A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Blaster395]

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.

I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.

It may not seem that such "Electric Cars" or "Renewable resources" require less labor and resources, but they do. Sometimes up to 5 times more.
Try telling someone living on $2 a day that the food prices have doubled because the farms are using electric tractors which are more expensive, and the electricity for them is being produced by renewable power plants which are more expensive.

And when people are starving they take extreme measures.

Civil war and war on other countries would increase.

 

[thedailylunatic]

OK... this is WAAAY too complicated for a forum post, but I'll try to boil down my answer as much as possible:

Basically, the reason why it doesn't make sense to take the kinds of steps you'd probably like against global warming based on worst case scenarios is because people will fucking die. I don't mean to be insulting; I'm just trying to convey the appropriate emphasis.

Basically, if we did everything that Al Gore wanted us to do, we'd have to smash the world economy to tiny tiny bits and build the whole damn thing up again from scratch. There's a reason why people call it a "dependence" on fossil fuels: because if we place artificial restraints on our use of them industry will grind to a halt and many middle-class people will lose their jobs and, at the very least, many poor folk will not be able to get heat for their families in the winter or cooling in the summer and they will DIE.

Basically, until the technology exists to replace fossil fuels (it doesn't, I promise), any serious steps to combat possible global warming will horrifically fuck over the entire world. I understand why you're concerned about global warming; I just hope you understand why I'm more concerned about the global economy.

 

[DazBurger]

I do believe in global warming... But im not really so sure that its man made.

 

[Shirokurou]

My opinion on Global Warming is neutral.
Environmental damage = true.
2012 due to it = not so true

I'm all for "clean green" production, but I also realize that it'll be very harsh on the economy...

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

I was amused when the US had an unseasonably cold winter like two years ago and suddenly everyone was back on the climate skeptic wagon. Little do they realize that global warming actually causes all kinds of wacky weather patterns including, from time to time, extremely cold winters.

The science points to the fact that the globe has warmed considerably in a matter of a decade or so. If global warming is really a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens over millions of years, how exactly do you explain such a drastic increase in global average temperature in such a short period of time?

And to all those complaining about emissions restrictions and all that, grow up. Regardless of what the government wants to do to your car's tailpipe, it wouldn't kill you to ride a bike once in a while or take the stairs, would it? You might even find that you like being in shape. And as for emissions restrictions on large manufacturers, you can't possibly think all that black shit billowing out of your nearest factory is good for anybody, right? Regardless of your beliefs on the environment, do you personally really want to be breathing all that crap in?

 

[Blue_vision]

It may not seem that such "Electric Cars" or "Renewable resources" require less labor and resources, but they do. Sometimes up to 5 times more.
Try telling someone living on $2 a day that the food prices have doubled because the farms are using electric tractors which are more expensive, and the electricity for them is being produced by renewable power plants which are more expensive.

Try "you don't have to be green to be green." Obviously, every single thing being touted as "green" isn't the best choice for the environment. But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles, use of renewable resources, local markets, and (importantly) reversing consumerism in general, is much better for the environment than current trends.

And three things: activities like reducing the prevalence of cash cropping, low-cost green initiatives to replace expensive things such a pesticide, fertilizer, and commercial seeds would see little fluctuation in the price of food in the developing world, if not a drop due to lower production costs.
Also, the higher cost of renewable energy is mostly because it's an issue of existing infrastructure vs. new infrastructure. Obviously, the economics of replacing a brand spanking new coal power plant with a hydroelectric plant aren't very good. But if done over time, perhaps closer to the end of the power plant's life, the economics improve significantly, especially when you take all the benefits of the system into account (lower health costs due to cleaner air and water, higher agricultural output from less acidic rain and water, low to no fuel costs, etc.)
And finally, there is some responsibility on the incredibly rich developed world to help out the developing world. Ok, maybe food costs will increase. But there's some form of equalization between the global North and South that needs to happen, if not straight reparation for the decades (if not centuries,) of abuse from the developed world, then at least to build together towards a better future. The big two differences between the developing world and the developed world is infrastructure and education, two things that are easy for highly developed countries to help the developing world with. And if you're willing to do that, it's pretty trivial to just make all that infrastructure green and safe for the future.

 

[Heronblade]

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.

I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.

I won't argue with you on the topic of energy and waste conservation, that is something we need to do regardless of what other measures we take.

But what kind of "green energy" are you talking about in this case. Be it for vehicles or overall electrical production, I defy you to name a viable system that is economically feasible on a large scale. With the exception of course of hydroelectric (since we've already built as many as we can), nuclear, or fossil fuels.

EDIT:
Ok, I'll start with this

But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.

next please

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I didn't know people are arguing whether the planet is warming...

Because everyone knows it is. The question was whether or not we are causing it.

 

[DarthFennec]

Well I'm not an expert on this, but I highly doubt anything we're doing is having any effect on global warming. I always assumed it was happening because, you know, we were coming out of an ice age or something like that

Still, the precautions against it that we're taking are probably for the best. Green, renewable energy means cheaper everything in the long run. Things like that.

