Do you believe someone who does not "buy in" to global warming can still be an earth-friendly conservationist?

Question

There are many questions here on global warming. However, some of the answers seem to say that people must "buy in" to the global warming scare in order to prove they are conservationists and protectors of the earth. I think these are two separate matters and some people might embrace one belief (conserve & protect earth) and reject the other (man-made global warming).

What do you think?

Answer 1

It fascinates me to read how "people can't affect the earth's environment"  Oh really?  Let's do some math.  It takes between 1 and 2.5 hectares (2 1/2 - 6 acres) to provide the resources needed to support one human being.  We add 10,000 new human beings every minute.  Is it surprising then that other species are going extinct at a rate of 3-4 per hour?  Is it surprising that the biggest cause is habitat loss?  It's amazing they're doing that well.  Then we have invasive species.  It is a rare ecosystem indeed that has it's native species.  It is a rarer one still that does not have competing non-native species.

Answer 2

That's an affirmative, good buddy.

I was raised on the saying, "do the best with what you have" and "don't waste it", and after you've taken from her, give something back,  I was recycling before it become chic,

Me and my siblings were raised on making something out of nothing.  And I will continue to do it even after the scam is over.  

I'm convienced that those incharge of this movement are slightly vane or self glorifyingly? insane, to the point that they think they have the power to "SAVE THE PLANET!" what else can a wealthly man do when he has everything and has been and seen everything?  I'm really concerned about them.

Answer 3

I don't think we even need some impending global catastrophe to start loving and protecting our home.  Anything we abuse, we destroy.  This is the only home we have, and it's high time we give it a breather.

Answer 4

In my opinion, the most significant impact humans have on the environment is not changing the climate, but destruction of native habitat and destruction of species.  

Preserving habitats and protecting biodiversity is what we should be concentrating on.

Answer 5

absolutely. I don't believe man is capable of changing the earths climate, and i'm not convinced that the earth is warming anymore, however, i think the polution we create is bad for our own health, we cut down far too many trees and we are destroying wildlife, we should go back to basics as much as we possibly can, but we can't blame little man for changing the climate of big earth, thats just arrogant

Answer 6

I certainly don't think so. Even if someone does not fully entertain the thought of global warming they can still help the environment.

Answer 7

Yes, I agree.  I don't like the agenda behind the government and corporate push for their global warming tax scheme, but I'm for cracking down on companies break the law, try to cut corners, and end up killing people by poisoning the streams and water supplies; or giving them cancers and respiratory diseases.  I also think that they shouldn't have forced people to turn in their electric cars to be demolished because the agenda of Big Oil--cars should at least be fuel efficient as they back in the 1980s under Reagan, but cars are LESS fuel efficient these days!  And why don't we look up into the sky to see the REAL cause the heart failure, respiratory diseases, chronic fatigue, allergies, asthma, and many other ailments!  Modern day planes are NOT supposed to be spewing all that exhaust and releasing all those particles into the air!  It's illegal and not one in the the mainstream "environmental movement" and the government is refusing to talk about it!  That's why I don't buy into the global warming scam--is proposes no solutions on what really matters; it's just a way for the nuclear/defense industry to push costly and dangerous nuclear "green" energy, to have global taxes for whatever they want, and more taxes for oils companies to supposedly test new products and technologies.  Enough of corporate welfare and corrupt government!

Answer 8

Of course you can. But I can't imagine why you wouldn't believe in GW unless you've been brainwashed by propoganda into thinking this is a balanced debate with good points on both sides. It's not.

Answer 9

Of course it's possible for some people to conserve and love the world and not accept global climate change.

But Ben hit on an important topic, and they're more closely related than one might think.  The rapid changes happening on the planet are occurring too quickly for species to adapt, and the rate of extinction, already high, is expected to increase.  Earth's biodiversity will be greatly impacted by the effects of changing climate patterns.

Answer 10

I like your question, and some of the answers so far.

It seems that this issue has extreme views on both sides.

The proponents of the AGW theory seem to believe that anyone who disagrees with their belief must somehow be rich, self indulgent, stupid, environmentally unfriendly, and have something to gain by being 'skeptics'.

