether human activity is having any influence on that change.

    Yes, the Earth has always gone through cycles of warmer and colder climatic conditions, but the leading climate scientists state that the changes we are now starting to experience are occurring at a FAR FASTER RATE OF CHANGE, and potentially A GREATER AMOUNT OF CHANGE than has occurred previously in Earth’s history.

    It seems perfectly logical that the reason for the more extreme nature of this change in climate cycle is due to the activities of humans since the Industrial Revolution era, with the release of billions upon billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the wholesale destruction of the Earth’s forests that has also resulted in a massive release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

    1 REPLY
  10. “believe” is a religious term
    The scientific evidence shows that the VERY SLIGHT global warming (Less than 1ºC)we’ve had over the last 150 years is part of the NATURAL WARMING we’ve had for over 300 years since the end of the Little Ice Age.
    Much of the warming occurred in THE FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY, before the period in which the human influence is said by the IPCC to be discernible

    351year old CET Temperature Record Refutes Accelerated Warming

    Study: Siberian permafrost has been warming for 7000yrs

    IMPORTANT HISTORICAL FIND! global warming Mk1 1910-1940 WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY NOT CAUSED BY Trace gas, plant food CO2!

    The Scandal of FIDDLED global warming data

    From the first IPCC report
    There is growing evidence that worldwide temperatures were higher than at present during the mid-Holocene (especially 5 000-6 000 BP), at least in summer, though carbon dioxide levels appear to have been quite similar to those of the pre-industrial era at this time (Section 1 i
    Thus parts were a few degrees warmer in July during the mid- Holocene than in recent decades (Yoshino and Urushibara, 1978, Webb ct al 1987, Huntley and Prentice, 1988, Zhang and Wang 1990) Parts of Australasia and Chile were also warmer.
    The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988)
    This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum China was, however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978)
    This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AN INCREASE OF GREENHOUSE GASES


    SHH..WARMISTS Want To Hide This. It was WARMER In The Roman & Mediæval Periods!

    Repeat of 1928 Weather Would Lead To An Outcry For Immediate World Communism!

    Repeat of 1890 Weather Would Lead To An Outcry For Immediate World Communism!

    Repeat of 1935 weather would lead to an outcry for immediate World Communism!

    FLASHBACK 1926 “the worst disaster year in American history” CO2 at “safe” levels!

    No matter which way we slice and dice it, China is The-CO2-Player that matters. India is forecast for a larger percentage-wise increase, but it’s starting from a small base. By 2030 even after doubling its output, it will still be barely a quarter of China’s total mega-ton production.
    The Congo and Indonesia are among countries forecast to ramp up production of CO2 massively, yet both of them are but a spec.
    The hard numbers show that if CO2 actually mattered, and the eco-greens really cared about it, they be talking about “The China Problem”.

    Australia is irrelevant, except in some symbolic sacrificial way.
    The 28% massive reduction, at great cost, will amount to nothing globally (assuming it can even be achieved).
    Though Tasmania may win the global race for the fastest transition from first to third world. (North Korea here we come).

    FLASHBACK1931: China Flood Killed 3Million,Followed by Typhoon, Starvation & Malaria|||frommm|||fromdd|||toyyyy=1931|||tomm|||todd

    FLASHBACK 1933: Before CO2 Ruined The Climate!!!!!

  11. If you torture the data long enough it will confess!

    Supposedly hot globe was a very cold 2015 at the South Pole and a very average year in Australia
    Here are some other trends that didn’t make the media.
    We all heard about the record heat in the Arctic, but we didn’t hear about the unusual cold in Antarctica where running twelve month averages are equal to the lowest recorded since satellites began in 1979.
    So carbon dioxide causes a hot Arctic and a cold Antarctic, and both at the same time.* Where’s the global warming?
    Hot March in Australia but not a hot year
    We heard about how warm autumn nights made the hottest March in Australia, but we didn’t hear about the most ordinary year that the last 12 months was.
    Slightly cooler than average, if you care, but who would?
    We’ve had 21 years of no warming downunder.
    We have to stop that.
    So fire up the windmills and put another $BILLION on the barbie!

  12. “Overwhelming evidence” supports manmade global warming , the thermometers don’t!

    97% scientific consensus on global warming is FALSE, and only a fraud or fool would keep parrotting it
    Don Aitkin explains the myth of the 97 per cent.
    If global warmists are capable of this dodgy stuff, what else are they saying that’s false?:

    The crème de la crème comes with the work (if that is right term for it) of John Cook, occasionally aided by Stefan Lewandowsky…
    In 2013 Cook et al and a team of volunteers looked at more than 12,000 abstracts, rated them according to whether or not they implicitly or explicitly endorsed the view that human activity had caused (wait for it) some of the warming, and again found the magic 97 per cent.
    See — it’s true! Surely those three separate ratings of 97 per cent have something going for them.

    On the face of it, no.
    Unfortunately for Cook, Legates and others later in the same year published a rebuttal.
    They found that only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1% – had been found to endorse the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming.
    Elsewhere, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner and other climate scientists protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. Cook has been trying to defend his results ever since, but more and more scorn has, in my view quite rightly, been poured on the work. You can read some of the objections here, here and here, for starters. As I have said before, this is terrible stuff methodologically, the worst I’ve ever seen in a peer-reviewed journal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *