A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Titan Buttons]

There have been 6 major extinctions wherein the majority of the Earth's life died that we humans know of. All of them happened before we were here and all of them happened due to massive climate change. The ice age was the most recent.

Humans do not affect the climate.​

The Earth will cool and warm long, long after we go extinct and the cycle of life and death will be unaffected.

The hippies are wrong. The science is right.

That doesn't mean we can't from adversely affecting the enviroment. For example, the extintion of animals is completely natural due to natural selection, but so have we as a result of not knowing any better or just not caring what happens to the enviroment, such as, deforestation

 

[Death_Korps_Kommissar]

Here is Kansas City it has been on the coldest, snowiest years for like 3 years in a row. It sure is cold for Global Warming. Then I'm told Global Warming isn't the correct term, it should be called Climate Change. K, the have scientifically proved the climate has been changing for billions of years before man. Big deal.

Acctually it's possible you could be getting more rain/snow whatever, that still kind of points to global warming. If your area is suddenly getting huge increases in rain/snow there is probably somewhere that is lossing huge amounts of rain.
Everything has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

[Deepzound]

I find it hilarious reading all these nay-sayers' replies in this thread, basically talking like they're experts on the subject and none of them presenting any evidence for their claims.

If you are actually interested in learning about global warming, I recommend going to Skeptical science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/] and checking out some of the facts like 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans [http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html].

Also worth checking out is a little documentary called The Denial Machine [http://documentaryheaven.com/the-denial-machine/] to learn where a lot of the propaganda regarding climate skepticism is coming from.

First I would like to say that the science of climates, if it can even be called that, is not like normal science. The side that believe in man-made Global Warming have no more proof than the scientists who don't. There is no control version of the earth with no humans on it we can look at and say: Hey that earth isn't heating up! I guess its humans that are causing this.

Second I would like to point out that the poll you linked was answered by 30% of the climatologists they contacted. 97% of which did as you say respond in the positive concerning the question are humans a significant factor. I don't feel any scientist would ever say humans aren't a large factor. There are a whole lot of us. The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.


Finally you wanted supporting documents here you go. This is a link to a climatologist's report to the senate: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3
I can link more but I figure you won't bother reading it so there is no point. Ask me and I will though. There is plenty of other research information from this side. The mass media just isn't spoon feeding it to everyone.

Edit:
I would also like to add that another reason this information isn't out there is the amount of donations to climatologist's research has increased drastically since this first started. Many scientists try and keep their findings quiet because as soon as people find out donations will go way down.

And while we're on the topic of actual consensus, let's not try to focus on single scientists? Especially ones cherry picked by the likes of the Heartland institute as speakers for their "climate discussions", or featured in the thoroughly debunked "The great global warming swindle" documentary [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer]. (For anyone interested in reading about the Heartland institute [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute])

A funny little quote regarding Roy's data [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/]:

Spencer and colleague John Christy "published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated..."; but the discrepancy turned out to be an artifact of their having applied incorrect adjustments to their UAH satellite temperature record data. As Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/] put it:

"Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing ? indeed encouraging ? the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done"

For a more thorough reading of whether or not there is a consensus, I direct you here [http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=7&t=350&&a=17].

The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.

Besides your (laughable) attempts at trivializing the sum of human knowledge at this point in time (I mean really, a poll among medieval people regarding the stars compared to a poll among climate scientists regarding the climate), I'd like for you to expand on what else besides the burning of fossil fuel the "human factor" could be?

Also, for the edited part of your post - please substantiate your claims, or you won't get taken seriously.

You know what is funny about the link you gave? The document behind it doesn't support what you are saying. You've fudged which numbers mean what.

I'm guessing you didn't read the link, but that's ok, here's a more thorough look at the consensus of global warming [http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=7&t=350&&a=17].

 

[bdcjacko]

Here is Kansas City it has been on the coldest, snowiest years for like 3 years in a row. It sure is cold for Global Warming. Then I'm told Global Warming isn't the correct term, it should be called Climate Change. K, the have scientifically proved the climate has been changing for billions of years before man. Big deal.

