People who think global warming is fake...?

Question

This is a question for everybody but mostly people who strongly disagree with global climate change.

Do you think there has been some good out of all this concern?

i mean think of all the new technology invented to help the planet. such as fuel efficient to even gas-free vehicles, and new ways to aquire energy.

What good do you think is coming out of this?

Answer 1

Overall and when its all said and done, we will move onto the next crisis.  You are right, what will come of all this is new technology, new jobs and of course new drama, but m ost importantly new technology  :)  

Some very real near term problems are the lack of water and other natural resources, such as the rare earth elements and maybe even coal.   Heck, even qualified ppl are becoming a scarcity, its said that most of the experience with nuclear reactors is set to retire within the next 10-20 years.  This wont be the worst problem as there really does not seem to be enough uranium to fuel all the reactors they want to build.

Goof

Answer 2

I think that this paranoia of "global warming" is extreme.  There have been ice ages & warmer ages throughout history; some animals have died, & some have survived.  As for fuel different than petroleum, that has been around for many years but kept quiet by the automobile companies to keep their business as was.  I think that some things need improving - like the air - because we breath it.  I think that definitely some of the warming is man made, but nature has a play in some of it.  It is the way it is supposed to be to some degree, I think.  There is some good coming from this that we don't even know yet except for God.

Answer 3

This was happening even without this panic.  Industry is constantly looking for ways to use less energy, recycle more, and to do more with less.  This is the way to make greater profits.

To deliberately scare people to get them what you want is acting shameful and irresponsible.  It breaks a public trust.

No one can say if it will be warmer or colder this summer, next year, or at any time in the future.  People are just stating a guess, nothing more.  There is nothing scientific about guessing.

Answer 4

We are having enough problems dealing with terrorism and the 12 trillion dollar a month budget for Iraq and Afghanistan.  Why should we just add fuel to the fire and pay even more money to something that is fake?  It has been proven time and time again that it is BS, yet the only ones who will speak out against it are the ones that don't care about grant money.  

This is a serious problem in that it deters us from true conservation concerns, such as rising oil prices, food prices and other crisis that we can impact and are REAL.

It is ridiculous that we have people that were born with a silver spoon in their mouth and are so far up Maslow's heiarchy of needs scale that they have to make up problems just to occupy their time and line their wallets.

Give a scientist a living wage and he will give you knowledge. Give a scientist wealth and he will give you anything you want.

Answer 5

global warming is soooooooooooooooo overrated!!! :(

Answer 6

Isn't that kind of like saying good things came out of the Holocaust?  Hitler's goons experimented on humans and made some advances, but was it worth it?  No it wasn't.  AGW obviously isn't anything like the Holocaust, but the idea is the same.  Are advancements due to a hoax good?  Sure, but not for the people victimized by the hoax.

Answer 7

1) Haven't paid attention to the clear evidence:

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nCanari...

2) Don't understand that it is starting to affect their food costs today, and may affect availability of food for them in the near future:

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nFood.h...

3) Don't understand that the current summaries such as the IPCC reports seriously underestimate the magnitude of the warming:

http://www.barentsobserver.com/hottest-a...

"This winter might become the mildest winter in Northern Norway ever registered. So far the average temperature in parts of the region has been up to eight degrees Celsius above the normal."

4) Don't understand that the rate of warming is not consistent with past natural warming:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk...

"The paper also states that the thickness of the Pine Island Glacier has shrunk by an average of 3.8 centimeters annually over the past 4,700 years. But the Smith and Pope glaciers have only lost 2.3 centimeters of their thickness annually during the past 14,500 years. Satellite measurements taken between 1992 and 1996, though, show a loss of 1.6 meters in thickness per year on the Pine Island Glacier -- a figure that represents 42 times the average melt of the past 4,700 years."

Answer 8

I've had more than my fair share of debate and discussion with the naysayers and skeptics. Here's what I have learned.

Most are seriously uninformed because they don't keep up to date on the latest info available.

Yet, to their defense ( as best as I can ), they focus on the "cause"...............man made or natural.

To me thats a superfluous and irrelevant point. It's happening today, accept it and decide what you want to do or not do.

Personally, even if it's man made, from my source of information that I accept, we are past the point of no return. We simply can not respond fast enough. Natural, then there's even less to stop or reverse it.

