All of the AGW "deniers"... do we all agree on this?

Question

AGW is a myth but what IS true is that we are poluting the earth and making the air unhealthy to breath in. I don't know about the water but I guess we are killing marine eco systems by poluting the water. I think we all agree on this.

I don't believe in AGW THEORY however, I do believe we are poluting the earth and making the air unhealty to breath in.

Answer 1

The sad thing is, you will get a lot of people who will ONLY agree to reduce pollution and be environmentally responsible if it is tied to AGW.  Why is that?

And as far as scientific consensus being all that;  What about Alar?  What about DDT?  The UN was on board both of those bans, and it turns out that most of these scientists that agreed were only rubberstamping a single viewpoint.  Turns out the viewpoint was based on greed.

Why do I have to buy into AGW in order to "save the environment?"  I have asked numerous people why we do not promote electric cars and alternatives to gasoline to help with pollution and to get rid of the power of OPEC, but I was told, quite rudely, that all calls to be more environmentally aware MUST include AGW first and formost.  It is the cause, not the results, that are the talking points.

If that isn't enough right there to doubt AGW then there is no use discussing the issue with them.

Answer 2

Depends where you place your vantage point.

In the US, Canada, Europe?  No.

Parts of China, India, and the developing world?  Yes.

Global warming?  Agreed, it is a crock.

Answer 3

Yes even though they had faulty satellite data,a mystery lag, bad RSS, ignorance of water vapor, denying the MWP, can't prove synchronization of the two hemisphere's, blaming PDO's on weather even though NOAA uses the data as climate input, telling us the sun is nothing more than a light bulb, and the planets orbit has nothing to with climate....If I were them, my focus of attention would be on anything other then GW. I know I left out a few but what the Hey.

Answer 4

First of all, I like how you assume that the most peer reviewed scientific report in history is based on a myth.  

Here are the types of scientific meetings the skeptics hold.

"Over the past days, many of us have received invitations to a conference called "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change" in New York. At first sight this may look like a scientific conference - especially to those who are not familiar with the activities of the Heartland Institute, a front group for the fossil fuel industry that is sponsoring the conference. You may remember them. They were the promoters of the Avery and Singer "Unstoppable" tour and purveyors of disinformation about numerous topics such as the demise of Kilimanjaro's ice cap. "

"A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:"

"Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:"

"The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective."

"So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The "official" conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though - evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.) "

"At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking - if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper."

" At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises "input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics". Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists' links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)

Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland's expense and don't waste your time on tobacco-science lectures - you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there."

by Amanda Lang

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...

And these are the real scientific organizations who are not skeptics

Regarding the IPCC report on climate change.

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm



The media and the internet are being bombarded with disinformation from sketpics, like the phony article from the Wall St. Journal that supposedly proves AGW is a myth.

To start with, it's the work of two scientists. The American Geophysical Union alone has about 14,000 members. They are one of dozens of international scientific organizatioins that endorse the TAR report of the IPCC.

But just as important is that this was manuscript that wasn't peer reviewed. Yet ultra right wing Wall St. Journal prints the story as if it is the final word on climate change.

They are famous for other articles making similar claims by the well know skeptic Lindzer, as if that one skeptic outweighs the thousands of scientists who agree with AGW. This is the problem when skeptic scientists try to sway public opinion to their side, by going through the mass media, whereas real climate scientists present their findings to other scientists for review.

Here is a thorough debunking of the WSJ article.

http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...

So, what we have is lots of debate about AGW in the popular media and especially on right wing blogs, while there is actually very little debate among real scientists.    Al Gore was correct about that.  It's a giant propaganda machine spewing out lies for the gullible.  You are the true alarmists.

And yes we are threatening the demise of every ecosystem on earth, even without global warming.

And the solutions are the same, for the most part.

Answer 5

try these articles on for size :

"Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She (Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.) replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sto...

and this one too:

It's just as you suspected - this has been the snowiest winter ever in the Ann Arbor area, or at least since 1880 when record-keeping started.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008...

