A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[Nuke_em_05]

Well, I think the evidence as to how much we have and can really effected/effect climate change is inconclusive.

Next, I would say Pascal's Wager is a weak argument. If you believe in human-influenced climate change, you should believe in God. We can't really tell if "God/climate change" is there. However, it is best to behave as though "God/climate change" is real, because the consequences are devastating.

Furthermore, I think the efforts we take are kind of useless. Hybrids use less fuel, but people tend to drive them more. The side-effects of manufacturing and cleaning "reusable" items are never taken into account against disposable or recyclable items. 20 people in 20 smart cars or Vespas do more damage than 20 people on a diesel bus. Florescent lights contain all sorts of nasty gases and chemicals. Florescent and LED lights may use half or one-quarter of the power, but you need twice or four times as many to get the same amount of light. "Renewable" sources like hydro, solar, and wind are very unpredictable, and disrupt "natural environments" like rivers, hillsides, and deserts. We could go nuclear, but wait! No we couldn't because "OMG radiation!!!1!!"

So, meh.

 

[Popadoo]

Did you know that all the charts that people use as 'evidence' can be tampered with by the scientists? And that the only data that can't be changed says that global temperatures are at an all time low for the past 400 years?
Also, we did heat up slightly for a few years, and now we are dipping again. Look at this chart, you see that little rise near the end before going down again? Global warming my ass, look at the temperatures a few thousand years ago.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Easterbrook-Natural%20global%20warming.jpg

 

[coheedswicked]

The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years (don't get me started Creationists, in short, you're wrong). There has been life on this Earth for 3.7 billion years. Humans have been around for at most one million years. We've had advanced industry for a paltry 250 years. That is such a small percentage that my calculator won't give me a proper number when I ask for it.

5.43x10^-8%.... youre welcome

 

[FolkLikePanda]

I think its inevitable and I do think we're speeding it up but not to very high degree, nevertheless I think the measures will slow it down but in the end its just going to happen anyway.

 

[Lord Beautiful]

The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years (don't get me started Creationists, in short, you're wrong). There has been life on this Earth for 3.7 billion years. Humans have been around for at most one million years. We've had advanced industry for a paltry 250 years. That is such a small percentage that my calculator won't give me a proper number when I ask for it.

In all that time, we have been going through constant warming and cooling periods. Before the last Ice Age, there were no ice caps in the world. We now have two major ice caps.

Are you really that arrogant? Are you conceited enough that when a small change happens in the world's temperature, you think that the only possible explanation is that you caused it?

Basically, that sums up my opinion on the subject. Good day to you.

And here's precisely my stance.

 

[Azahul]

Climate Change is, in my opinion, a truly nasty issue. There's so much deliberate misinformation on both sides of the debate, but despite all that I have to honestly say that I firmly believe humans are causing it. The fact is that all the data we have points towards an increase in the Earth's temperature since the Industrial Revolution. You can claim that that's not a lot of time in the context of the world, but it's still a good amount of data that shows a steady rise. It's pretty much the most reliable, and largest body of data we have, and closing our eyes and hoping that it doesn't count is hardly a good way of dealing with the issue.
Now, for an anaylsis of some of the common counter-climate change arguments, a good number of which were summed up by Kyle Meadows:

The earth has been here for BILLIONS of years.

The age of the earth is irrelevent, even if you're using it to put the amount of data we have on the Earth's climate into perspective. If climate change really is just a cyclical event (which I believe it is, but the ones that have gone before are looking to be different from the man-made one occurring in the present), we have no firm knowledge on how frequently and how extreme these cycles are. Oh, we have glaciers and trees that tell us that the climate has changed back and forth over the course of the Earth's history, but so far as I know no one has been able to conclusively state whether what we are experiencing now matches into the cycle of events. On the contrary, what information we do have says that the current rise in temperature is pretty much unprecedented.

Six major evolutionary extinction events have happened since life began, mostly due to an a drastic alteration in climate.

Surely this is all the more reason to fear climate change and do what we can to slow it down, not speed it up? If Climate Change has the potential to cause mass extinction, then don't we need to do everything we can to stop it?

How are human beings actually self centered enough to think that we actually have an effect on the planet's natural cycles?

