Is climate change an undeniable fact as the media claim it is and should dissent of it be a crime?

Question

I just saw a documentary about the greatest threats facing our planet and one of the interviewees said that climate change caused by humans is an undeniable fact and the people who disagree with that are just the same as Holocaust deniers and should be discounted out of hand since there is no debate as there is complete scientific consensus on the subject. Is this true or are there any valid arguments against the climate change theory which is promoted in the media? And do you view climate change denial as a crime in the same manner as Holocaust denial as several media pundits stated?

Answer 1

These people remind me of the pod people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Answer 2

Globl warming and climate change are proven facts.

Should dissent be a crime? Of course nnot.  But anyone ignorant enough to dispute proven facts has to expect nothing but ridicule--because that's all they deserve or will get.  No one with any education or intelligence is going to take them seriously or waste time "debating" facts already established.

Answer 3

Humans can be human! You need the facts.We have the technology to move past the carbon debate. We do not have time to go through the government red tape, government has to change. Without governments mandating renewable resources that do not harm the environment, we are doomed. We have to take the time to get it right. With oil on the decline, we have to make massive changes, swiftly. But we can not do this twice, or three times - like in the past; we have to put our money in the best return on investments and where we get multiple benefits. We can not redo this one. We have had most of this technology for 20 years but have not implemented it. We know what is cost effective; we know where we need better technology. The fossil fuel depression with global warming will be the worst economic downturn in world history. But this is not doom and gloom; we have the ability to fix our mess and enough time. Solar Concentrating Electric Power Plants, wind, wave, small hydro-electric, geothermal, and nuclear energy are what we need. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, global warming and cleanup) for oil, natural gas, coal, cigarettes, cooling towers, cars, trains and airplanes. Raising the price of fossil fuel today gives us more time to solve these problems and helps pay for the 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years. Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal.

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve global warming. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon – anyone willing to pay $30 per gallon for gas. The problem is the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages (gone at least to run cars, heat homes, power electric plants or air travel). The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%, but I would prefer a 5% Solution over the next 10 years for a 50% reduction. At the same time, we have to be building renewable energy so at the end of 10 years we can cut an additional 20%. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak natural gas in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation. Global warming projects over the next 90 years that carbon dioxide will skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels, but where is this fuel? We have to come up with what will take its place and cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuclear winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain and other forests, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy food from out side the USA to send to starving people since our grain is not available.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and we are far behind).

Now what USA Presidential candidate is giving you the facts so you can make an educated decision of which one to vote for?

Education is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface. Watch for changes in the sight coming soon.

Answer 4

yes, no.

there are no valid arguments put froward disputing AGW most studies not are not related to weather global warming caused by humans but how much change we are causing and what we can do about it.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/fu...

Answer 5

I don't believe in crime because I believe in freedom, the type of freedom not found here on Earth, although, to me, climate change is undeniable.  It is a natural process that we are accelerating.  I don't think we'll ever be able to do anything about it.  I mean, we never even cared enough to stop the starvation in world hunger before we started exhausting our resources.  The great tempest will happen, the question is how many will survive?

Answer 6

We have freedom of speech.  I guess we can deny anything.

However, to create false evidence and to pay scientists to say this false evidence to be true is a crime and should be dealt with.  But, how long would one need to fight exxon or others?

Answer 7

Yes and no.

People are free to believe stupid things like "NASA faked the moon landings".  Or "the Earth is 6000 years old".  Or "global warming is a hoax".

What they're not free to do is to interfere with serious people addressing the problem.

Answer 8

It is not deniable by anyone who actually tries to explain the evidence.

No, denial should not be a crime.  However, denialists should have to put their money where their mouths are, so that they actually risk something for being wrong.