Answer 6

I really dont see how its possible to believe in one and not the other??? If you have ever seen the smog above LA an how it lingers or, Japan you might start to understand. Like I said before, and everyone knows. If its 100Degrees outside, which color are you less likely to wear? Most would answer a dark color or black, because it draws more heat!!! The more pollution we have in the air lingering traps this heat like it does on our bodies with darker clothes. When the oceans warm up higher than the rate that the polar caps can cool it down because of the temperature increases, thats when we get our weather change. If you know anything of how a tornado occurs, there is usually a warm front and a cold front that clash. Increasing the warm front makes this stronger. We have had not only a record ammount of hurricanes & tornadoes from global warming but, stronger ones as well. We are having tornadoes in areas of the country that hardly have ever experienced one before but are now!!! People wanna dismiss that too??? You can believe what you want but, I have seen that the weather all across the country and world has changed. Nobody ever thought that London of all places would have a tornado, that is almost unheard of but they had a big one not long ago. Yet we keep having people dismiss these events as well as just natural!!! Another very simple experiment that people can see what global warming does as far as weather is with a pot, a stove, and some soap in water. Heat up the saopy water without stirring it up creating any suds. As you watch you see how the water starts to swirl when it heats. the soap representing a storm, and the water representing our ocean being heated. On a scale of earth size proportions the swirl represents our weather getting stronger due to added heat from pollution. Turn the heat off and wait, you will see the swirl disappear. This works in the same way with our planet, where we are taking away natures natural way of cooling things. the polar caps is natures radiator and our pollution taking them away is like puncturing a radiator to your car. Taking its ability away to cool things. My inability to understand why all of the people that choose to believe that global warming does not exhist baffles me!!! And lets just say, that their theory is right? If global warming is not caused by humans, and it is something that naturally occurs, what makes them so scared to change to a cheaper form of energy for all even if the environment had nothing to do with it at all? I for one even then do not wanna make big oil more rich, and I also want to be able to not have a utility bill anymore by having a self sufficient home!!! Money is one thing that most of us can agree on, that saving it is good. People that are resistant to change ruins that not only for themselves but, everyone!!! Choosing to go against the environmental movement wether you believe in global warming or not affects all of our wallets because they are both tied together. Conserving, and coming up with new ways of producing energy benefits us all in the long run. Fighting against the theory is about as narrow minded as people was before the first airplane took flight that disbelieved that too!!!

Answer 7

We should all aspire to leave the world a better place then when we entered it.

But CO2 never was and never should be considered pollution.  There is a divergance occuring now between CO2 and temperature measurements. It has been occuring for the last ten years.  CO2 going up and temp has leveled off, (some indicate slight decrease).  Which goes to show the only hot air around here is that being spouted by AGW proponents.  

Clean up the oceans, clean up the real pollutants, the toxic kind.  All this AGW c**p is just misdirected funds and energy that will make the likes of Al Gore and the Enviro-Barons wealthy, while the rest of us wonder where all our money is going.

Answer 8

I was in China last fall, Shanghai, Chengdu, Wen Jiang. I spent 3 weeks in Chengdu, Sichuan province. The air was so bad it made me feel physically ill to be in the city more than a few hours. The Yangtze/Chang Jiang River is horrible. I doubt anything eatable lives in it.

China does not have much as far as environmental law. The buses and cabs all run on natural gas, and the fumes are enough to gag you. On a good day visibility is less than a mile. I was there a couple weeks before I noticed we were next to the Qing Ling mountain range. And, China voted Chengdu as it's 4th most livable city!!

I wish everyone here could go to a major Chinese city and see what air pollution really looks like. Even L.A. on a bad day looks nothing like Chengdu or Shanghai. I know because I travel all over the U.S. every week.  I'm not saying we shouldn't worry about our air. Of course, we need to keep on top of it. I just get tired of hearing people belly ache about how bad it is here, when they haven't seen the rest of the world.

China has more than 4 times the population we do and they're still a developing country. I've watched their news and heard their leaders address the problem, and it won't be long until they start getting tough on pollution. Right now they are focusing on having affordable housing for all of their people by 2010.

Funny, and sad, the government in Beijing is trying to get everything ready for the Olympics there, and they've asked the citizens to stop hawking and spitting in the street. Everyone does it. They breath that junk into their lungs and they have to clear it. They sure as h**l don't want to swallow it, so they spit.

We don't want to go lax on our efforts to keep our country clean. But we also don't need to spend $5 billion a year researching global warming. It could be well spent elsewhere.