Is anyone really naive enough to believe that we can't? Humans have shaped this world to a colossal extent. As one random example, we have enough nuclear weapons to obliterate all life on Earth a ridiculous number of times over. A problem in one, single oil rig last year caused a massive ecological disaster. We managed to create chemicals like CFC that punched a hole in the Ozone layer. The whole of human history says, quite resoundingly, that YES we can have a massive effect on the planet. I can't believe that there's anyone who has seen what human technology in the modern era is capable of that doesn't believe we can cause massive and irreperable harm to the planet.

If anything, we've merely sped up the change by inputting more carbon dioxide.

I agree. The fact that Climate Change is a cyclical event is more or less impossible to dispute. The issue is that the climate sceptics tend to use this information as if it means that we can't have an effect on Climate Change one way or another. But we can, and it does appear that we're not only speeding it up, but making it more severe. Just watch the news sometime. I live in Queensland and got to see the effect of the flood, and the first thing that ran through my mind was Al Gore in the Inconvenient Truth saying that as time passed storms would become less frequent and more severe. Since Queensland is only just emerging from a massive drought, only to be greeted by the biggest flooding in the state's (admittedly short) history (well, in Brisbane specifically, while the 1974 floods technically covered more ground, they didn't have massive dams keeping back most of the water).
Basically, if we are speeding up climate change, and taking into account the whole "Climate Change has already caused a number of mass extinctions" issue, I really would prefer it if we stopped speeding it up. I like my human race not going the way of the Dodo, thank you very much.

But we did not cause it, and the fact is that there are forest fires, methane gas bubbles from the ocean (which release only methane, another greenhouse gas), and volcanic eruptions among various other assorted events that release massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Does anyone here remember the "new ice age" in the 70s? The theory is founded upon and perpetuated by arrogance.

Has anyone actually measured the amount of Greenhouse gas released by the many natural events and compared it to the amount released by humanity since the start of the Industrial Revolution? I'm honestly not aware of any such study, which by and large means that any speculation on whether these natural events are having a bigger impact than the combined total of human activity since we really got into the whole Carbon Dioxide producing gig. Although honestly, I'm fairly certain that in a comparison the human contribution would at least be significant, if not greater than all the natural causes combined. We don't even need to do more than the planet however. So many natural systems of this planet are inherently fragile and easily upset. A small percentage may be all that is needed to tip the climate system over the edge. Of course, it doesn't help that with all our forest burning, we're not just producing Carbon Dioxide but also limiting the planet's capacity to reabsorb it.

Regardless, Renewable energy is a good idea for more reasons than one. It cuts down on normal pollution, it is ultimately less expensive for the individuals, and to top it off I love the idea of being self-sufficient.
Sorry for the wall of text. Now, I would like to refer people to a fantastic Climate-conscious film. The Naked Gun 2 and 1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA9S5IM8T3U&feature=related

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

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.

'The science' is overwhelmingly in favour of the current event of Global Warming to be as a result of human activity.

Here is the science:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/006.htm

http://www.fasts.org/images/policy-discussion/statement-climate-change.pdf

http://www.eurogeologists.de/images/content/panels_of_experts/co2_geological_storage/CCS_position_paper.pdf

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm

 

[pdgeorge]

True the saying 'a stitch in time saves nine' is correct, but just because something "might" be an issue in the next hundred or so years doesn't mean we should be putting stitches everywhere just in case. I would prefer the proverbial 9 stitches needed to fix an issue to 20 stitches done needlessly 'just in case' and then we find out each one of those stitches was worthless.

Two of the big oppositions to global warming things is that 1) the earth does cool and warm up naturally on it's own, regardless of what we as people are doing to it, and 2) the majority of carbon/methane pollution isn't even caused by us, but by animals in the wild living and dying.
Other forms of pollution I won't mention because obviously dumping nuclear waste into oceans/rivers/forests/etc. is bad. Same goes for oil spills and that sort of thing, but that's a completely separate topic, I only mention it because too often I hear people put 'carbon/monoxide pollution' in the same basket as every other form of pollution. Carbon usage etc. isn't one of the big things that needs to be addressed when talking about 'treating the planet better' because there is much bigger fish to fry, this is just an easily explained/easily taxed fear source put out.

Another fun thought to remember: this may be one thing that is likely to effect the earth negatively, but there are countless thousands of other things that can practically obliterate life as we know it. The fact that a meteorite hitting earth wiping out a lot of lives could happen at any moment is just as likely, but it's never discussed because it's not easy/possible to tax people.
Get people afraid of how much carbon they are using? They will encourage taxes to stop other evil people using to much. Try and have a 'meteorite defence plan' tax and no one will be in favour of it.