Acctually it's possible you could be getting more rain/snow whatever, that still kind of points to global warming. If your area is suddenly getting huge increases in rain/snow there is probably somewhere that is lossing huge amounts of rain.
Everything has an equal and opposite reaction.

The laws of physics do not apply to weather or anything besides physics. Huge pet peeve.

 

[Jatal Khyron]

...

So it was my fault, that you didn't care to proof any of you claims? Thank you, I wasn't aware of that.

Not at all. I'm glad to teach the ill-informed.

 

[Dense_Electric]

thus making change happen faster then it would naturally. Obviously.

Incorrect. The standard pattern that's been identified is a 90,000 cool period followed by a 10,000 year warm period. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Now put two and two together and we get...

Now that's certainly not to say that dumping massive amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere is a good thing, just that is has not cause or significantly accelerated the natural cycle. If anything, it may help subvert a massive climate shift, not cause one.

The laws of physics do not apply to weather or anything besides physics. Huge pet peeve.

The laws of physics are directly related to whether patterns, it's an entirely plausible hypothesis - I'm not a meteorologist, but I don't see why it should be dismissed out of hand.

Honestly, I was expecting someone to make a Fullmetal Alchemist joke.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Well, it really annoys me when people see that we get tons of snow in the winter and go "OH, NO GLOBAL WARMING", when it actually supports said theory. (Basically, higher temperatures = more evaporation = more precipitation, if you really want something slightly more in depth, feel free to ask)

It's actually very unpopular to support global warming now, actually. I think I know one person that believes in its existence. Uno. The rest either think it's a part of a natural cycle (which is reasonable) or are a part of the group I mentioned above that thinks because it gets cold in the winter global warming doesn't exist.

 

[Dana22]

thus making change happen faster then it would naturally. Obviously.

Incorrect. The standard pattern that's been identified is a 90,000 cool period followed by a 10,000 year warm period. The last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. Now put two and two together and we get...

And that disproves what ? That the warm period cant reach its peak faster ? Or last longer ?

 

[Marowit]

Make a container environment out of a material that you can see through. leave it in the sun for a few days. measure its temperature.
Then put some c02 in there, this will actually cool it down.

So really, the best way to fight heat? stop trying to fight it.

So, CO2 doesn't trap heat; Venus would disagree with this statement.

I definitely believe climate change, why? The overwhelming wealth of scientific evidence that humans are adversely effecting our atmosphere with the tons of carbon we're putting up there, in a chronic fashion, every second of every day for longer than the last 150 years.

Of course the Earth will be A O.K. in 1000 years if we continue to do nothing, but that doesn't mean it will be hospitable to human habitation.

 

[Heronblade]

The laws of physics do not apply to weather or anything besides physics. Huge pet peeve.

The laws of physics are directly related to whether patterns, it's an entirely plausible hypothesis - I'm not a meteorologist, but I don't see why it should be dismissed out of hand.

Honestly, I was expecting someone to make a Fullmetal Alchemist joke.

The comparison was that if one area is getting unusually heavy precipitation, somewhere else would be getting far less. Weather patterns are far too complex for such a simple if A then B statement. For example, lets say for whatever reason that the oceans began giving off more water vapor. This would result in greater precipitation in some parts of the world without necessarily decreasing it in others. Being a meteorologist wouldn't help much either, the science is far too complex for even trained professionals to get beyond the educated guess stage.

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Okay, so first of all: I think global warming is absolutely happening. But I also respect those who have a strong opinion contrary to mine (Well, those who aren't arses about it anyway).

But my question is thus: You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now.

I've got people here in Australia, prominent people, people in Government, saying things along the lines of "Global Warming has not been proven as fact, so just keep right on doing exactly what you're doing now, because it's not causing immediate and noticeable damage."

That seems unnecessarily reckless to me. After all, doesn't the old idiom read "A stitch in time saves nine"?

EDIT: I feel that people are taking "global warming" point slightly too literally. I'm also talking about pollution in general. But that doesn't have as many obsessive back-and-forthers.

