In 20 years, when the effects of mostly man made global warming are very serious and...?

Question

the whole world is working hard to reduce them, will the "skeptics" here still be claiming it's not really us causing the problem? Like people who still deny evolution or claim NASA faked the Moon landings?

Answer 1

You really need to do more research.  The man Mr Truly with NASA admitted lying about Global Warming to get people to be more concerned.  

Ever heard of the Ice age, Why do you think the Global Warming crowd are now referring to Global Warming as Climate change.  

Many Scientist who agreed with Global Warming are now saying there is nothing based in fact.  A local Minneapolis, MN CBS weatherman has now said that Global Warming is a myth.

What you should do is read some books and articles than run counter to your beliefs it will really help you understand.

I would recommend the following book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.  

Good Luck and God Bless America.

Answer 2

Bob,

I am skeptical of the alarmists.  I want to cut admissions but believe scare tactics are in play.  I have maid numerous posts on answers to show using the IPCC's equations that the effect of 1/3 of the way to doubling will is in fact 45% the impact of doubling.  This 45% may be contributed to a .5 deg C rise, yeilding us to another .5 deg C rise by 2100.

The IPCC says they are only 90-95% confident on human causing global warming.  Everyone should be 5% skeptical.??

Answer 3

Yes.

And if our efforts are successful at preventing serious consequences and halt the warming trend, they'll claim they were right all along.

Answer 4

"Like people who still deny evolution or claim NASA faked the Moon landings?"

If the evidence was so strong, Bob, why would statements like this be necessary?

You know what, Bob? You are just as bad as the "denialists" when you blither on about how AGW has been "proven".

And you keep quoting Admiral Truly. Who cares what he thinks?

------------

Edit:

The Sh*t said:

"Yes they will. And they'll still assume that their extremely limited and biased information is accurate and they are somehow smarter than the most intelligent scientists in the US and Europe. And they'll become extinct much faster than the rest of us because they are so unwilling to adapt to new information. They simply want to hold onto their old tired and wasteful way of life."

As a "skeptic" myself (not a "denialist"), I take offense at this. I can be "skeptic" and still advocate "action", can't I?

Answer 5

Scientists have difficulty predicting the weather for the next day, let alone for the next 20 years.

The climate and the weather have many variables and many causes.  And although there is some consensus at the present time about the climate.  There is no guarantee that this consensus is correct in its predictions.

Some 15,000 to 12,000 years ago our Earth warmed up by several degrees.  People didn't cause this warming.   And it's not quite clear what exactly caused it.

There is a lot people don't know about Earth's climate.  And that's why I find it difficult to believe people's predictions far into the future about what the climate is going to be.

Answer 6

First of all, your continual comparison of "skeptics" with wacko "Conspiracy theorists" is a tired act.  Obviously, we have hard proof that certain events in the past have occurred.  I am pro-evolutionary theory, and anyone that denies a moon landing is a little bit crazy.  but AGW, at BEST (by your own  admission), is a 20 year in the future prediction.  IF, and that's a HUGE "IF", the world is going through problems in 20 years that are related, and proven to be related to AGW, then I'll be man enough to admit I was wrong.  But i see no point in financing our present and our future on a projected fantasy right now.  I may as well place a bet right now on the Superbowl winner 20 years from now.   actually, the chances of me getting that right are MUCH better than the odds of AGW happening in 20 years...

to be quite honest, i say we land a man on MARS before there are any "effects" from the great money-grab of our generation, the sham that will go down in history as AGW...and will YOU be man enough, Bob, to admit you were wrong, on the off chance that you are???  I am willing to guess not.  But you and Linus can grab a spot in the most sincere pumpkin patch and wait for the Great Pumpkin when AGW never happens...

Answer 7

Ken got it.  As the mitigation efforts become mandatory, the backlash will get really intense.  Then as the populace at large realizes the obstructionists have caused them great and direct harm, these denialists will finally become marginalized to the status of curiosity;  kinda like what is going to happen to the far right as we see the effects of the Bush presidency hit home.  But they will always be there.  The Great Global Warming Hoax museum will be built next to the Creationist Museum in Cincinnati.  And the Bush library will be built, if they can bully anyone into accepting it.  Maybe I'll go and gawk.

Answer 8

If I am still here in twenty years I will let you know then.

Answer 9

Bob, do us a favor and grow up.  Even Science doesn't claim that Evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt or else it wouldn't still be called a THEORY. And it will continue to be called a THEORY until they can show us the missing link that conclusively proves we evolved from apes. Now I love science and believe they're possibly right but as we all know THEORY is geek speak for "we really don't know so here is our best guess".   As for "mostly man made" global warming HA HA Not even all of Science agrees that we're the cause, so please tell us how you (most likely without a science background) know we're the primary cause?