 

[Communist partisan]

I know global warming is happening and is a big problem but I really don't give a shit about it.

 

[drunken_munki]

What irritates me is that, regardless of what the case is, a large proportion of people and organisations are using the 'green' thing for self promotion and profit. I can't stand that.

In addition, regardless if whether global warming is happeneining or not, the main issue of non-sustainability is being overlooked. Commercialism has pushed our habits out of control. I read somewhere, sorry no link, that at current useage of the worlds resourses, we are using 4x our planets worth. Guess what, we don't have 4 planets.

So even if global warming isn't a big deal, we still will run out of shit in the near future. I think it was noted to be 2030 or something. We need to stop wastage, regardless. That includes fuel amongst other commodities, and technology and all the random shit we buy.

 

[Maphysto]

The simple reason why people are against global warming is the same reason the Tea Party exists....paranoid idiots being drafted by the Right to fight for corporate interests.

If a corporation were to actually start complying to EPA regulations and make an actual effort to lower the damage they cause to the environment, it would cost them billions. They could afford it, of course, but they just can't stand the idea of having a pension that's only 10 billion instead of 15. So, they get everyone they can to scream and holler that global warming is fake and a plot by big government to take away their rights. Which isn't that hard, since most of the same people already think science is some sort of Satanic conspiracy to disprove the Bible.

 

[Tom Wells]

I've had a read through this thread and I'm shocked at how many fundamental mistakes there are. I'd like to say before my rant that I do know what I'm talking about. I'm just about to finish a Master's degree in Climate change at the University of Exeter. (http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/postgraduate/taught/maclimatechange/)

The ozone hole is not related to global warming, it was caused by CFCs which are have been banned in 99% of countries since 1992. CFCs are greenhouse gases as are HCFCs which replaced them
Anthropogenic impacts on global climate are measurable and have caused temperature increase at roughly the same rate as natural change since the industrial revolution. In short, humans have doubled the rate of warming.
Carbon dioxide is the most important greenhouse gas, even though it is not the most potent as greenhouse gases go, its atmospheric concentration and quantities emitted (even just counting anthropogenic sources) far outweigh any other greenhouse gas (CO, H2O, NOx etc.).
Solar cycles do play an effect, solar radiation works on 11-year cycles of cooler and warmer but these are very minir changes in comparison to the temperature increases seen since the instrumental record began (about 170 years ago in Europe).
All the people above which mentioned large climate changes over geological time only have half the story. Following the pattern backed up by climate proxies such as ice cores, sediment cores, tree rings etc. we should be cooling rather than warming. Furthermore since the last ice age ended (10,000 years ago) the world has experienced a freakishly warm climate, the problem is that human civilisation has gotten used to this and our economic systems are woefully unprepared for changes more than about +2 degrees C compared to pre-industrial levels.
What really made me want to gouge my eyes out was the repeated claim above that thw world is cooling down. It is not, some areas are cooling but the mean, surface temperature of the Earth is increasing, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are the main cause of this, humanity as a whole is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide and other grenhouse gases.

If you want more evidence and more in-depth scientific discussion have a look at the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report (4AR). Over 1000 the worlds leaders in their various fields authored the 4AR and is a combination of all published papers related to climatic change. It is fre to download as a whole or in parts from (http://www.ipcc.ch/). Unless you are an expert in climate science, I recommend looking at the Synthesis Report summary for policymakers. It's written so non-experts can have an informed opinion.

Just for the record I do belive climate change is happening, the world is warming up, humans are the thing that is making this change dangerous, however I do not think we can stop it without causing greater problems. Adaptation is the only option we have left.

 

[Valkyrie101]

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.

This. I'm not sold on global warming, one way or the other, but the fact is that irrespective of the truth, oil, gas and coal are very, very finite resources. Therefore, we obviously need to shift towards cleaner renewable fuels.

The problem is that there's an easy solution: nuclear power. However, the "greens" hate it, and would rather we stopped using electricity except when absolutely necessary, and built millions of wind turbines. Same with hydrogen. The environmentalists are halfway right, but their methods are totally wrong.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

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.

