A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[willsham45]

Look if global warming was real and was a real threat, the solution would not be to tax everyone out of house and home which is the plan.
A small % of counties are pritty clean and that small % is the one being hammered to go cleaner. other countries like china and the like are very unclean, but nothing happens over there to help make then cleaner which they can.

Also co2 increases with heat not the other way round and global temperatures fluctuate, we are in the or around the spike before another ice age that is just the way it is. climate is not determined by co2 it is determined by the sun and the moon position.

And to add if we need to be green why are all the better alternative power resource shunned like biomass and geothermal, great way to power but kicked out because of green eco people.

On the other hand using more sustainable materials and the like I do like to a point. But that is for a different reasons like cheaper materials, and waste is a real problem, but not co2.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Ah but no seriously, people are morons. Of course it's real.

 

[TheRealCJ]

I'm concerned with all the capitalization that's been going on. "We need to worry about Global Warming."

What about the destruction of wetlands? Hmm. Mountaintop removal mining? No wanton capitalization there. Hydrofracking? Oil spills? Overfishing? Whaling? Deforestation? Anthropogenic extinction? The sensationalization of environmentalism?


...Puppy mills?

Like I edited in my OP, I just really used Global Warming as my main example because there are the largest number of ignorant skeptics in that particular debate.

Tread carefully; there's ignorance to be had on both sides. There's nothing better than having a debate about the possibility of anthropogenic climate change when your opponent quotes The Day After Tomorrow.

And OP, if you just wanted to talk about preventing pollution, why didn't you just say so? It's certainly less of a hot button topic than global warming/cooling. Rosetta might've even been able to continue posting.

Perhaps I was a little overzealous in my use of a hot button topic as an example. But to be fair, not as many people believe that there is no such thing as pollution.

And global warming (or climate change, or super-bad-stuff-happeningism, whatever you call it) is really just a way of amalgamating all the lesser problems such as pollution and environment destruction into a singular consequence, rather than many small ones.

 

[Czargent Sane]

it is not that I oppose the creation of renewable sources of energy, it is mostly that I disagree with individual methods or channels by which this function is performed. I think this is a fairly common view.

 

[Stevepinto3]

I love how the answer is always "Oh, well humans don't cause it."

Yes, the climate goes through cycles. But consider what we're doing. We let tons and tons of chemicals and gases into the environment every day, all around the world (but especially in developed countries) that have never been there before. We take millions of acres of land for farm use, which creates even more waste. Yet somehow the idea that we may have an impact on the climate is completely unreasonable?

Even if not global warming, we still cause enough damage to natural ecosystems that we need to cut way, way back on industrial expansion.

 

[thenoblitt]

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.

Antarctica has a huge whole in the ozone layer, they say its causing global warming, the whole grows bigger and they world just gets colder and that is one main reason that i think global warming is all a load of horse, also the fact that most scientists disagree with global warming, the fact that a bunch of scientists that say global warming is real use a scale of 200 years and not one that is thousands of years long, also the fact that there was a huge scandal of pro global warming scientists destroying evidence proving them wrong

 

[The Long Road]

The biggest reason I don't want to change our current policies is the economic impact it would have. There is no way to say that it would not cost somebody a shit-ton of cash to install regulating devices and otherwise run the program(s) behind any kind of comprehensive emission regulation legislation. Either it comes straight out of taxes, which most countries already spend every penny of and then some (and then some, and then some...), or somehow the lawmakers are able to pin the costs on corporations, who have to jack up prices to compensate. Either way, the average citizen, the low man on the totem pole, ends up footing the bill. Since every study claiming that humans are/are not contributing to global warming has a counterpart that says the opposite, nobody can claim any kind of scientific proof of anything.

Not only that, but there are better ways of reducing emissions than are currently being pushed. Commissioning nuclear power plants would decrease reliance on coal and natural gas without any air pollution. With all the current ways to use nuclear waste (breeder reactors, decay/enrich processes, etc.), the only physical obstacle is cost. Vehicles present a more complicated challenge, but with hybrid technology improving, it may be able to compete economically with internal-combustion engines within a decade. Two major sources of pollution can be addressed better than they currently are, but the words "nuclear" and "waiting" are not in the average environmentalist's vocabulary, and their goals suffer for it.

As mentioned previously, there are far more important things to concentrate on , environmentally speaking. Anyone who has seen trailers for Gasland knows there are significant problems with the way we currently drill for natural gas on land. Then there's furry woodland creatures (and others) that are endangered, deforestation in the Amazon, water contamination... the list goes on and on, each one making "global warming" and "climate change" sound like the doomsday prophecies of a shouty hobo in an alley.

 

[Jonci]

Regardless of whether or not you believe that humans are responsible/enhancing a climate shift, the fact reminds that humans still need to reduce their impact on the planet's resources. Oil, metals, coal: these all exist in limit amounts. Forests are being depleted to the neglect of animals that need them. Both of these issues can be resolved through practices and technology already existing, but it requires building the foundations necessary, which no one wants to foot the bill for.