Glad to hear someone else tired of the "it's a hoax".

I always end by saying....."I hope their right and I'm wrong..."

Answer 9

most of us agree about " Climate Change"

This has happened many times in history......

What I don't agree on , is that man had anything to do with it, can do anything to alter it or stop it...

It's force of nature... and the only thing humans may have done is over populated the earth... if so nature will reduce the population....

Answer 10

Well you got the usual bunch of skeptics who have nothing to back up their claims.

  Nothing good will come out of doing what we are doing.  That is the point that these people aren't seeing.  



Did you know that oil and gas have hidden costs in the U.S economy of up to $800 billion annually?

This includes huge subsidies, military costs of up to $100 billion annually to protect oil shipments, and huge costs from pollution, like health and environmental costs of all kinds.   Oil adds $300 billion to our trade imbalance annually.

  And then there are the geopolitical issues, wars in the mideast etc.  The Iraq war is costing at least $1trillion and probably twice that.  Oh, you though it was about fighting Al Queda, because of 9/11?  Iraq was not one of the many countries, where Al Queda actually existed.  

  BB  says AGW theory is pure speculation.  

"This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world."



Did you catch that BB?  the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history.  

That's mere speculation?   OK

Yes, Cindy W

  We are spending $trillions in Iraq for what?  For oil of course.  And we spend $800 billion annually in hidden cost of oil right here in the good old USA.   That is, economically,  the very worst plan of action for the future imaginable.

And AGW is fake?  Are you kidding?  You actually believe that there are a large number of legitimate climate scientists who are skeptics, but it isn't true.  

Here are the scientific organizations that support the findings

"The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ..."

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)

Royal Society of Canada

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Academié des Sciences (France)

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)

Indian National Science Academy

Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)

Science Council of Japan

Russian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society (United Kingdom)

National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

"In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)

American Geophysical Union (AGU)

American Institute of Physics (AIP)

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

American Meteorological Society (AMS)

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

Where is your list?  All the large lists of skeptics  have been shown to be phony.

Oh and I suppose you imagine that all these scientists are alarmists. Read the following.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm

"The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."

"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."

"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."

"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."

"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."

"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."

You think the climate scientists are all doing it for financial gain?   You have no idea what you are talking about.  I'm not trying to be mean, you just don't.

  If you go to the websites I've listed you will see that there is no political prostitution. That is an idea fed to you by right wing think tanks and propaganda machines. And yes the oil companies through the Heartland Institute, The Heritage Foundation and many more. That is where you will find political prostitution. The Heartland Institute is paying people to write papers or make speaches against AGW. $1000 a speach and $10,000 a paper.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfact...

BB and others think it's just part of a natural cycle.

This is otherwise know as the null hypothesis theory.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12...

"Objection: Natural variability is the null hypothesis; there must be compelling evidence of an anthropogenic CO2 warming effect before we take it seriously."

"Answer: The null hypothesis is a statistical test, and might be a reasonable approach if we were looking only for statistical correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature. But we're not -- there are known mechanisms involved whose effects can be predicted and measured. These effects are the result of simple laws of physics, even if their interactions are quite complex."

"But putting aside inappropriate application of the null hypothesis, we are indeed well outside the realm of natural global variability, as seen over the last 2,000 years and even over the last 12,000 years. We can go back several hundreds of thousands of years and we still see that the temperature swings of the glacial/interglacial cycles were an order of magnitude slower than the warming rate we are now experiencing. "

"In fact, outside of catastrophic geological events like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum there are no known precedents for warming this fast on a global scale. I'd say the case for "it's all natural" is the one that needs explaining.

Oh, and by the way, we do in fact have compelling evidence."

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1...

And much good will come out of change.  

In fact, alternative energy will revitalize our economy.  It won't have all those hidden costs and pollution.  It won't get us into wars.

Answer 11

The Earth's climate is not..... nor will it ever be....static.  The Earth's climate runs in cycles of warming and cooling....... it always has and it always will.

The belief that man has caused any warming or cooling is based on pure speculation and manipulation...... and has not come close to being proven.

For starters..... the temperature data used by scientists to study the Earth's climate trends is seriously flawed!!  This flawed data has resulted in higher-than-actual temperatures being reported in what have been proven to be...... flawed findings.

You can't have good science using bad data!