I don't really care either way. The human race is going to shit no matter what I do, so why bother worrying about it? Whatever ends up destroying us will be interesting to witness ^.^

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

And for those of you that think that Humans DON'T contibute to climate change, I mean seriously, more basic math here, just LOOK at how much crap we pump into the atmosphere. And you think that doesn't do anything?

The crap we dump is a tiny fraction of the crap nature actually dumps into its own atmosphere. The argument is that humans are maybe possibly "upsetting the balance", which is vague and unscientific, so people obfuscate that logical leap with scary facts about what are probably natural weather cycles (which we've only been recording accurately for about 150 years, so how the hell would we know what's "normal" as far as the earth is concerned?). It's supported by the higher ups as a way for governments to justify tax hikes to support a "war on global warming". Bleh. And it's caught on because of people's desperate desire to believe that they aren't just an insignificant speck on a planet that will keep on turning no matter what they do.

All we do is change the pace. And not very much on a global scale...
Earth takes care of everything. It's been that way for a few billion years.

^ That would be a more succinct way of putting it...

 

[Bantarific]

There are three sides to this argument.
1. You believe in ACTUAL SCIENCE and ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who do ACTUAL RESEARCH so we can know ACTUAL FACTS or
2. You can believe in some unbacked, obscure, marginally to not at all scientific alternative.
3. Finally, you can be totally out of touch with reality and believe that Climate Change is an elaborate hoax or doesn't exisit at all despite the ridiculous amount of research to the contrary. And that all of the scientists of the world are pulling one on you to make money, because as we all know, scientists become scientists because almost all scientists are millionares with beach houses in Hawaii.

 

[whycantibelinus]

I personally think it is happening but not necessarily because of anything we are doing, could we have accelerated it a bit? Maybe. I feel that it is part of a planets life cycle to go through warm and cool stages. I think in our brief time on the planet it is essentially almost impossible for us to screw up the planet beyond repair, it'd be like saying a zit you had for 3 days when you were 14 ruined you're entire life, it just sounds ridiculous.

Now do I think we should concentrate on finding less destructive "greener" ways to do things? Yes, because I think it is prudent and does make for a nicer place to live, much in the same that keeping ones house dirty inside doesn't necessarily lower the property value but do you really want to live in a cluttered, disgusting place?

Those are my thoughts on global warming, if you're interested.

 

[Bantarific]

Oh and yeah scientists make this crap up just to screw with us James, so they can what, raise taxes? Listen, there is a reason these people are scientists, so they can perform scientific experiments. These experiments show us real scientific facts which is the point of the experiments, now you can go ahead and live in a fairy dust world where God or whatever you believe in blows fairy dust all over everything and that we can just do whatever the hell we want because the for gods sakes man you think there are CONSEQUENCES to our actions!? Fo Shameeee.

 

[Heronblade]

There are three sides to this argument.
1. You believe in ACTUAL SCIENCE and ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who do ACTUAL RESEARCH so we can know ACTUAL FACTS or
2. You can believe in some unbacked, obscure, marginally to not at all scientific alternative.
3. Finally, you can be totally out of touch with reality and believe that Climate Change is an elaborate hoax or doesn't exisit at all despite the ridiculous amount of research to the contrary. And that all of the scientists of the world are pulling one on you to make money, because as we all know, scientists become scientists because almost all scientists are millionares with beach houses in Hawaii.

You do realize that ACTUAL SCIENCE and ACTUAL SCIENTISTS who do ACTUAL RESEARCH so we can know ACTUAL FACTS are used against that same concept? We know so little about meteorology that I doubt that anyone has a completely accurate/relevant set of data to even begin working from.

 

[Zipa]

Humans are having a small effect but not a major change, if the world was simply getting warmer then the UK wouldn't of had its coldest winter in 30 years in 2010.

Earth has been around since long before us and has gone through many cycles similar to this.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't look after the Earth, industies should be regulated and not crap up the planet. I do object though to goverments like the UK using global warming as a excuse to jack taxes/prices up whenever possible.

 

[Bantarific]

We may not have a perfect setup here but I'm getting annoyed that apparently 70% of people here totally deny any sort of science and just think that humans have no impact on the planet at all. Science is science for a reason, so humans can figure stuff out, if you don't believe in research done dozens upon dozens upon dozens of times what is there to believe in?

 

[Bantarific]

The world is not just getting warmer ash-brewster, it's called climate change for a reason, because people kept on saying that places were getting colder as well so there was no such thing. Well considering climate change includes stuff getting colder the UK could've had it's coldest winter. The Earth has gone through many cycles this before but humans have sped this process up to within a century rather than over many hundreds of years.

 

[Bantarific]

Yes heron I do know that some scientists perform false experiments designed to have a specific outcome so that they can say climate change is a hoax. But this does not mean I believe in them, I tend to go with what the smartest people on earth have to say, people who spend years and years studying this with scientists just as smart as them from all around the globe. I ask again, if I cannot trust the smartest people who devote their lives to science to tell me why the world is heating and cooling, who should I believe?