[Aileen]

Sorry if it came across that way.

No worries, probably me being a bit too prickly.

Ah ok, the claim is not that climate change in general historic terms originates in what humans have done. Rather specific, contemperaneous aspects for which a vast amount of independently peer reviewed scientific research indicates does derive from human actions. One indicator amongst so many are chemical studies of atmospheric CO2 which shows the vast majority of human contribution emerging from the burning of fossil fuels. The effect of this is easily demonstrated through spectroscopic analysis of greenhouse radiation.

I do see where you're coming from, although I don't understand what spectroscopic analysis of greenhouse radiation entails.  Will look it up on the internet though,

[marathonarthur]

How condescending of you.  However given that according to the dictionary anthropogenic means "originating in human activity", then, no, I don't believe that to be the case with climate change because climate change is a natural global occurrence which has been going on for millions of years, long before man even lit so much as a tiny fire to keep himself warm, and it's time that people realised this.

Aileen, True climate change has been occurring for a huge number of years. Over a period when continents have drifted and oceans were created and the polar icecaps varied in extent it is simple to see that this is the case. All the focus now is on the facts that mans's activity changes the balance of gases in the environment. There is a big difference from a caveman's little fire to an industrial plant pumping out waste gases. Most commercial activity changes the balance in nature. The simple act of gradually covering the planet with buildings and industrial plant is detrimental to a 'living' planet that supports life in many forms. It is the scale of that activity that is causal.
I have seen the changes to our built environment over my lifetime as you have. I have also noted the consequential changes that manifest now in changing weather conditions around the world. The 'western civilisation' values and activities that have spread worldwide from the start of the Industrial Revolution do seem to correlate quite accurately and that is supported by the science.
Whilst current ideas like  'plant a tree' is a rather simplistic solution it will help especially if adopted in the right locations to suit weather systems. Generally though if we change from the current throw-away society structure we will do a lot more to help change the balance to one where eco-systems are not so influenced by man. We may not be able to change the world from its eventual self destruction (a long long time away) but not damaging it too much will help for a few more generations to come?

[marathonarthur]

^ Fine. 

[althusser]

@MA - Thank you for your comments, and I appreciate the time you devoted to giving me them, but as Althusser has already responded to my post, can I politely suggest that we ALL, myself included, now let this matter drop? 

I'm fine with that

[althusser]

.
 Al.....I have no wish to argue with you or insult you, but it appears you really don't know what C02 (Carbon Dioxide) actually does. It's commonly known as 'The Gas of Life', bevause that's what it does! At the moment, the amount of C02 in our athmosphere is only 400 parts per million and the scientists are telling us we need more....not less and the optimum level is 2,000 parts per million.  Every plant on the planet including the food we grow needs C02 like we need Oxygen. They breathe in the C02 and breathe out Oxygen that we obviously need! If you know anyone with a greenhouse,  they often buy C02 in cans to spray on their plants, because they're not gett enough. As far as the 'greenhouse gasses' are concerned, there are only 3 and yet the only one they talk about is C02, which is by far the least. In fact it's something ridiculous like 0.04 of the greenhouse gasses and the main two are made up of 'cloud vapour' and 'condensation'! You'll have heard 'the powers that be' want to reduce C02 to zero, but if they even manage to cut it by half, then everything will die.....including us!
 Goodnight!.

Sorry but these comments suggest that you don't have a basic grasp of the issues.  Some obvious clangers too e.g.  environmentalists want to radically reduce human contributions to atmospheric C02 levels  - NOT take all C02 out of the atmosphere!!

However I appreciate you taking time to express the points. When you do there is at least the chance for discussion, debate, clarification etc. Sticking up videos doesn't really help that unless you can also articulate key explanatory points from it yourself (if you can't, then you probably don't understand them, however appealing you might find their apparent conclusion).



 

[althusser]

Both of them want us to plant trees. I take a different attitude that we first understand ALL consequences of human activity.

Specifically then, what do we need to know that currently isn't known to science, before we plant more trees?

[Aileen]

In my opinion the difficulty with doing the best for our planet is that it is not a one issue problem of just CO2. That is why I try to understand more all the consequences of human activity and not try to make isolated simplistic correlations and suggestions.

At least that does make some sense to me MA.