So far no one is making any grand strides to advance science to the point that we can hop over to the next planet or asteroid field to mine for materials, so we need to utilize our available resources to their fullest. Taking some metal from the ground, turning it into a can, and tossing that into a landfield to never get used again means it won't be recycled into the planet until around a billion years. Even as individual countries, if the US suddenly found it hard to locate new sources of coal, our power grid would be under extreme risk. We'd have to start buying from other countries, and we already know how oil demands stress the world economy.

Cheap fuels and practices were used back in the past couple of centuries. Now they have become so ingrained into how people do and use resources, they stay the cheapest way. But it is momentum that can't be sustained and new practices need to be implemented while they may make a difference.

 

[Verlander]

Global warming is quite clearly happening, and humans contribute a massive amount to it, both directly and indirectly. Anyone who disagrees hasn't done the research, or have done the research and is choosing to ignore vital parts of it

 

[Verlander]

Global warming is quite clearly happening, and humans contribute a massive amount to it, both directly and indirectly. Anyone who disagrees hasn't done the research, or have done the research and is choosing to ignore vital parts of it

So it is impossible that you could be wrong?

That's pretty much the opposite of a scientific mindset.

You haven't met many science geeks, have you?

Seriously though, I'm not making some wild claim here, or pointing at a single person or country or anything. The facts are facts, and whether you want to haggle the finer details or not, the point remains. To outright deny either global warming, or the human contribution to it, is akin to arguing that people don't pollute, or use natural resources, or develop agriculture, or domesticate animals, or use plastics or oil.

 

[LiudvikasT]

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.

 

[TheTutonicDrone]

I got a problem with the term "renewable energy" there really is no such thing. Energy can not be created, destroyed or renewed. We will never create some sort of perpetual motion machine that will be able to fuel society forever. Every form of energy will impact the environment.

Some energy sources will last longer than others and pollute less in small amounts but their output in energy is also far less. Solar energy, for example, will last a very long time. But in order to get enough energy from solar panels to power society as it exists today, not to mention future energy needs, we would need to blanket large sections of the earth with them. That would certainly effect the ecosystem of those areas.

Wind turbines, I think, effect the environment the least of all the 'clean' energy solutions but again if we were to fade out fossil fuel then there may be serious impacts when they are put into place on a more massive scale. For one I can see certain birds and bats becoming extinct.

I am all for diversifying energy. Dependents on a single source is simply stupid. But unless scientists find a means to create cold fusion or sono fusion, or maybe even discover some new way to tap into energy we haven't previously, we will need to continue to drill oil and burn fossil fuel.

 

[rockettuna]

Okay, three main points, focused on the debate over whether climate change is a problem that something should be done about. I don't feel like doubling the length of this post, so I will leave the pros and cons of methods for dealing with climate change for another post.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change -This one is directed at those of you who say that humans are not a factor in climate change.
-"An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
-"No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion". The last to do so was, surprise surprise, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. They changed their official opinion in 2007. Even the oil companies admit humans are affecting the climate. I trust science.

2. This is aimed at all those who say, "Big deal, the earth goes through climate swings. It's happened before, it will happen again." To you I say, do you realize what a climate swing means? In the case of a cooling (ice age), as much as 50% of arable land would be rendered unusable. The remaining land would suffer from reduced growing season length, meaning food production would be drastically reduced. Assuming a population similar to that of the current era, this would result in widespread famine. In the case of a warming (warm up), the increase in the oceanic sea level would result in a similar reduction in arable land, while at the same time storms in rainy areas would become more frequent and destructive. In other areas, severe droughts would occur, even in places that were wetter previously. Once again, widespread famine would occur, along with an increase in disease. Basically, either way would be unpleasant for the human race as a whole. So we have a vested interest in keeping the climate similar to the way it is (not too hot and not too cool. Juuust right).

3. My thoughts. Personally, I would really like humanity to come together and reduce emissions, blah blah, energy independence, etc. But really, I think Randall Munroe said it best in his webcomic xkcd: "Yes, from the evidence it looks pretty likely to me that we're causing global warming on a horrific scale. But with science you don't need to argue. It doesn't matter who wins the debate--it's about reality. By just waiting a little longer, we'll get to SEE who was right. It feels unethical, but I find myself wanting to keep quiet about the science just to know for sure. As terrible as it sounds, the state of the world really isn't my responsibility. I'm just thrilled to get to watch. If the scientists are right--and if we keep people from understanding just a little longer--we'll enjoy quite a ride. And pragmatically, on the outside chance that they're all wrong, I get saved the embarrassment of having spoken up." http://xkcd.com/164/

 

[9Darksoul6]

[starts] Earth is getting warmer. Humans are NOT the major cause of it. [ends]

I'll have to admit, that's a solid point you made...

Anyway, I'm curious: how many of you 'we're-not-causing-global-warming-theory' supporters here live in the US?