Regardless of the level of proof is a matter as unfortunate and important as AGW bound to cause denial?

Question

AGW - anthropogenic global warming (man made)

If we recognise this we may be able to see that the work being put in is resulting in a standard of proof far higher than is really needed to justify action. Denial feeds all sorts of objections most not agreeing with each other and some seem to me to be like designs for perpetual motion machines, complex and long winded and missing the basic physics of the situation?

Answer 1

This is a good summary of the primary goal of the “global warming skeptics” -- to delay action on global warming until after just a few more profits can be made by the oil and coal industries.

These guys are really not interested in evidence or facts or science. Case in point is the “2008 International Conference on Climate Change” this weekend in New York, sponsored by ExxonMobil (oops, I meant the Heartland Institute).

"Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organizers are surprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:

"'The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.'

"So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports."[1]

Answer 2

Or...  global warming skeptics realize that cycles happen on earth, and its arrogant to believe we can affect something as large as the climate, and atmosphere.  Its not denial, we just have reason to believe we are not the cause of it.  Just like an athiest has reason to believe god doesnt exist.  Its not denial of the existence of it, its denial of the cause for it.  Im not supporting something that has so many unanswered questions.  I honestly dont care about the organizations or acadamies that support it.  This is just a plot to ween us off of oil, but its the dumbest arguement in existence!  If we stop using oil in america, it will just make it cheaper for all the developing nations... who will just increase their usage of it.  And as ive said before, we cant deny them the right to use fossil fuels to advance their nations like we do.

Sorry, I cant post links to my books.  Theyre on my shelf....  I can tell you which ones though.

Hey, why cant people type their own words instead of copy/pasting?  Cant think for yourself?

Answer 3

There's no doubt about it.  I mean, look at the objections raised by the deniers to the AGW theory.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

In these questions I raised better objections than the deniers did!  They seem to think that the AGW theory requires CO2 and temperatures to increase at a 1-to-1 rate, and that because this doesn't happen, the theory is bunk.  It's simply absurd.

They only deny the theory at this point for the sake of denial.  Deep down they know it's right.

Answer 4

Unfortunately for Dr Jello [above] some oil companies also now believe that GHG emissions are causing climate change. I've read an interview with BP's chief scientific officer, Dr Steve Koonin, and he is genuinely convinced by the science. And he's not someone who'd be easily 'hoaxed'.

BP: ‘There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.’

http://www.globeinternational.org/conten...

http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?cate...

Shell:  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€Â˜There is now a strong scientific consensus that recent changes in our global climate are almost certainly caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, in particular from fossil fuel use and deforestation, are the main contributing factors.’

http://www.shell.com/home/content/enviro...

Answer 5

I see AGW believers using pseudo science to justify haterid and bigotry towards oil corporations.  Once this hate builds, then they appear poised to justify taking their earned money.

One doesn't need to believe that man can effect the climate before he can reduce pollution.  This is a false and incorrect presumption that AGW is built on.  So it's clear the belief in AGW is flawed.

It would be nice to get rid of fossil fuel power plants, and get cars to burn less fuel.  No one is against these goals.  Believers look towards gvmt to force their beliefs on others, and put those who don't follow the believers creed in jail, while objective people look at the free market for the solution.

Build nuclear power plants.  Only people who are scared of modern technology oppose this technology.  Allow competition between power corporations.  People will select the power station that is greener.

Nuclear power gives electric cars the ability to run without creating any ghg's.  It also gives homes the ability to get rid of their gas and oil heat and water heaters.

Stop funding global warming.  Use the funds to build nuclear power.