To ask for a head count as to how many mumsnetters don’t believe that climate change is caused by human activity?

[workingtowards]

There was a thread on MN many years ago, when a good proportion thought climate change was just weather/natural, so it would be interesting to know if views have changed.

YANBU: Yes human activity is causing climate change
YABU: No climate change is natural and there’s nothing we can do about it

Agree, we need to drastically intervene to level it let alone reverse it. We don't have the leaders to enact this, it's a perfect storm. The next 50 years are going to be 'interesting'

You can go back and change your vote 😊

Both

The Office of Budgie Responsibility:

Where are the options for...

It's a mix of both

It's natural but we should be doing something about it anyway, e.g. carbon capture to ensure it stays within human-livable temperatures

It's man-made but there's nothing we can do about it, or nothing we can do about it that wouldn't cause worse problems

It's man-made and we can do something about it, but the current specific policy proposals on the table aren't appropriate

...

I hate how facile this "debate" becomes. Just a stupid exercise in "look at those dumb people who don't believe in Science".

Private jets are responsible for MORE greenhouse gas emissions in the past three years than Uganda, a country with a population of 46 MILLION.

(I don't have time to join in properly today. Just lob in a nugget or two )

The facts are the facts and muddying the waters with a lot of stuff that doesn't align with the facts is a disinformation technique.

There has always been a strong ebb and flow. It was warmer and we were connected to mainland Europe via Doggerland. Then it froze, then warmed up again. These fluctuations are in very recent history (1000's of years)

I think it is a crucial question, how much of natural and inevitable climate change do human activities contribute to. If its 80% then we have a moderate chance of some success through innovation and initiatives (not sure how we engage the big players India and China though). If its 20% then we need to shift the focus to coping and living with climate change like air quality, cooling systems etc. Work with the problem rather than eliminate it.

From Oxfam’s Dress For The World You Want campaign

Whether you believe it is caused by human activity, the actions we take can reduce dependence on energy from dictatorships, and price volatility to an extent.

Of course it is.

Doesn't matter whether we believe in it or not. It's science, not the tooth fairy.

I think we're responsible for the acceleration of the current global warming trend we're seeing, but as others have said, the planet naturally warms and cools so we're not causing anything new per se beyond accelerating a natural process.

New to Mumsnet, are we?

Those saying that it's "a bit of both - humans have some effect but the climate has always changed regardless", can you point out to me where any scientist anywhere ever has claimed that the climate DOESN'T change regardless? Because if not, this is just a ridiculous strawman.

The vast majority of scientific experts who have actually studied the subject have concluded that human actions have created a large and accelerating increase in global heating, which will soon become - or is already becoming - irreversible. The last thing we need is to humour those who think Donald Trump is a better source of wisdom than the scientific community by acknowledging irrelevant and bleeding obvious points that noone ever denied anyway.

No one is doing a strawman. The reason some of us are saying both is because the OP asked the question with a binary of choose human or natural as the cause of climate change to vote. The OP either doesn’t know climate change is both natural and anthropogenic or forgot when she set up the voting.

I don’t believe it at all, we’ve been here for such a short period of time. It’s all natural. Great money making exercise though.

"Just a stupid exercise in "look at those dumb people who don't believe in Science"
Why would anyone want to look at them?

That's not how evolution works or how the dinosaurs were wiped out and we can't alter nature, whatever that means, but we do have an effect on it as we are part of it.

No idea what evil is.

I follow the scientific consensus as that is the rational position, but retain a healthy degree of skepticism

A balanced and sensible approach to take, especially as scientists have a long record of allying themselves with whatever's fashionable or will secure the most funding and recognition
This doesn't necessarily mean their conclusions are wrong, but all the same it's worth bearing in mind

After all, in global terms it wasn't long ago that the "consensus" was that the world was flat and the sun went around the earth

So all the art and science that humans have created in 18,000 years has absolutely no value to you @hattie43?

I have a theory that you can be team history or team natural history. I am team history that celebrates the genius of humanity, the highest aspiring creature ever to walk the earth.

@Islawinds This is aibu. The voting options are only ever yes or no. It is still interesting to see what proportion of people still click yabu. If you want to start a more subtle binary voting thread, please do.

I don't really fancy living in a world without humans.

Which is where you end up when you suggest a world without humans.

OK, so what do you think has caused the unprecedentedly rapid rise in atmospheric CO2 which happens to overlap exactly with industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels, those fossil fuels being the remnants of plant life which back in the Cambrian period absorbed huge amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, which through burning binds with oxygen to form CO2, which hangs around a long time in the atmosphere ?

What is a planet, unless some species wrestles it into a useful environment to nurture a culture?