None of us would be posting in this category if we didn't have real concerns?

Question

We are limited to what can be done other then a personal level.If AGW,or GW is real or a scam don't we have something in common?

1.) Polictical

2.)Environmental

3.)Econmical

4.)Judical

5.)Scientific

What is your opinion on one or more of the above topics?Be respectful of each other please...

Answer 1

My main interest in life is science.  I hate to see it corrupted and used by those who have political goals.  Many no doubt are naive and always believe the worst.  Science is being corrupted by money being handed out to only those that can show doom.  A rather funny example is how global warming is helping poison ivy.  They can't study beneficial aspects to farming or environments.  They have to use a plant that nobody likes.  Doom is hyped all out of proportion and science is taking a severe blow to its credibility.  Members of the Global Warming Doomsday Cult need to stop acting like they are speaking scientifically.

Answer 2

No, the topic is not dominated by "real concerns" at all, so I have to object to that implied statement in your question.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_cha...

"Modern skepticism," according to Michael Shermer, editor of the scientific skepticism quarterly Skeptic, "is embodied in the scientific method, that involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement."[11] Terms such as "deny global warming" and "climate change denial" have been used since 2000 to describe business opposition to the current scientific consensus.[12] Organizations such as the Global Climate Coalition, according to a leaked 1991 "strategy memo," set out not to gather data and test explanations, but to influence public perception of climate change science and "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact."[13] The strategy was criticized as misrepresenting science in a 2006 Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil expressing disappointment that a recent industry publication "leaves readers with such an inaccurate and misleading impression of the evidence on the causes of climate change ... documented in the scientific literature."[14]

It's pointless to engage in debate with the professional denialists, or with people who accept their propaganda as credible.  If they're not interested in scientific consensus, they're going to make whatever leaps of faith that may be required to protect their interests that they feel are more important (whatever that may be on an individual by individual basis).

I also disagree that much can be done on a personal level.  With 70% of the issue tied up in energy production and transportation, solutions are needed at the national public policy level in essentially all nations worldwide.  I disagree strongly with allowing devleoping countries to have a free pass to increase carbon emissions.  Until more people get involved in the conversation (stop wasting time in denial and start proposing or supporting sane responses) we're leaving all of the decisions to the people who are supporting the UN's biased proposals.

Asking one generation of people in a few developed countries to pay for the past 150 years of accidental excess (and paying for the next 20-40 years while we work on the problem) is absurd.  Even in developed countries most people are concerned with putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.

The subprime loan scandal shows how millions of individual people can be saddled with the cost of a multi-trillion dollar loss, affecting not only the people being kicked out of their houses because they are unable to refinance their adjustible loans now at 11% to today's 6% market rate, but also people with money in mutual funds that invested in the bonds, and anyone else in the stock market who takes a hit in the aftermath.  As our currency suffers, that affects all of our product and living costs.  Meanwhile the coporate executives involved depart with multi-million dollar bonuses.  

By confusing the discussion and delaying action on global warming, several industries are setting us all up to foot the bill for future economic hits on a much larger scale.  That's One aspect that makes this much different from the similar campaign waged to deny science related to tobacco smoking is that we can't individually choose not to be on this planet or to not pay the consequences of the outcome.  I'd encourage skeptics to get involved in shaping the plans to respond to global warming now, so they're not marginalized without adequate political representation and simply taken along for the UN's ride later.

Answer 3

I personally believe that man is contributing to global warming and that it is a real threat.

Having said that, let's suppose that I am wrong and science proves that we are not causing global warming or worsening it.

I think it is more than clear that, in many other ways,  man is doing serious damage to our environment.

We've been warning about this for 40 years or so.  Very few really listened.  The earth is in critical condition, even without global warming.  

We talked about solar energy and such back then, but not until now have these technologies for the most part been developed enough to really be solutions to the environmental problem.  

However there are so many things we could have been doing to aleviate our impact.   For one, passive solar has been mostly ignored.  How many millions of houses were built in the intervening years without any thought to passive solar and solar water heating which are very low tech and have been around for ages?  What a waste.  Houses aren't even sited with regard to angles of the sunlight etc.  We also could have done better in conservation and recycling, although at least recycling is much better.