They also will claim that the 'skeptics' are in 'denial' because of their beliefs.

The 'skeptics' look at the so-called environmentalists/conservationists as being anti-establishment 'tree hugger' socialists with only one goal in mind, and that is to destroy their way of life.

I think (in some ways), I can understand where both extremes are actually comming from.

Neither of the extreme views is based on science, fact, or understanding or tolerance of differing opinions.

When only one side of a story is presented to the public through the media, is it any wonder why there would be so many so-called 'skeptics'?

On the other hand, is it any wonder that the AGW alarmist's wish to believe the way they do, since they can see how badly we are all being 'Ripped Off' by all of the energy companies, and have been for far too long.

I get attacked at times from both extremes, but normally from the AGW believers.

Because I believe in proper science, and am old enough now to not just "buy in" to whatever the latest fad is going on, and can still think for myself, instead of following my peer group, or accept what the media promotes, the AGW proponents believe that I have something to gain by pointing out flaws in their beliefs.

If I try to point out the fact that I recycle as much as possible, and only have one bin bag per year that goes to landfill, or would not waste my money on buying bottled water, etc... I get accused of being a ''Tree Hugger'!

I was brought up on recycling everything possible.

My father came from poverty and knew how important it was to use everything to it's maximum potential.

While I do not buy into this AGW hysteria, I also get extremely upset with how man is still so greedy and arrogant, and believes that they have the right to exploit the vulnerable.

This is both nature, and the vulnerable humans.

I would like to know if anyone out there could beat my record of minimal waste.

If you have, I would like to know how you have accomplished it because it still bothers me that I have some items which I can not recycle.

Answer 11

I for one don't believe government can solve anything. I believe conscience is a personal choice.

I don't buy into the myth of global warming for a variety of reasons. My first reason is scientific discussions on the matter remain un-answered.

I was a natural resource major back in the 70s before eco-whacks took over the science of balancing development with the natural world. Many in the current environmental movement would prefer to see a zero population of humans. This effort is done through several key agendas, eugenics, "biofuels" increase starvation levels around the globe..

As a society we will always need to find a common sense economic balance between development and protection.

As individuals we can do several things

Avoid giving money to ecowhack extremists that would destroy this planet through feel good lobbying. We need real solutions not ones that will starve whole segments of our planet.

End the biofuel race until the economic viability of these products do not rob from our existing food sources.

We have ways of using Coal and Oil in ecological conscience ways, We need to do so, we need to explore and develop Coal to Liquid and Gas to Liquid technologies, alone with Oil Shale and Sands, and off shore sources of readily available oil, from California, Florida, and Alaska.

the Global Warming Alarmists are the one who are attempting to establish a religion.

The fact remains of some simple truths, global climate changes, it has done so for 4.6 billion years.As a life long geo-sciences student (Geology is the 1st true science). The fossil record shows a LOT of variation, From a lava ball, to a snowball then moderations in temperature varying from warm, hot to cold, the late Holocene 10000-5000 Years ago was substantially warmer then now.

Solar cycles are not static, nor is the earth orbit a perfect cycle, the earth wobbles on it's axis, and rotational axes, change along with climate. Anthropomorphic influence is minimal. The crux of the supposed argument by the alarmists is specific to rising atmospheric CO2 levels will cause a global catastrophy, and supposely IF we reduce emissions of this "gas" we reduce the potential impact of the anthro-caused warming. The content of atmospheric CO2 is in levels less then 1% of the total atmosphere.

So the Marxists are pushing Biofuels, and deliberately or inadvertently are creating a situation where the use biofuels have caused food prices to rise substantially since the year 2000, THIS FACT is documented.

There are a lot of well researched sources on the net for researching the "subject" of the anthropomorphic lies being perpetrating on society to the level of mass hysteria.

Junkscience.com has a great deal of reference links,

http://www.junkscience.com/

Steve Milloy's articles can all be found here:

http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/

Heartland Institute is a very good site for intelligent discussions about the topic of common sense environmental responses. Not a hysterical sight.

