Are you a flip-flopper on the AGW issue?

Question

I am. I used to accept it without question, but now I reject the claims (CO2 as the main cause) and the socioeconomic agenda behind it. And you?

Answer 1

I don't consider myself a flip-flopper, but since I've been studying weather for 40 years I tend to not jump on the latest trend when people say "it's hotter than it's ever been" or "colder than it's ever been."  People tend to have very short memories.  I also try not to equate individual weather events with climatic trends.  I think the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is clear just about everywhere you look.  I don't believe the evidence is in on whether or not hurricanes are strengthening due to global warming.  I think the implications for global warming are so huge and there is so little time to deal with the problem that we can't wait for everyone to be convinced.

Answer 2

I've always been a skeptic. Even before I dug into reading web articles on different topics regarding our planets ecosystem as a whole, I realized this was a farce.  Then the more I read the more I realized how deluded the AGW proponents have become.

The coolest thing I discovered was that Sun Cycle 22 corresponds to the warming trend we experienced during the 1980's to 2000 and that Sun Cycle 23 corresponds to the cooling we experienced over the last 10 years. (Everyone should also note that the reason behind 1998 being one of the warmest years on record, since we actually started keeping temperature records is due to two factors one being it was an El Nino year and two we were in a major up swing of Sun Cycle 22.)

Answer 3

clearly it has been both warmer and colder.

clearly natural causes have caused both heating and cooling.

that's not the issue.

about 7% of all humans who have ever lived on this earth are alive today.

that's very different than ever before.

conditions that were fine 4,000 years ago may not be good at all today.

maybe you think that magic will feed us all.

maybe you think there are too many people.

(but i note you're not volunteering to personally help correct that problem.)

society today has come to depend on the climate that exists today.

any change will cause serious disruption.

clearly if there is another ice age, billions will die.

Darfur was caused by drought brought on by global warming.

200,000+ dead.

because of warming due to the increase in CO2.

no, i don't flip-flop.

those people are not going to come back to life.

that situation is not going to get better in the near future.

as drought expands, there will be more such.

as precipitation patterns change, there will be fresh water shortages.

which will cause crop failure.

it's not an opinion.

it's real.

the science behind it is not in question.

not liking that there is a problem won't fix it.

not liking that gasoline is over $4 a gallon won't fix it.

not liking that there's been a drought in the american southwest for 10 years won't fix it.

this is a real problem.

one of many.

that are not going to go away.

reject all you want.

that won't change the truth.

Answer 4

Yes, I used to be a denier, but then the facts and the truth set me free.

"I reject . . . CO2 as the main cause"?

Then just what is? If it can't be the sun, and it's not decreased sulfates, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, etc., just what is? What's left?

"socioeconomic agenda behind it"

I assure you there isn't some coordinated grand scheme the world over to redistribute wealth. I'm sure if this was such a grand conspiracy one of the hundreds of thousands of people in on it would have come forth.

"climate fluctuations . . . hotter . . . before pollution" Climate fluctuations of which, on a macroscopic scale can be accounted for through fluctuations in natural variables. i.e. sunspots. The reason this argument doesn't work for the current trend is that a thirty year warming trend is a microscopic trend. On the grand scale we're in a cool ebb. But going back to higher temperatures years ago: if you were to zero in on microscopic trends, you would see there really isn't any. Maybe it warmed for 5 years, cooled for 4, warmed another 6, etc., and the net effect, on the macroscopic scale, is warming. The 5 degree temperature increase (hypothetical) certainly didn't occur a hundred years, let alone thirty.

True, the earth has been warmer before. The difference is the rate in which earth incurred said increase: hundreds, thousands of years, as opposed to 30. The current rate is much quicker. That's the cause for alarm.

Answer 5

No, I've always pretty much followed mainstream science. I've read through the skeptic blogs and they're all basically a bunch of misinformation used to confuse the issue. It always cracks me up when people say they've 'studied the issue' and changed their mind when in reality they just read a bunch of totally biased webpages from people who intentionally distort facts and cherrry pick information. All the reputable science webpages like NASA agree with mainstream opinion on GW. I'm stubborn and arrogant, but not *that* stubborn and arrogant.

Answer 6

Not I.  As far back as I can remember, I've known the Sun warms the Earth, and CO2 is plant food (not an environmental pollutant).

Answer 7

I don't see a particular reason for flip-flopping on the issue, it is the action humans need to take that is the question, and that is going through the political process now.  It's not very pretty.

But-as a layman, I have and do agree with the majority-held  scientific conclusions that global warming is occurring, it is a long-term trend, and along with that warming climactic changes are occurring as a result with potentially life-threatening results or at least major shifts coming in where and how we are able to live.  I join the majority as well in not claiming to know exactly how extreme those shifts will be or when they will occur.

I don't dispute the greenhouse effect, according to everything I understand about it, that has been scientifically proven to everyone's satisfaction.

I do concur with the conclusion that there is a high enough statistical probability that mankind's burning of fossil fuels contributes to the greenhouse effect that we should try to find alternative sources of energy that will minimize our impact on the environment.  While the research continues and we determine exactly what alternative(s) will meet our needs, we should also keep in mind our dependence on oil and the tense global political situation as a result of it, future supplies of petroleum, and how we use all natural resources, renewable or not.  It is not just a global warming issue, and we are already seeing the need to develop a variety of alternatives rather than falling back on 'the old ways' of doing things as we have for the last 30 or 40 years even though we knew this day was coming.  So AGW, controversial and potentially impactful as it may be, is only one side of the issue that makes how we produce and use energy a matter that has approached critical mass.  Therefore, I don't have a huge stake in AGW itself and haven't locked myself into a position that I feel any need to either defend or change.

I think the last comment I would make is I want to study the 'tipping point' rationale about AGW accelerating natural processes so I understand more about that-there have been at least a couple of documentary/entertainment programs that have explored it, and while one doesn't want to just accept media reports and docu-entertainment at face value, a lot of times such programs can put the issues before the general public in a way that is easier to understand, then you can study the science behind it more.  I don't think it makes sense to take any single report, program, or on line source and make it the basis of a stance on AGW, if you do, then you'll almost always end up flip flopping around or trying to support your beliefs when nobody on the planet really knows what the outcome will be.