The problem is that these politicians and industry leaders are not being straight with us. The truth is that they dont care. There may or may not be issues that will destroy our environment and ultimately kill off the human race, but that's the future's problem. We see this everywhere:

In the Arab countries that are rich in oil, the leaders are selling it and getting rich. Eventually they will run out, and the U.S. will still be sitting on huge reserves. All Arab countries will fall into dire poverty and become third world countries. Do the current leaders care, or do they want to own as many cars as possible before they die?

Unnecessary surgeries are taking place all the time. To boot, pharmaceutical companies are pumping out propaganda to make people think they need more drugs. On top of the other problems this causes, people are using antibiotics far far more often than is necessary. It is a known fact that extensive use of antibiotics causes pathogens to mutate and become resistant. As this happens, we are going to fall farther and farther behind. You would think that surgery would get safer as time goes by, but in 100 years from now, it is likely that intrusive surgery will be extremely dangerous if not impossible. It could even get bad enough that the bacteria we inadvertently genetically engineered will just kill us all. People like to just hide in their fool's fortresses and assume this is too terrible to actually happen, but we are most certainly making it happen. The pharmaceutical and plastic surgeons dont care about our grandchildren. They just want their own lives to be more luxurious.

 

[TheTutonicDrone]

And while we're on the topic of actual consensus, let's not try to focus on single scientists? Especially ones cherry picked by the likes of the Heartland institute as speakers for their "climate discussions", or featured in the thoroughly debunked "The great global warming swindle" documentary [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer]. (For anyone interested in reading about the Heartland institute [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute])

A funny little quote regarding Roy's data [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/]:

The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.

Besides your (laughable) attempts at trivializing the sum of human knowledge at this point in time (I mean really, a poll among medieval people regarding the stars compared to a poll among climate scientists regarding the climate), I'd like for you to expand on what else besides the burning of fossil fuel the "human factor" could be?

Also, for the edited part of your post - please substantiate your claims, or you won't get taken seriously.

I told you I wasn't talking about a single scientist and I could provide links for my claims. You asked for it so here we go:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Do you want more? Oh yes support for my claim about donations:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

What I trivialize is the sum of 30% of the contacted portion scientific community's answer of two vague questions. I also trivialize all polls because they are the least scientific way to learn any information.
The concept that a majority is naturally correct is a fairly standard logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Which is why polls are complete crap used to pressure people into potentially irrational positions.
Thing is polls aren't even appealing to the majority. They appeal to the majority of a segment which is then inferred to apply to the whole, a less convincing approach. When only 30% of the segment bother to answer the questions I loss the little respect I have for this position.

There are a myriad of other plausible reasons outside of fossil fuel where humans are a significant factor. I can provide links for these theories but I have already linked more documents than you will probably bother reading though if pressed I will link them.

I would like to point out that you are placing the burden of proof on me. While I more than expected this I wonder if you have even bothered to look at actual scientific papers from your own side. I thought about critiquing one of their papers but you would most likely accuse me once again of "Cherry Picking" so it would be more fun if you pick one yourself.

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

*Snip*

Yep you are right some people simply seem to have their views for the sake of having their views rather than having any reasoning for them . . .

Well then I have finally found someone who can accept the strengths with the weakness of their agruement.

*tip of the hat to you*

To my knowledge seems that their is not enough fresh water on the planet to disrupt the flow of the currents, but I'm just applying principles that do govern the flow of liquids to a subject I'm not totally versed in, so I could be mistaken.

I'll take a gander at the articles when I get a few mins, as this has sparked my interest

I don't think we will ever truely know who is right until something happens or does not happen. As even in scientific/engineering minded community's everybody disagrees on things that can not totally be proven 100%. For instance when I studied Thermo-fluids in relation to aerodynamics I got told how NASA and the rest of the world currently have a disagreement as to how a plane flys, one believing high pressure on the top and low on the bottom of the wing and the other way round for the other. Both have evidence to support both veiws . . .

But like I said in one of my other posts, I think the change over to more renewable sources is a good thing, for economic and simple pollution reasons.

Thank you, I think its important to always be open to the possibility that you may be wrong if you expect to be able to convince others that they may be wrong.

