Are there any global warming skeptics who care about the environment?

Question

I don't get the point the skeptics are telling about global warming. I mean, it's all over the news from CNN to BBC. The oil prices, food prices, etc. And still, here are the skeptics who think differently. So what if the humans cause only a little percent of the Greenhouse gases, the fact that we still do must result to an action which is the conservation of our one and only planet.

Answer 1

Me.

Answer 2

I care about the environment. Why would you have a problem with people questioning a theory? I'm skeptic of global warming and the cult that surround the green movement. Lots of mythos comes along with "facts". They also seem to have a anti-corporate agenda which is total bs.

Answer 3

If greenhouse gasses are causing global warming, then environmentalists and their scientists are the biggest cause of global warming.

Want to hear something ironic.  Years ago, environmentalists insisted that all automobiles be equipped with catalytic converters to help cut down on smog.  They did cut down smog.

The catalytic converter on your car; however, is the main cause of the recent increase in greenhouse gasses in our environment.  If you ever had to replace a catalytic converter, you know the heavy impact they have on your pocket book.

Nothing like a knee-jerk reaction to make things worse.  It makes you wonder if these people know what they are talking about, doesn't it?  There is no better way to get someone to support your casue than to make them think that they'll die if they don't.

These "scientists" love to get federal grants.  If they can cause a panic, the pressure to give it to them increases.  So what if they cause more harm than good.

Answer 4

Since I don't think there is evidence that humans are causing much of the warming, I guess you'd call me a skeptic. But I'm also a conservationist who recycles so it's not always cut and dried. I'm old enough to have experienced round after round of media hysteria over dozens of things, all life-threatening and hugely promoted to induce fear (and ratings). That's what's made me skeptical - experience. DDT, cyclamates, alar, radon, and dozens more, all were terrible disasters that would end the world and I've gotten tired of Chicken Little.

Do you know why food prices are rising? Alternative fuel means using food supplies to fill your tank. That's stupid when there is already a shortfall in harvests due to drought. Oil is expensive because OPEC limits prices and China and India have decided they're tired of living without some of the modern conveniences you take for granted, such as internet access and a PC.

You point out that we cause only a small percent of CO2, but can you explain why CO2 will make the temp go up? It does, in a laboratory, but not in the real world. As the temp goes up, the oceans release their stored CO2, which means CO2 goes up after temp goes up, not the other way around. Look at the link below for details, you can clearly see CO2 has been almost 20 times higher than today with temp only 9 degrees C higher. And it was 10 times higher during an ICE AGE!

Caring about the environment and planet don't mean you have to march in lock-step with people who really care more about controlling other people and promoting their extremist agendas than about the planet. Do you know the cost of the treaty they now want the US to sign? 50% less emissions than in 1990, which will require you to do without power in your house most of the time, drive your car only a few miles a week (if at all) and force most industry to close down. They will find it much more profitable to relocate to China or India which will not sign such a treaty.

When someone points out a rational way to deal with CO2 they claim it will do more harm than good. Trees are bad, now that we 'suddenly' find that they emit methane which is even worse than CO2. They oppose nuclear power despite it have a much smaller 'carbon footprint' than coal-fired or similar power plants. Even solar and wind have flaws, the only solution they'll accept is to end the energy-based civilization we have which reveals what their real agenda is.

To see the real cause of global warming, get up early tomorrow and face East and you'll soon find it.

Answer 5

The evidence for AGW is overwhelming.

We don't just produce a little greenhouse gas.  We've produced enough to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 35% over the past 150 years or so.  We put 150 times as more CO2 in the atmosphere than volcanoes do.

  Skeptics have answered you question with the usual nonsense.   Joseph C says it's been debunked by leading scientists.

Nah!

Skeptic argument

The cause is up for debate. There is no consensus. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."

"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)

If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?"

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

"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."

If you go to the websites I've listed you will see that there is no political prostitution. That is an idea fed to you by right wing think tanks and propaganda machines. And yes the oil companies through the Heartland Institute, The Heritage Foundation and many more. That is where you will find political prostitution. The Heartland Institute is paying people to write papers or make speeches against AGW. $1000 a speach and $10,000 a paper.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

Skeptic argument: The earth has cooled in the last 10 years

Not a legitimate argument.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

1998 was an anomaly because of a strong el nino year.

"At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU and the NASA GISS analyses. In fact, it blew away the previous record by .2 degrees C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!)"

"According to NASA, it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Choosing that year as a starting point is a classic cherry pick and demonstrates why it is necessary to remove chaotic year-to year-variability (aka: weather) by smoothing out the data."

"But any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you cannot extract meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. It's hard to hear a scientist make this argument and still believe they speak with integrity in this debate -- seems more like an abuse of the trust placed in them as scientists."

Another skeptic argument

Polar ice caps are thicker? I beg to differ.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"This is simply not true, rumors on "the internets" aside. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page, report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004. "

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

Here's another one skeptics like to repeat.