Answer 12

yea of course i would believe one can still be a conservationist even if they don't believe in global warming as long as they are doing something to help the environment such as buying locally grown food, using less stuff, bringing your own bag, etc.

Answer 13

sure, why not?  you can be stupid and still love the Earth

Answer 14

Absolutely!

Real conservationists have brains.  They aren't fooled by P.T. Barnum's "Save the Earth Elixers" like the rest of the dolts out there.

Answer 15

The trouble with science is you can't pick and choose which parts to believe.

There was the guy from Southern Baptist going for his PhD in evolutionary biology while at the same time refusing to renounce his belief in intelligent design.  The two beliefs are fundamentally incompatible and the guy basically either had an agenda or a s***w loose.

Who would trust this person?

You can't be a conservationist and protector of the earth while at the same time ignoring the science that says CO2 is one of our biggest problems.  This leads to endless internal conflicts and rationalizations which leads to inconsistent and irrational actions.  

I would not trust this person.

I'm sorry, but to me that says that this person either has an agenda or some sort of mental problem.  

I don't mean a mental defect like the evolutionary creationist guy; it's a much more subtle problem we all have.  It has to do with the scope, the scale of the problem.  Most people just can't really conceive that things are that bad.  They are.  They just don't have enough knowledge and experience to process it all, so they make rationalizations like - we've set it up so it's impossible for me to function in the USA in 2008 without a car, so how could we have screwed up so bad?  Naw, we couldn't have, AGW must be a scam.

Well, I guess something is better than nothing; so if you are sincere, thank you for your efforts.

Answer 16

Yes, because one of the great tragedies of the global warming fraud is that we are wasting resources to deal with a problem that doesn't exist when we should be dealing with REAL pollution.

Answer 17

I do love the earth. I don't pollute, recycle, and I drive a hybrid car.

I don't believe in Global Warming, though.

Answer 18

I do believe that because I am one.

Pollution and waste are bad, anyone knows that.  What is so frustrating for me is that instead of focusing our efforts on pollution and waste, we're sidelining those things, to focus our attention on a problem we didn't cause, and can't fix (and isn't really a problem).

Answer 19

yes. but both will require similar solutions. that is using more renewable power and investing in energy efficiency.

Answer 20

Bottom line:  Cleaning up our planet, Earth, can not be bad.

Whose best interest do people who are for 'protecting' the economy, before the environment, have at heart?

I don't know but it sounds like they have their pocket book's best interest at heart.  Maybe they can make enough money so their kids and grandkids and future generations of their family can buy the purest air and cleanest water for their spacious bio-domes?

Yes, that's sarcastic and cynical and possibly exaggerated, but that's by design - unfortunately Hollywood and Madison Avenue have so sensationalized our existences, it takes more extreme, more outrageous, biblical cataclysmical type examples to catch people's attention.

I don't care if there is "global warming" per se.  But I try to recycle whatever I can.  I don't litter.  I gave up my beloved Jeep Wrangler.  I think fines for litterbugs, people who dump motor oil illegally and other common transgressions should be increased substantially and enforced.  For example, put multiple cameraa at the top of every highway off-ramp - anyone caught littering should be immediately fined, anyone with windows tinted too darkly to see the drivers face should be pulled over by police and fined.  My particular city is in the middle of a fiscal crisis.  Imagine the money they could bring in - how much cleaner the streets could be.  I'm not against putting a litterbug in jail for a week for a second offense - or taking away their drivers license for littering.  Those are REAL deterants.  Yes, I know people will say that's crazy, we can't afford to implement those types of programs, the court system and jails can't handle it, the city won't make that much after processing all the arrests and fighting the cases in court.  One of the central American countries used to execute drunk drivers by firing squad - for a FIRST offense!  I doubt that's still the case - but guess what - they had very little trouble with DWIs.  

Just do what's right people.

Answer 21

Most of the things that cause pollution also use energy, so if you minimize your pollution you will also minimize your energy and fossil fuel use.   I would think they would disagree with someone who worries about global warming  on   a few issues such as nuclear energy, but very little on personal life style.