In your opinion, is human activity causing climate change?

By inference there must be climate change or there is not climate change caused by human activity. We could argue that we do not know with certainty that there is ongoing and single direction temperature change, warming. Now by inference from that argument we must conclude that whatever humans are doing it is not sustaining the warming trend. But that is an unnecessary conclusion. Even with a causative agent that reverses direction acting over the same time period as man made effects if the overall direction of change remains upward we can still cling to the assumption that man made effects are contributing to the overall rising trend, But whenever we have a sub-trend in warming that is not entirely predicted by the theory, it brings into question both assumptions. We have less certainty that global warming must continue and by inference that man made effects are capable of sustaining the trend. However, certainty is not postulated in the theory. Rather the theory predicts that we will go from ice age through warming and back to ice age with no identified periodicity. There can be events that may hasten or delay warming, hasten or delay the subsequent ice age. For all we can tell, we could go through many partial warmings, partial coolings and not make it to a major ice age for a very long time. Why? Just because earth has gone through several sucfh partial warmings partial coolings between the last major ice age and now. We are postulating that man made global warming might take us over a tipping point that would take us all the way into a warming period, all the way to the next ice age. But we know that events outside human intervention can trigger minor ice ages, and so we have to acknowledge that this can happen again now, despite human activity.

There is no such thing as stable climates. Climates always change. Humans may or may not be signficantly affecting the climate. There is nothing in the recent past that isn't consistent with the past trends. There is no reason to believe we are significantly affecting the climate. The name "climate change" is convenient for pseudo-scientists such as Dana because they can blame any change on the what it is they really hate, industry and capitalism. That is why the left suddenly pretends to be scientists when in fact they are clueless about the very basics of earth science. That is a fact.

Not nearly as much as others perceive it to be. This planet has been going through drastic climate changes for millions of years, this is nothing new. For example, just look at the Ice Age. It was an extreme change of the earth's entire climate, yet humans could not have been responsible in any way considering there was no real form of climate-changing pollution at the time.

Human activity does play a role, but the Earth is changing every day on its own whether we do anything or not.

Just as the beat of each butterfly wing affects the wind. Everything affects everything else. Human activity affects the climate. Is it a major factor? No. Certainly not the cause. The climate changed before humans were not much more than a butterfly's wing-beat on the wind, and it will continue to change.

My opinion, as a non-scientist and based on all the information I have studied, is that climate change is occurring and there is a long-term trend of increasing global temperature averages. I believe that human activity is indeed accelerating the natural process that is going on, but I am unconvinced of the significance of mankind's contribution.

As far as I can tell, my layman's opinion aligns fairly closely with science insofar as different studies have predicted varying outcomes in terms of probability and as the research and data has continued our knowledge of what is going on with the climate is becoming more refined. Some people believe that we need to take immediate action in order to mitigate our impact on climate to slow the change we are accelerating in order to give us more time to adapt and have proposed policy changes and legislation to do so. Others believe that there is little to nothing we can do that will make a difference. Still others argue that the policy changes and legislation being proposed will upset the global economic and geopolitical balance, which will have a worse impact on mankind short term than climate change will long term, and we don't really have enough solid information to make policy and legislation decisions.

This is really the situation we are in and the issues we should be discussing, but economic and political ideologies fueled by the media are clouding the debate. We have non-scientists arguing about the science behind climate change based on misconceptions about what is going on and only limited access to, and knowledge of the data and research but nonetheless convinced that the whole theory of human influence over the climate is false based on a few talking points provided by their favorite media outlet, pundit, or political nabob. We have other people, also non-scientists, who are convinced that the sky is falling and the world as we know it is about to end, basing their opinions on the same limited information and sources. Others are fearful that they will have to give up their 12 mpg SUVs and 4,500 square foot homes, while still others simply want to get enough power and money together to have their own 12 mpg SUVs and 4,500 square foot homes.

Those economic and political agendas obviously expose themselves in either alarmism or denial, which is rooted in willful ignorance that is not amenable to correction. You can see it a lot here at Y/A in this category, but this place is in some ways a microcosm of society at large. Perhaps the aggression is amplified by the anonymity of the internet. On the other hand, perhaps we as a collective population are emulating the public debate of our own political leadership, which appears more and more as time goes on essentially a spectacle for mass consumption designed to convince the loyalists of any party to allow the celebrity politicians to whom we are addicted continue milking the tax-fed coffers of our government. We may even be enthusiastically funding the engine of our own destruction...which does have considerable historical precedent.

maybe a little but climate change is going to occur with or without humans. I believe the biggest contributor to climate change is the sun and therefore the advertising of climate change is a way for people to become rich. Take Al Gore for example you think he advocates for climate change awareness just because he want to... of course not he is getting paid. If you want the answers to questions in this world just follow the money trail.

What ever or who ever is the cause the bottom line is we are going to the Dooms Day the question is if the developed countries are willing to sign and honestly implement the crucial agreements?

Obviously, Yes.

nope, not at all.

Al Gore is a hoax that just wants to line his own pockets. If he were really worried, I doubt he would be flying in a private jet. Don't even get me started on his eletric bill.

Yes, positively, absolutely true.

As long as there are 6 billion (give or take) humans on earth, who are all farting at least five or six times a day, that creates one big-*** carbon cloud.

But with my blocked nose, I can't smell it!

Seriously, though, cut down all the trees we are cutting down, burn all the non-renewable resources that have been accumulating for the past billion years or so, and generally destroy the planet - and we are looking for trouble.