Is it ok to care about the environment, but reject AGW/CO2 global warming (& the so-called solutions for it)?

Question

Randall: I guess it's because of some emails from some that friendly who are now making me feel evil for questioning it.

Answer 1

If you don't believe the evidence for AGW is compelling, no can force you to believe it and you should not feel guilty for not believing it. It would not be ok, though, to misrepresent the science or other people's viewpoints to advance your beliefs  Also, for better or worse, we live in a society that makes laws that we are expected to abide by whether or not we believe in them, so if society as a whole decides that these solutions are worthwhile then you'll either have to obey the law or accept the consequences.  

As long as you're honest about it , though, you should be free to voice your objections and work to stop any regulations that you think are unfair.

Answer 2

Caring about the environment and rejecting AGW are two unrelated things.  So of course you should care about the environment, it's so important!  Don't feel bad about rejecting AGW, and don't let others make you feel bad.  That's how they work.  AGW wasn't, isn't and never will be real.  The environment though...it's here and now so we should look after it.

Answer 3

OK with whom?     Whose approval do you need?

Answer 4

.yes i think the idea of man made global warming is absurd.however i do plant veggies, planted some trees this year, grew a flower garden and even recycled my cans .

itsn't it funny that people think you hate the earth because you don't get caught up beliving a "theory "

Answer 5

Yes.  AGW is just a myth being pushed heavily by Extremists for Fear-mongering purposes.

Reducing waste / pollution should always be the main goal...reduce / re-use / recycle and managing our lives in a responsible manner are key.

It appears that AGW is a tool being used as an extension for Wealth Distrubution.  They are pushing Carbon Credits, which don't actually solve anything, but would generate huge funds for a Centralized Government Entity.

Need some proof?  I just finished watching a movie called 'Children of Men'.  Look behind the movie and at the 'Bonus Features'...it's all leftist anti-capitalist propaganda from Socialist Idealists.

Enjoy caring for the Environment and look for realistic ways to help.  Personally, I think we should be spending ooodles more money and time fighting plastic grocery bags from getting into the environment instead of AGW!  Real problems with real achievable results!

Answer 6

It is always good to be tidy. And you are correct in that you do not have to be part of a fashion movement (GW) to be doing right.

Answer 7

Sure, although to quote George Carlin, it would suggest that you don't really care about the environment, you just want a nice safe habitat to drive your Volvo or Saab in.

Answer 8

Of course it is, especially since many of the so-called solutions are petty (i.e. recycle and take public transit) and have political goals as opposed to environmental benefits (in addition, the whole thing is a hoax anyways).

Answer 9

I would say that you've taken the logical, thought out approach to the whole issue.

Answer 10

Absolutely!! I've been an 'environmentally friendly' person for decades. Don't leave litter, clean up camp sites, only hunt sustainable populations of animals, own a fuel efficient car, recycle where it makes sense. These are all just common sense things. America is now the world leader in cleaning our environment, only behind our fellow G-8 member Japan when it comes to clean water and air. But globul warming? Please. http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/sunspots/

Sunspots cause global warming, not Algore, or my car.

Answer 11

It's only natural:  If you love nature and study it, you'll find all the evidence you need to conclude the Sun is responsible for our most recent warming trend (just as it has been for every warming trend to date).

Answer 12

Well, you're really asking two questions here rather than one; the first is if it is 'OK' to reject AGW/CO2 global warming itself, so I'll offer an opinion on that first.  What bothers me about the AGW/GW debate is that too many people want to discuss it in terms of absolutes-it is either absolutely occurring or it isn't.  As far as I can tell from the research, the scientific community, by and large, is still looking into GW/AGW in terms of probabilities of outcome, so to effectively debate it one must have a good enough understanding of statistics to discuss it on those terms, rather than reaching an absolute conclusion.  So any time someone rejects AGW/GW outright, claims it is a gigantic political hoax, or makes some of the outrageous assumptions that I see, I consider that opinion very suspect.  So from that perspective, no, I don't think it is 'OK' to reject the theory-there just isn't enough data and research to substantiate such a conclusion vs. the research and data that substantiates GW and indicates that mankind is having an impact on it.

On the other hand, there isn't enough certainty about what is going to happen in the future and how much mankind influences global warming to allow us to implement some of the solutions proposed; in fact, the debate is actually more about the risk factors involved in continuing with the status quo and what changes we need to make in how we impact the environment than any certainties of outcome.  So the second question you ask, is it 'OK' to reject the (so-called) solutions for AGW/GW.  My opinion on that is yes, it is OK, a least to some extent; there are issues with most of the solutions that have yet to be resolved, and unintended consequences with others-both environmentally and economically, as well as political consequences.

I include a caveat when I say it is OK to reject solutions by saying yes, to 'some extent.'  The reason for this is at the heart of your question is a potential contradiction-whether one "believes in" AGW/GW or not, if you sincerely care about the environment, you must be concerned about the impact 6 billion + human beings have on the planet, because it is enormous-recent history has proven that time and again.  Therefore it is very important to adopt new and more environmentally friendly technologies and finding new ways of helping and encouraging industry and developing nations do so as well.  Since many of the solutions you ask about rejecting are important environmental safeguards, GW or no, it is incumbent on those people who DO reject the solutions to propose better alternatives-if they cannot or do not, they are clearly in a classic Catch 22 situation when they claim to care about the environment.

Interesting and thought-provoking question, I'd like to see more discussion about the topic from perspectives like these.

Answer 13

Sure.  Excellent idea.

Answer 14

Absolutely, I have never met someone who does not care about the environment at least a little. I myself love the outdoors and nature. I conserve and even pick up trash throw on the ground by others (please pick up your own ****).

But I also realize there is NO scientific evidence to support AGW. It is an unproven theory designed to redistribute the wealth.

Answer 15

Yes of course.