With all due respect, mate, it is called 'Global Warming', not 'Kansas City Warming'. The average Global Temperature is rising, and we, humans, are assisting that increase. I think the only argument that should be worth discussing now is to what degree we are assisting it, instead of whether or not we play a part at all.

Yes, climate change has happened naturally in the past, but the problem this time around is that we're accelerating it. If we don't start holding back on the way we use fossil fuels, there will be a number of consequences, some of which will be particularly severe. I am totally in agreement with those that say the situation has been blown out of proportion; that's a reasonably judgment to make. People who hardly understand the situation are dramatizing it far too much. But nonetheless, it is something that should be on our minds.

 

[darkman80723]

Global warming is a natural occurrence, yes we are speeding it up a bit, but it has happened over and over throughout the history of our planet and attempting to stop it could have disastrous effects. No one (as far as i know) has looked into what might happen if we do stop global warming, just what might happen if we don't. Yes i believe in Global Warming but i also believe we need to let nature run it's course.

Couldnt have possibly said it better myself.

 

[TheRealCJ]

The Earth has been here for 4.5 billion years (don't get me started Creationists, in short, you're wrong). There has been life on this Earth for 3.7 billion years. Humans have been around for at most one million years. We've had advanced industry for a paltry 250 years. That is such a small percentage that my calculator won't give me a proper number when I ask for it.

In all that time, we have been going through constant warming and cooling periods. Before the last Ice Age, there were no ice caps in the world. We now have two major ice caps.

Are you really that arrogant? Are you conceited enough that when a small change happens in the world's temperature, you think that the only possible explanation is that you caused it?

Basically, that sums up my opinion on the subject. Good day to you.

Are YOU that dense?

If we've only been here a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the time that the earth has been around, surely the earth has never experienced something as strange and new as us.

And since our existence and the impact on the planet is unprecedented, who knows what effect we're having on the planet in such a short time. Is it possible that the 250-odd years of human industry could be the straw that breaks the camel's back?

And since we're ploughing headlong into the complete unknown, surely it would be better to err on the side of caution. If you're halfway across a bridge and it creaks ominously, do you a) Proceed exactly as before, safe in the knowledge that "Oh, well, the last half help up without a problem, there's no possible way it could break at this point". Or do you b) Take it a bit slowly.

And no, I don't believe that Humanity is wholly and soley responsible for changes in the temperature. But we're certainly not doing anything to help matters.

 

[Koganesaga]

Why is everyone just bashing each other or just trying to find a way in which they can be "technically" correct? There are two simple facts here:
1. There is no utterly definitive crushing cause of the major climate change besides that it's gonna happen regardless of what humanity contributes to it.
2. Instead of debating useless bullshit, how about using all that effort to find a way humanity can avoid a horrible and slow death via drowning, starvation, or anything else that could happen as a result of this?

P.S. this is assuming there won't be any viable migration into space in the remote future (or at least before shit hits the fan).

 

[oooooooooooooooooooooooooo]

-

You didn't happen to come across any of that science that said the activities of humans are causing the second ice age, did you?

You do realise that the second ice age ended over a billion years ago? Also read what I post, its the science. And yes, increased fresh water in the oceans resulting from the melting of the polar caps would halt the flow of the oceanic belts which would cause an ice age.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0615_040614_SouthernOcean.html

 

[Fursnake]

I don't agree with the Ale Gore-inspired climate change, global warming freakout and I think it is a misleading take on the natural cycles of the planet. However, it is silly to think that humanity is not having an adverse effect on the planet overall, climate included. Yes we need to move away from heavy use of fossile fuels and oil and look to cleaner, more efficient sources of energy, but as long as the people in control keep making huge money off that stuff then the opposition will be overwhelming.

The fear mongering and misinformation of the global warming campaign is just not the right way to go about it.

It would almost be funny if there was another ice age around the corner ala The Day After Tomorrow...almost.

 

[himemiya1650]

Because we don't really know what's effective, somethings have adverse effects like wind mills and noise pollution, hydro and rerouting water during construction and after construction. The costs are expensive and will be reoccurring because clean energy is at its infancy stage. As well as that we don't know what's cause what effects and to what extent, it only took us a century to figure out that CFCs were not as awesome as we'd have hoped. So basically at this point preventing "Global Warming" (the world is cooling)is pretty much throwing money at a problem and hoping it will go away.