I read up further and apparently at least one ice age has begun as a result of a fresh water increase in the Oceans as a barrier between a lake in North America and the ocean broke (don't know the exact details) and the lake flowed into the Ocean and stopped the oceanic belts. But I agree, ice age or not, we, at the very least, have a responsibility to decrease pollution levels and become a more environmentally friendly race.

 

[Deepzound]

And while we're on the topic of actual consensus, let's not try to focus on single scientists? Especially ones cherry picked by the likes of the Heartland institute as speakers for their "climate discussions", or featured in the thoroughly debunked "The great global warming swindle" documentary [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer]. (For anyone interested in reading about the Heartland institute [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute])

A funny little quote regarding Roy's data [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/]:

The poll did not ask if burning fossil fuel is a large factor.
Polls aren't science. If we took a poll a thousand years ago about what stars are we would not get the right answer.

Besides your (laughable) attempts at trivializing the sum of human knowledge at this point in time (I mean really, a poll among medieval people regarding the stars compared to a poll among climate scientists regarding the climate), I'd like for you to expand on what else besides the burning of fossil fuel the "human factor" could be?

Also, for the edited part of your post - please substantiate your claims, or you won't get taken seriously.

I told you I wasn't talking about a single scientist and I could provide links for my claims. You asked for it so here we go:
http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/cooglobwrm.pdf
http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/idso98.pdf
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/4029837/Global-warming-Reasons-why-it-might-not-actually-exist.html
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/epajrnl16&div=43&id=&page=
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWQdP4_7SycC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Global+warming+skeptic&ots=1JXDbuNT4b&sig=-8jmFPL437XLLO-EicRG9BGu3Bg#v=onepage&q=Global%20warming%20skeptic&f=false
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1023334.stm
Do you want more? Oh yes support for my claim about donations:
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835660/professor-emiritus-hal-lewis-resigns-from-american-physical-society/

What I trivialize is the sum of 30% of the contacted portion scientific community's answer of two vague questions. I also trivialize all polls because they are the least scientific way to learn any information.
The concept that a majority is naturally correct is a fairly standard logical fallacy, argumentum ad populum. Which is why polls are complete crap used to pressure people into potentially irrational positions.
Thing is polls aren't even appealing to the majority. They appeal to the majority of a segment which is then inferred to apply to the whole, a less convincing approach. When only 30% of the segment bother to answer the questions I loss the little respect I have for this position.

There are a myriad of other plausible reasons outside of fossil fuel where humans are a significant factor. I can provide links for these theories but I have already linked more documents than you will probably bother reading though if pressed I will link them.

I would like to point out that you are placing the burden of proof on me. While I more than expected this I wonder if you have even bothered to look at actual scientific papers from your own side. I thought about critiquing one of their papers but you would most likely accuse me once again of "Cherry Picking" so it would be more fun if you pick one yourself.

I do not have time at present to compile an individual response to each of the documents linked, but will give a quick impression that most of it is either old and/or the same stuff that always circulates among skeptics - nothing new under the sun.

I will compile a fair response to each paper after having gone through them, but not today.

Now please, link everything you have and I will be very happy to look through it all at a later point in time.

And yes, I will give you a comprehensive list of peer-reviewed journals the next time I'm looking through the article databases at my university.

 

[Wulfen73]

I find it hilarious reading all these nay-sayers' replies in this thread, basically talking like they're experts on the subject and none of them presenting any evidence for their claims.

If you are actually interested in learning about global warming, I recommend going to Skeptical science [http://www.skepticalscience.com/] and checking out some of the facts like 97% of climatologists say global warming is occurring and caused by humans [http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html].

Also worth checking out is a little documentary called The Denial Machine [http://documentaryheaven.com/the-denial-machine/] to learn where a lot of the propaganda regarding climate skepticism is coming from.