Al Gore was tried in England for lies in his movie?

It was thrown out. The judge found a few discrepencies but said that overall it was true.

Global warming is hoax? Not at all.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions. In addition to that list, see also this joint statement (PDF) that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report."

Anyone who thinks all these scientists are somehow part of a scam or a hoax or an alarmist fad are delusional.  Get real.

Answer 6

Where was everyone 30-40 years ago. I keep waiting and waiting and waiting. Now the weather is the way I like it, and my arthritis has subsided...you want me to do What?

Answer 7

As Mark Twain once said, "It is impossible to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it."  

The part of Virginia I'm originally from is heavily dependent on the coal industry.  Good luck trying to get them to face the facts on global warming.

Answer 8

I think a lot of us skeptics do care about the environment, but lets not go crazy and totally s***w up our economy by forcing taxes and mandating unrealistic mandates, all in just a few years. Food prices are being driven up because of ethanol, it does not take a rocket scientists to figure out why corn for fuel is the biggest mistake, look on your food labels and look at all  the products that use corn in some way.

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

Contrary to what the psychotic fear-mongering media and frothing at the mouth global warming freaks want everyone to believe - you can care about the environment and not believe in global warming. I'm one of them. Recycle, try to use less of everything, keep driving to a minimum, avoid GMOs, etc.

Answer 11

no

Answer 12

I just don't like being lied to.

I'm very involved in conservation--for economic reasons. Over the long term, fossil fuels must eventually become prohibitively expensive. We NEED to develop renewable energy sources, and soon, just so we can keep driving to work.

But that's no excuse for Liberals to use 'AGW' to gain financial and political power over me. Given a choice, I think *I* know what's best for me. Not them!

Answer 13

We're freezing our butts off at near spring and you still believe in the Myth of Global Warming?

Get a clue, man. It's been debunked by leading scientists and Gore is a liberal lunatic nutcase.

Answer 14

Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming

  Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Worms are being used commercially to compost organic material and is in preference to putting it into the landfill. The German government wants 45% of all waste to be composted by 2015.

"Everybody... thinks they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire," said Frederickson.

Answer 15

Because while our efforts will have an impact although minimal in the whole scheme of things what's the point when your only going to delay the inevitable?

Answer 16

i have no idea what your talking about i mean i know about global warming and stuff but idk still

Answer 17

I have never met a skeptic who does not believe in the environment. But spending billions to chase after unicorns is money that could be used for positive environmental gains which could have some definite results.

As for the statement regarding CNN and BBC, do you really think they are tellig you the truth, or what they want you to hear? I am guessing you are young, and have not had much exposure to the "truth" as portrayed by the main stream media.

Funny you mention food prices and oil prices. The spike in food prices are a direct result of governments trying to "take care" of the environment. But, alas, we have yet to elect a politician who has a clue about economics. Basically, governments like the USA have subsidized a non competitive industry in their quest for clean fuel. Because the money is easy to make, companies are switching from oats and soybeans to grow corn for ethanol. Because of this, prices of oats and soybeans go up as supply is reduces and demand stays the same or grows. Corn prices rise since more of the corn is used to make fuel and less goes to the dinner plates. I have said before that using a staple food source for energy is about as dumb as they get. What happens during the next major drought (or flood)? Do we stop driving or stop eating?

as for oil, several reasons for it's rise in prices. Supply can not keep up with demand. Countries like China are sucking up more and more. And since we (the USA) have done such a crappy job of increasing our production (anwar) and lack of refineries, the prices must go up. Also, the ethanol in the gas causes it to be more expensive as ethanol is a very expensive means of fuel.

we can only hope our politicians can extricate their heads from their bums before it is to late. Ethanol is not the answer. Nuclear would be a better means of cutting emissions. And, after 35 years, we still have no reasonable means of becoming energy self sufficient. Hopefully our politicians will grow a pair and start drilling in the desolate tundra of Anwar as well as off the coasts. If we keep sitting on our butts, the cubans will be drilling of our shores (yes they can drill closer than what our politicians allow US companies to drill).

there is some good news though. we can only hope the people in charge tell the environmentalist where to stick it with this new oil find.

http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresourc...

Answer 18

I'll tell you how I feel. I'm skeptical to an extent. I'm sure that some Global Warming exists, I just think that the media has blown it out of proportion. I believe that the planet goes through this cycle every thousand years or so (whatever the number may be) There are scientists who will give you this information but the mainstream media usually will not acknowledge it because Global Warming nowadays is a political agenda. And typically that agenda is to the left.

Answer 19

You gotta believe man! That's true!

Answer 20

Because it's not something you can solve with a tax plus nuclear war is a far more pressing environmental problem. Don't believe the propaganda!

Answer 21

Oil prices and food prices have nothing to do with global warming.  High food prices are in fact due to the unforseen problems of supply created by governement mandates for bio-based fuels (once again, the law of unintended consequences shows that government mandates are never the answer).