Do you feel that alarmist/extremist of GW are amusing ?

Question

I have to admit, they are focused on one issue that might not be, a primary problem.

Answer 1

Yeah it's pretty funny to watch the deniers change their story every 5 minutes in order to maintain their denial.  'Oh it's all a liberal hoax, except that the majority of conservatives believe it too, but they're just being paid off.'  'Oh the surface temperature record is wrong, except when it records a cold month, and then it disproves global warming.'  'Oh 100 years of warming doesn't mean anything, but 1 cold month means we're headed for global cooling.'

It's like watching a guilty man get caught lying to the cops.

Answer 2

I think some of their ideas are laughable. As long as they don't try to force people (me) to give up and go live in a cave with them, I don't care what they do.

Answer 3

I agree with the other sensible people here, who see the real truth, which is that it is you deniers who are alarmists.

Listen to yourselves.  All you talk about is hoaxes

conspiracies, scams, communist plots, one world government conspiracies, economic conspiracies to fatten the pockets of somebody.  

If that isn't alarmist, what is?

What is happening to the earths environment is alarming, even without global warming.

Anyone who doesn't understand that is either blind, stupid, brainwashed, unaware, confused by propaganda or really badly misinformed.  So I'll give deniers the benefit of the doubt, and say they are just badly misinformed.

  

You are full of cliches, slogans etc and nothing to back it up.  The scientific  evidence is overwhelmingly in suport of AGW.  

Skeptic's argument:

"Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government (and/or world government via the U.N.)."

"This is a common line, regardless of how ridiculous it is, so it should not go unanswered."

Answer:

"Here is a list of organizations that accept anthropogenic global warming as real and scientifically well-supported:"

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS):

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/glob...

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC):

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_...

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) -

http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost...

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

http://epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

The Royal Society of the UK (RS) -

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=31...

American Geophysical Union (AGU):

http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climat...

American Meteorological Society (AMS):

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatecha...

American Institute of Physics (AIP):

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR):

http://eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html

American Meteorological Society (AMS):

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacade...

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS): http://www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.htm...

"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. The statement was issued by:"

Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academie 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)

You can also read this statement [PDF], which includes all the above signatories plus the following:

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

"But if scientists are too liberal and politicians too unreliable, perhaps you find the opinion of key industry representatives more convincing:

"BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:

There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."

"Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:

Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate."

"Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change."

  "Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists

should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their

colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their

conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."

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

"Global warming, as a scientific issue, remains

unresolved, and because of its complexity much

conflicting and marginal data exists. But the

conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on

The Wall Street Journal and its standards of

reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."

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

"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10...

I'm sure these are all wacko, commie, fascist, greenie, hippie, one world government, turn you into peasants through scams to levy taxes conspirators who are just alarmists who really don't understand it as well as you do.

ideas.

http://www.earththesequel.com./

"Krupp and Horn have turned the doom and gloom of global warming on its head.

"Earth: The Sequel"  makes it crystal clear that we can build a low-carbon economy while unleashing American entrepreneurs to save the planet, putting optimism back into the environmental story."

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City

If you want to see what oil addiction is doing to our economy, read about the hidden costs of oil and other fossil fuels at these sites.

http://www.setamericafree.org/saf_hidden...

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Ten_most_...

http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.ht...

http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/o...

Alternative energy will turn our economy around.

And improve the environment.

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."  William James

Answer 4

The whole weak theory of global warming, while a hoax, has cost the world untold amounts of money spent needlessly.  The term global warming has changed to climate change actually, so that the clowns who started it can claim everything and anything as proof of their rediculous notion.  I am somewhat amused by their tactics, though we seem to be seeing less and less of them as time goes on.  Are they hiding?  

The unfortunate part is that they are gaining great personal wealth from this at the expense of many who really can't afford it.  But of course they don't care.  They're the type of people who'd steal from anyone, anywhere.  It would be most amusing if they were carted off to prison.

Answer 5

Laugh it up.  

When I watch the DENIER/skeptic people coming to the Global Warming section and posting "I'm tired of people trying to force AGW upon me", I think gee, what a tough problem.  I hope they figure it out some day.  I bet if they went to the Etiquette section they'd find people trying to force good manners on them too.  Another dilemma!

Answer 6

They would be amusing if they didn't do so much harm.  Over 1,000,000 people a year will die from hunger now that we and many of the grain producing nations are growing crops for ethanol.  That's just for starters.

Answer 7

Amusing is a good word, misguided as well.

Answer 8

I think its past amusing and just plain ludicrous to think GW is real.

I don't need a bunch of F'd up people to tell me what I can see with my own eyes.  Where I sit right now, in Michigan, just 150k years ago there was 2-5 miles of ICE above my head carving out the great lakes.  Where did it all go, did AL Gore's jet melt it ?

Answer 9

By alarmist/extremist are you referring to the people who claim that there's some sort of evil, scary hoax?  I find those people very amusing.  

They represent some fraction of the 6% of the population who think that global warming probably is not happening, so they're probably not very relevant in the big picture:

"Seventy-one percent say that global warming is probably happening, 6 percent believe it is probably not happening..."

http://www.fightglobalwarming.com/conten...

Answer 10

About as amusing as having to listen to Barney's theme song 24/7.

Answer 11

mildly amusing, but they need to come up with some new material. the same old stuff I thought was very funny a year ago is getting a little absurd as climate conditions continue to get cooler world wide.

Answer 12

THE EARF IS TOO VALUABLE!!! HUMANS NEED TO BE EXTERMINATED FROM THE PLANET!!!

Answer 13

That's the point.  We have genuine environmental problems.  CO2 ain't one of them.

Answer 14

Not being an alarmist or extremist, but believing there are some environmental anomalies that should not be ignored, I offer this;

If the group who believes we are moving into an environmentally unstable period, prepare as best they can for their families, no foul, no harm to the skeptics. The world will continue to ooze along and we will die in time.

If we are right, then we will survive and..........................

Note: One final point. It matters little what any Government or well intentioned group does, to try to prevent or reverse the environmental direction, whether next week or next decade.

To that end, anyone attempting to raise money or implement taxes to generate a "let's clean up the earth" movement, is a lame and pointless excuse to line the pockets of big business and "certain" individuals. Pathetic.

Answer 15

It's amusing and pathetic, except that they fully intend to have me finance the solution.  That gets pretty expensive when they have to keep inventing more problems and marketing more "solutions".

In the end, isn't it always just about the MONEY?