  Every single measure being recommended now, to stop global warming is what we should be doing regardless of global warming.  A lot more than carbon dioxide comes out of tailpipes and smoke stacks, chemical that are harmful to the environment and our health.

  Attaining energy independence in itself is worth the change.  Stopping the burning of fossil fuels is  even more important just to stop polluting our environment to death.  

We live in a chemical soup these days.   National Geographic did an article last year on toxins in our bodies.  They tested a man for something like 260 chemicals.  He had 165 of them in his body, including dangerous levels of PCBs, Mercury, PHTs (I think they're called which are used as flame retardants and for softening plastics.)  They tested him for 28 pesticides, he had 16 of them in his body, including DDT which has been banned for 30 years now.   This man was an average American as far as lifestyle etc, never having worked in any industry where he would be exposed to high levels of these chemicals.



Our oceans are close to failing entirely.  Fish stocks are down 90%, some whale species are at 1%.  Just in California alone 39 of 67 native fish species are extinct or at risk of extinction.

90% of California wetlands have disapeared.

50 species of birds in S.F bay area in danger of going extinct.

Coral reefs which are necessary for the health of the entire ocean are in serious troulble worldwide.

These are just a few of what has to be thousands of such frightening statistics that demonstrate what we are doing to the environment.

  It is obvious to any thinking person that we are greatly harming the ecosystems on earth.  I doubt that there is a single ecosystem on earth that isn't in danger.  And we are an integral part of those ecosystem, as they go, so we go.  It is imossible to survive apart from them.  Everything is interconnected and interdependent.

  And all the measures recommended for ending global warming are absolutely necessary to stop this global destruction.  Global warming or not.

Answer 4

I like your "Be respectful of each other please" I don't get that from others.  Thank you!

I believe both the AGW and GW (Just because we're here to measure it the temperature changes now doesn't mean we caused it.) movement are economical and political in nature.  



In the end it really boils down to a re-distribution of wealth (e.g. Socialism) by politicians who 'think' they are doing us a favor.    

In order to 'solve' AGW or GW they'll have to pass tax laws to fight it. The idea of taxing the cleaner countries (yes, the USA) or it's people to subsidize polluters like China and India is ludicrous.

AGW also seems to be arranged as a manner by which to create the need for a solution to the "problem".  It's the mantra of environmentalists, blame man first.

As a skeptic of AGW or GW, as a denier, or whatever you want to call me, I'm not anti-environment. I doubt that even the most hardened skeptics of AGW or GW wants the environment to be trashed.

I also tend to believe that carbon credit corporations are basically 'snake oil' salesmen.  But that's my opinion.

#1 and #3 are my answers.

Answer 5

I could really get deeply into this, but to briefly address each point, here is my thinking:

1) Political – legislation should never be based on science that is controversial. Further,

the primary agenda of AGW politically is globalization – one world government – an idea that most in the free world consider unpalatable.

2) Environmental – nobody wants to do irreversible damage to the environment, nor deplete finite natural resources, but neither do they want to have the advancement of civilization thwarted by environmentalists. There is balance that can be reached, but they don’t want balance, they want it all their way.  

3) Economics – there are two issues here: first, most people do not like the idea of slowing down our economy and being at a global disadvantage while other countries’ economies boom at our expense. Further, they are not thrilled by the idea of reverting to the horse-and-buggy days of our forefathers, which is what the eco-fascists want. Secondly, plans like Kyoto cost more than they can solve. Most put the cost of Kyoto in the hundreds of billions to trillions. Some suggest that ½ the world’s GDP could be spent on Kyoto. And for what end? To reduce global temperature at best 1° C

4) Judicial – by this I presume you mean how our freedoms will be stripped away by laws that control energy use, and will ultimately control how we live our lives.

5) Scientific – the hijacking of science by politicians is a grave concern. Especially when we see things like the IPCC releasing its Summary for Policymakers months before the scientific conclusions are in. Funding for proponents of AGW is huge, while funding for scientists who oppose the AGW view is cut off. This, among other nonsense like the alleged “consensus of scientists” is an unadulterated perversion of what science is all about.