Do you think that what we truly fear about global warming is the inability to change it?

Question

We know we are on a warming cycle but just as from the 50's to the 80's we could go cold again. As plentiful as we are we really are not a force that can change the weather as much as we think we can. It falls to our arrogance and the fear of being out of control. (This is not saying go ye out and pollute it is more of a question of the social fanaticism of global warming. And the expenditure of energy on something we are unsure if we have any control of at all. To which we could direct to more beneficial means.)

Answer 1

It's not arrogant to think we can, but naive to think we can't.

Answer 2

Ken pretty much summed up the alarmist position.  We all have to change our lifestyles, or apparently we are all going to die.  My only fear is that we will fall for the socialists nonsense and nonscience.

Answer 3

No its all about world Socialism

Answer 4

What is to fear?  Chances are, you wont notice a change because it will take place too slow.  Coastal cities wont flood because sea levels will rise less than a foot, and I dont even think that will happen.  I think you have a good point saying that we could just as easily go cold again.  Something I find odd though is that cooling period took place during the time that we were testing nuclear weapons....  hint hint.

Answer 5

It seems that if some people don't understand how humans use of fossil fuels has created global warming,also have a hard time understanding how we CAN change the severity of climate change. It sounds like a 'code' for the 'God theory'. If they 'believe' that a supreme being created the Universe,then it seems sensless to even try to change what they see as God's handiwork. We created the problem,and if we try,we CAN fix it! We only have this one tiny little wet rock,spinning through space,lets not s***w it up!

Answer 6

No. I like the heat. Bought some swimsuits while they're cheap. hehehe

Answer 7

Yes, that's why I tried to get people to look at ways to adapt to any possible changes that might occur, but most people refuse to look at ways to adapt to it. They seem more willing to believe we are contributing to it and that we can stop it, than they are willing to look at ways to adapt to it.

Answer 8

It would be arrogant for 100 million people to assume they could control the climate.  It would be naive and irresponsible for 6 - 7 (heading to 10) billion people to think they don't have any effect on the climate.  We clearly put too much greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and deforest too large of areas to assume we don't have an impact.

We can measure the rate CO2 in the atmosphere has been growing.  We know pretty well how much CO2 human activities emit.  From chemical isotope analysis we can tell what portion of the increased atmospheric CO2 comes from fossil fuels. And we know that current levels of CO2 help keep the planet about 3 - 5 C warmer than it would be without any.  So as humans double the level (something we're likely to reach in 30 - 50 years) clearly the temperature will continue to warm.

I think the real fear aspect of global warming comes from those who deny it's real because they fear they'll have to change their lifestyles.

Edit:

Jim Z - Where's the alarmism in my post?  I didn't mention NYC under water, massive starvation, Cat-6 hurricanes or anything else smelling even slightly of alarmism.  Please try to remain evidence based and not throw around nonsensical terms just because you can't discuss real science with me.

Answer 9

I fear the results  of what will happen if some tries to change the normal nature of things, with a hair brain quick fix ideal.

Answer 10

The "Theory" about CO2 weather forcing is appearing less credible the colder it's getting.  You are right the 'warmers' are looking like they are showing some fear - they might be wrong.

The two key things the 'warmers' DENY. = The heat from inside the earth - beneath the thin lithosphere (3-5 miles thick) under the oceans  and the Sun's 'Interplanetary MAGNETIC Fields.

The present Sun's emissions:

http://www.spaceweather.com/

The Sun's changing magnetics influences the 'Magna Flows' beneath us - which allows more or less venting under seas.

It the Sun were to remain 'quiet' (not start cycle 24) we could be facing another 'solar minimum' = that could really devastate earth and depopulate it.:

The Sunspot Cycle  &  The Maunder Minimum:

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Sunspo...

+

Ponder the Maunder

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Answer 11

Regardless of whether we are causing global warming, we are still polluting us and the earth to death.  And ending our dependence on oil can only bring benefits in other ways.  

   To make claims that the majority of world climate scientists somehow are practicing science that isn't real, is pure belief for the majority of those posting such statements.  Maybe some scientists differ with the consensus, but most of you who are spouting this stuff have little if any scientific understanding.

You are just parroting other talking heads who usually aren't scientists either.  Where do you get your scientific information,  Rush Limbaugh?

Michael Savage?  

  The earth and it's ecosytems have a very delicate balance.  Do some of you not understand that?  The conditons under which life operates were not designed for the hundreds of thousands of chemicals that man puts into the environment.

Almost none of these chemicals exist in nature.  It only makes sense that we need to be extremely careful in how we use them and dispose of them.

  We do have the ability to change.   The only arrogance is in assuming that what we have been doing to the earth is OK.

  We are spending 2 trillion dollars in Iraq to protect our interests in oil.  

According to a plan devised to convert the entire U.S to solar power, that could be done by spending $400 billon over 20 years or more.

We're spending 5 times that in a few years to protect what doesn't work anymore.  What could be more benficial than creating a totally clean and affordable power system that gets us off our addiction to oil.  We already have the technology.

When you figure in the real costs of fossil fuels, including all the health and environmental costs, the costs of wars in the mideast, the cost of losing our credibility in the world, the cost of sodiers lives and the lives of maybe 200,000 Iraqis, oil becomes the most expensive fuel you could imagine.

Anything we can do to change that can only have positive ramifications for our economy.  Whole new industries are being created, ones with a future.

  As far as fanatacism goes, what could possibly be more fanatical than destroying the earths ecosytems and thinking it doesn't matter?

As an example:

If we have 5% of old growth forest left, who is fanatical, the people who want to cut down the last 5% or the people trying to prevent it?  

Do you know the story of Pacific Lumber in California?

How a multi billionaire, and corporate raider Hurwitz and his corporate holding company Maxxam bought out PL with a leveraged buyout, arranged by junk bond king Michael Milken.  They sold junk bonds to finance the deal and then proceeded to cut down redwood trees at twice the rate as before, so they could pay off the junk bonds and Mr Hurwitz could get richer.   Now there's a fanatic.  A multibillionaire willing to rape our redwood forest so he can become even richer.  

And this is typical of how many large mining, oil and lumber companies and such operate.  This is considered the American way, is it not?  And anyone who criticizes it is just a left wing socialist eco fanatic.

  This is how many of you people think.

You're understanding doesn't go very deep.  You spew out political jingoism, parroting people like Savage and Limbaugh and think you are actually being intelligent.  You are not even thinking, you are just repeating someone elses ideas, usually someone who appeals to your misquided sense of patriotism.  

The patriotic thing to do is take back our country from the multinational corporations who control it now.  The phrase in the constitution reads;  "by and for the people".   Corporations are not people, they are organizations which have only one purpose, making profits for shareholders. That's not necessarily a bad thing in itself, but actual human beings have other concerns besides the bottom line.  

  A phrase has become popular, I forget who first said it;  "The business of America is business."

Really?  I thought it was freedom, equality, those kinds of values.