Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: True

Set as news: False

Set as news: True

Set as news: True

I hear you, Donovan... but that's too broad for me. I prefer letting things fragment and finding ways of making them visible so they don't get lost. I believe if I find ways to keep things separate while not resorting to memory (i.e., making clear links to things on the page) that both objectives I'm looking for can be obtained...that's the route I want to pursue... let's let it fragment so I can try my hand at it.

Nick - sure.  I'd organize all environmental topics and issues underneath one big topic (or try to) -

I.  The Environment
    1.  Is global warming occurring?
       a.  If so, what, if anything, should be done about it?
    2.  ANWAR
    3.  Whatever other topics arise -

I'm guessing people with an interest in the field of "the environment" will be drawn to the topic area and then start participating in all the sub-topics, taking stands on all the issues, etc. 

However, if we break every "sub-topic" out as a major topic, then debate will start fragmenting - people talking about "Global warming" in one case may refer to the same acts and conduct as people talking about ANWAR elsewhere, and neither will know what the other one was saying (unless they've read everything and remember where they read it, how to get back to it, who said what and when...that's a lot to hold in the memory, and the technology, organized by "big topic" > "sub-topic" > "issues" could help compensate for limited memories by grouping several different concepts into one general area.

Without consulting the literature... i.e., just using my spider sense... it sounds to me like there are various places where people can disagree...

1. Is the Earth warming?

[If YES]:

    1a. Is the warming caused #1386##substantially# by humans?

    1b. Can humans alter their ways to stabilize  or reduce warming?

        [if YES]

            1b1. Do we have a responsibility to do so?

You could argue that my 1.b. should really be under 1.a... however, even if we aren't causing it, if it has great impact on us and there were anything we could do... could/should we try to address it anyway? etc.

I think Gab's initial issue is what became the next issue in this topic... "is it a problem... take actions to address".

What if we restructure along the lines of the above points? Thoughts? Is it getting totally off, Gab?

Donovan, if you think we're better off with a bigger issue with multiple detailed options rather than yes/no, can you suggest the layout?

When I wrote the question I was thinking that it didn't matter whether humans caused the problem or not, but that what is in contention among poltiicans is whether there even is such an environmental problem. However global warming came to be, the question was more about if we as living beings have a true problem that we must try to fix.

I didn't want to start limiting the question by asking if there is a problem that should be fixed. But maybe I should have added a second question that reads: Should we take action to fight global warming?

The question as it is assumes there is a problem because attached is the qualifying phrase: primarliy caused by humans. What you guys are getting at is that humans may have a responsibility to address global warming if we are the cause. But I'm not sure if that matters because regardless of where the problem came from, if there is a problem, a problem that negatively affects life on earth, then we need to address it in order to sustain our own lives.

Come on, not even I'm so unreasonable...  (actually, the temperature differential by breathing is irrelevant in most models - except when projected out far enough into the future ... but the CO₂ emissions may not be).

How about this - "substantially contribute" - that cuts out the facile ploys, but gets past the problem of trying to weigh the factors.  Scientists modeling climate change have a ridiculously hard time weighing the factors - little tiny differences, multipled by chaos differentials, yield radically different outcomes over the long term. Weather is the ultimate demonstration of the power/limits of chaos math.

I'll more than happily review how far the problems of causality go - and its a serious, ridiculously complex subject that we all take for granted (except scientists, who have spent centuries grappling with it).  But we could do well to avoid that and focus on the broader question: "are we part of the problem, or irrelevant to it?"

The answer choices somewhat compensate for the problem by giving an option, but it would be better to do so in the question itself and then add an option, "Humans are the primary cause of global warming" -- which is a possibility -- than to load "primary" into the question itself.

I changed to "primarily caused"... "humans contribute" lets the skeptics say those ridiculous things like, "well then I can't exhale anymore because my breath is warmer than the air" and I just don't know if I can keep my food down when people say those things.

Issue prior to edits:

Or even better, "Do humans contribute to global warming?"

I would add "mainly" there - "Are humans the primary cause of global warming?" Questions of causality are often really complex (indeed, all of science spins on how to ascertain causality) - and today, we tend to recognize that a lot of causes often contribute to a single phenomenon.