Uh.. you read more than the title of this right? "A new poll among 3,146 earth scientists found that 90 percent believe global warming is real, while 82 percent agree that human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." Already the title is a complete fabrication, and what the hell is an earth scientist? and thirdly this was a poll (Of two very vague questions are you 'Is the mean temperature going up compared to levels pre-1800, and are humans affecting it') of 3,146 people from a directory of 2033 different departments (This is approximately 10,200 people according to the article which if you have graduated grade three I'm pretty sure you'll be able to tell that this in fact is less than a third of the -Contacted scientists- the others declined to respond so in fact the blurb is a lie as well the poll was among 10,200 scientists that are directly involved in this research and less than a third felt strongly enough to respond. Wow) This is precisely the problem that environmentalism has had for a long time, you put up these scary numbers, you beat your chests and god help the people that disagree with you, and the facts aren't checked, the numbers are completely fudged and it makes the movement look like a bunch of dishonest hacks. Now this may not be most of you but holy crap guys, do some checking before you put these numbers up as truth! This article showcases just how little thought actually went into this "Study" even among the 30ish percent of the scientists that you called and actually responded your own article has no 97% in there anywhere! The questions are so vague they are meaningless and they are just bloody questions! There is no (Could you show us the work that lead to this conclusion?) The environment isn't a church we can't just pray to the trees and hope for miracles the environment is hard science, we need to know what effect we are having, we need to know how we can fix it, and we need chuck all this 'go green' nonsense in the trash. The environmental movement seems to hurt waaaay more than it helps (Yay we banned DDT! oh wait people in africa were able to stop the threat of malaria with it, oh well , way we stopped Nuclear power plants from being built, forcing us to rely more on coal gas and other filthy fossil fuels instead of the comparatively safe and clean nuclear power, and force us to rely on reactors older than we allow school buses to be be because we aren't allowed to build new ones that produce 0 waste and are 1000% more effective at generating more power, high five! ))

 

[RDubayoo]

I oppose current attempts to thwart Global Warming because the likes of Al Gore have failed to make a convincing case to demonstrate the planet's getting hotter because of mankind. If summer's are hot, it's global warming. If there's a major storm, global warming. Hell, if it's cold? Also global warming--even if the alarmists didn't originally predict it would be so cold.

It just seems to me that they're making this all up as they go along, and hoping they get as much money and power as they can before people start calling them out for their BS.

And about CFC's. I oppose the ban on CFC's because, similar to the problem with Global Warming, there also isn't very strong evidence they destroy the ozone layer. Even if you believe otherwise, I know someone, an asthma sufferer, who is forced to use an unsafe, non-CFC based alternative to the CFC product this person should be using. In other words, this person's health is being endangered because the eco-fanatics fear that even limiting CFC's to just asthma inhalers would hurt the environment too much. Does that sound sane or reasonable to you?

 

[Ritter315]

"You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now." - The reason for that for most people is the fact that a LOT of quote "global warming prevention" ideas are HORRIBLE and have long-term unseen concequences for economies, ecosystems, and the earth itself. Also, the idea of global warming isnt even a recent idea. Global warming is a natural part of the earths lifecycle and has been for as long as theres BEEN an earth. There's alos global cooling, like there was in the 1920s and people were thinking of melting the polar ice caps just like some people nowadays want to put sulfer in the air to reduce the temp.
Economic ideas like limiting production, energy consumption etc. are also doing harm to some of the poorest in society. People hate it when a coal power plant opens up, even if it allows people to stop using dirtier fuel sources in their own homes, or if cars arent going to be energy efficent even if they are very cheap (Like the Ta-ta Nano in India)
Ultimately, people who argue for these envirnmental laws often only care about the end and dont even LOOK at the means and that doesnt even guarentee that the ends are going to be met. In many cases envirnment group's proposals would actually lead to a greater destruction of th envirnment in the future.
Humans are BARELY making an impact, AT ALL. Air pollution is the clostest thing you can argue, but our water is cleaner than ever, our forests are bigger than ever, and people are living longer than ever. So when people say that we should keep on doing exactly what we should keep doing, I an see why they think its for the best.

"Our water is cleaner then ever, our forests are bigger" WHAT?!

Yes, our water is cleaner and our forests ARE bigger. Go back 400 years ago and drink the water in the great lakes you're going to get sick, you had to boil it. And our forestland have been almost increased by 40 acres in the last 90 years because as trees are cut down they are replanted at an increased rate.