Answer 10

in 20 yrs. there would be man made disaster after one another

currently world population have rich 7.8 billions majorities are chinese and india do the math and calculate the current gas price

Answer 11

Unfortunately for your question, any destruction will not happen in 20 years nor in 100. Did you realize that the earth has been warming and cooling forever, and it was at many points warmer when humans were not on the earth then now when they are. You due know that the increasing of lives lost from heat from global warming means very little, considering that would be saving 7 lives for every 1 lost

becuase of the fact deaths by cold are much more deadly. You do know that melting glaciers dont cause sea levels to rise.(here is a simple experiment if you dont believe me. Take a glass of water with some ice and measure the water level. Then measure it when the ice has melted. You will notice no increase. how about the fact that it would cost us much less to deal with the problems of flooding when they arrive then implementing kyoto and seeing only a delay of 5 years and trillions of dollars spent. You sir need to stop reading left wing stuff and focus somewhere on the center. I recommend Bjorn Lomborg's book, the skeptical environmentalist. he believes in man-made global warming but debates it effects using UN and ipcc studies.

Answer 12

Now do I EVER sound like a "wacko skeptic" that still thinks the Earth is flat-- and the also the center of the universe?!

In 20 years the satellite data will be just getting long enough to determine a trend-- all I will say is -- that I will definitely join one side or the other at that time. (Unfortunately I will need to live to age 81 !!! ) --- my odds are not very good.  :)

Edit d**k Chenney-- so I suppose you would support a birth control program for those countries that are "overpopulating" the Earth?? Is that correct?

http://www.npg.org/faq.html   I enjoyed their answer to the "everyone fits inside Texas -- #6) of course if you fit everyone inside Texas, you would have the entire REST of the Earth to grow crops and dig for oil! Ha! --------- :) typical population control maniacs-- hello!--- it's just an illustration to show the density of the population -- not really something anyone would actually promote as something that needs to be done.

Answer 13

Hmm that's a tough question.  I think for most people there has to be a breaking point where they can no longer deny reality.  At this point the effects of global warming aren't particularly tangible to the average person in an industrialized country.  In 20 years we'll probably be seeing much more frequent heat waves, droughts, food shortages, etc.  I think it will be very hard for people to continue to claim these changes are 'natural'.

I'm sure there will always be some people claiming it's all "natural", but as the effects become more tangible, their numbers will dwindle.  After all, just a few years ago there were a lot of people claiming the planet wasn't warming at all.  We've sort of regressed back to that point with the 'no warming in 10 years' crowd, but most don't deny that at least the planet has warmed.

Consider the evolution of AGW denial from 'the planet isn't warming' to 'the warming is natural' to 'warmer is better' - very slowly they're accepting the basic scientific facts and adapting their arguments accordingly.  I think within the next 20 years most will have accepted AGW and adapted their arguments to something like 'let the free market control carbon emissions'.

Answer 14

you really are incompetent, no one actually knows what will happen. data is a way to predict not the end all be all. so for you to say for certain that climate change is definatly without a doubt caused by man is a very uneducated statement.  There are so many parts to the climate system that have not been determined how warming will affect them.

Answer 15

Yes they will.  And they'll still assume that their extremely limited and biased information is accurate and they are somehow smarter than the most intelligent scientists in the US and Europe.   And they'll become extinct much faster than the rest of us because they are so unwilling to adapt to new information.  They simply want to hold onto their old tired and wasteful way of life.

Answer 16

The data U are looking at is garbage. The bad CO2 is bot there.. The plants take in the CO2 and give us back the O2 ... That is not in any of the data... CO2 is a very heavy gas that is some times used to extinguish fires. By being so heavy it is difficult to measure it correctly. More important is the oxygen level. 20.8 is the level of oxygen and it has not changed. If the CO2 increased like they want U to believe the Oxygen level would come down. If the oxygen level drops below 19.5 YOU will pass out. As u fall the CO2 on the ground will suffocate U.

   Then that bad Methane gas ,the environmentalist calculate that there should be several billion of cubic ft. out there. That would occupy a very large space. The real problem is it they can not find it. If the gas is not there how can it cause Global Warming???

Answer 17

The hard-core denialist will always claim it is not a problem.  Their arguments are based on politics, not science.  

Skeptics that look at the science will be convinced if they haven't already.  I really think most of the true skeptics think the biological and economic impacts will not be nearly as severe as some of the predictions.  But we need to plan for the worst.  In my opinion, this is where most of the uncertainty seems to be.  I would be really glad to admit to these folks that the problem was overreacted too, but given the uncertainty about some of the consequences and their potential severity, it only seems prudent to try to reduce the potential impacts as much as possible.

Answer 18

In 20 years you and Dana will still be posting questions that begin with "in 20 years when the effects really happen......"