 

[Flac00]

Who in government? Plenty in the opposition but none that I've heard from in the government (at least, not federal).

What I don't get is why people fail to see the benefit of transitioning away from fossil fuels aside from preventing global warming. Surely people realise that non-renewables are, by their definition, non-renewable. Move towards renewables and you avoid energy price spikes when the non-renewables run out (see the rising price of oil). Be an early moving country and your country is better positioned to capitalise when other countries make the transition later.

Tell that to the US. We have to shug off the delinquents in our congress who still think that the earth is flat and that the devil created dinosaur bones.

 

[Flac00]

"You may not believe it's truly happening, but why are you so against preventative measures to stop it happening in the future? Surely you'd agree that to stop it from happening 100 years from now, which is entirely plausible, there should be some preventative measures taken now." - The reason for that for most people is the fact that a LOT of quote "global warming prevention" ideas are HORRIBLE and have long-term unseen concequences for economies, ecosystems, and the earth itself. Also, the idea of global warming isnt even a recent idea. Global warming is a natural part of the earths lifecycle and has been for as long as theres BEEN an earth. There's alos global cooling, like there was in the 1920s and people were thinking of melting the polar ice caps just like some people nowadays want to put sulfer in the air to reduce the temp.
Economic ideas like limiting production, energy consumption etc. are also doing harm to some of the poorest in society. People hate it when a coal power plant opens up, even if it allows people to stop using dirtier fuel sources in their own homes, or if cars arent going to be energy efficent even if they are very cheap (Like the Ta-ta Nano in India)
Ultimately, people who argue for these envirnmental laws often only care about the end and dont even LOOK at the means and that doesnt even guarentee that the ends are going to be met. In many cases envirnment group's proposals would actually lead to a greater destruction of th envirnment in the future.
Humans are BARELY making an impact, AT ALL. Air pollution is the clostest thing you can argue, but our water is cleaner than ever, our forests are bigger than ever, and people are living longer than ever. So when people say that we should keep on doing exactly what we should keep doing, I an see why they think its for the best.

"Our water is cleaner then ever, our forests are bigger" WHAT?!

Yes, our water is cleaner and our forests ARE bigger. Go back 400 years ago and drink the water in the great lakes you're going to get sick, you had to boil it. And our forestland have been almost increased by 40 acres in the last 90 years because as trees are cut down they are replanted at an increased rate.

I'm sorry, that statement is ridiculous. I can tell you right now, we are fucking up nature. I'm no tree hugger, but I know that we are not very "nature in-tuned". Water is just as dirty as it has been for a long time. The only reason it has been cleaner recently is because we were so horrible in our treatment of water in the industrial revolution. Who knew pumping heavy metals into water was bad for the environment? Forests are decreasing rapidly also. In fact, the Amazon Rainforest has been calculated to have actually added to the increase in CO2 emissions because people keep on cutting down acres of it and burning it.
Now to disprove what you said in your inaccurate rant. I would like to see how the effects of CO2 production eliminating ideas are so bad. Most of the reasonable ones include pursuing reliable sources of energy: wind, solar, water, fusion (still conceptual), ect. They also include acting responsibly and not driving around in gas guzzling hummers, using diesel cars, and using public transportation.
You are right in one area, global warming is not an uncommon phenomenon on earth (especially it is the single reason why we aren't icicles). EXCEPT, you don't seem to understand what is happening right now. This is the largest spike in temperatures and CO2 levels on earth since the beginning of the Cretatiouse period. Do you know what happened to cause that spike? Thousands of volcanic eruptions happening simultaneously. Do you see that happening today? NO. What is happening now is something unprecedented in the history of the earth, we are causing this, undoubtedly. There is A HUGE amount of evidence compiled by scientists all around the globe that proves this fact.

 

[Gladiateher]

I live in Wisconsin and I don't believe in taking measures to preventing global warming because the U.S. government has a simply ridiculous amount of debt and I believe that we should focus all our energies on that. Not that anyone actually does. At all.