Why did this environmentalist make this comment?

Question

This person opened up a forum to debate climate change. He commented on the fact the skeptics seem to be winning the debate.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/green-advocates-failing-in-climate-debate/

He then made the following comment:

The only feasible explanation that I can come up with so far is that perhaps Greens are less invested in the status quo, and therefore less motivated to protect it? THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS THAT WE ARE ALL COMPLETELY WRONG AND WE'RE DILUTED- PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN'T SO. (capitalization mine for emphasis)

I would think that if AGW is not real, it would be a moment of rejoicing. The world is not coming to an end, all is well. No need for costly measures.

So my question is why does he, and many others, WANT global warming to be true. Is he willing to believe anything because he wants global warming to be true?

Answer 1

Cindy:

Once again, with 385ppm of a poison in your body, I can kill you.

Trace concentrations DOES NOT MEAN no effect.

Don´t be upset, I did not say CO2 is a poison. Nor did I say it is a pollutant. I just proven your fallacious theory wrong Ms. "top contributor".

Answer 2

Not an option of wanting GW to be true.  It would be great if the evidence indicated it is not true, but the evidence indicates that human activity is changing the climate - it is not all natural variation, sun spots, cosmic rays, underseas volcanoes, or fairy dust.  Continuing with the status quo with as many people as there are on the planet is just impossible.  We need to advance and become sustainable.

Answer 3

What's interesting is how in the 1970's the burning of fossil fuels was causing us to head into a mini ice age because the hydrocarbons in the air was reflecting sunlight back into space.  Now it seems properties have changed in the last thirty some years and the burning of hydrocarbons is causing the Earth to hold in heat.  Weird, eh?

Answer 4

There are three levels of GW proponents. 1. Opportunists. 2. Fashionistas 3. Dupes.  Al Gore is a #1. He owns stock in GE's new light bulb. How convenient. He also owns stock in the "Carbon offset" industry. Leonardo DiCaprio is a #2. He thinks he's doing the right thing and it's keeping him on the front page. Those who espouse this radical thinking without examining the real facts and not making any money are all #3s.

Answer 5

Every piece of remotely usable evidence that environmentalists use is skewed and altered.  There is no global warming caused by man.  

Among the many things that they cannot deny is the fact that this planet has repeated this same exact cycle for millions and probably billions of years.

CO2 is merely 1 2500th of our total atmosphere at 385 parts per million... Yes, do the math...  Thereby is like a pebble trying to heat the moon.  

CO2 has lagged temperature increases by 800 years.  That means that when the temperature heats up, then CO2 will increase on average of about 800 years later.

Al Gore used Polar Bear lies...   One limping polar bear was shown to be starving and it was implied that global warming was the cause, excluding the fact and part of the video that showed that polar bear in a fight with a group of walruses.  If it were so true then there would be no need to lie.

NOW CO2 IS A POISON???  OMG...  What fruit trees did you guys drop out of.  CO2 is PLANT FOOD...  So, we wish to kill all the plants on Earth..... YEA, that would really solve everything....  LOL

Funny it is Springtime, yet there are Winter storms in both Oregon and Washington.... hmmmmmmm

Quick let's rename it to global cooling before they catch on...... lol

Answer 6

I'm an environmentalist, and I'm very worried about climate change.

I'd LOVE someone to totally disprove it. I'd LOVE a legitimate scientific paper (even if it was funded by the fossil fuel lobby) that has the IPCC scientists rigorously peer reviewing the research and then being forced (because it's watertight) to say something like "Oh yeah... Good. Okay everyone everything's fine. Burning coal and oil is good after all..."

I wish that was the case. I'd rejoice because right now I'm pretty d**n worried about my kid's future (not to mention my/our own)

But I don't see that happening. Why are fossil fuel companies also agreeing that climate change is real and that we're at least partly to blame?

Answer 7

I looked at the site you refer to and found it very interesting, along with your question

The author made a couple of other very interesting comments which I felt one in particular worth mentioning.

Especially since I do not believe that some of these people will bother to look, or will ignore what they feel to be 'inconvenient' to support their beliefs.

He states, "I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away - they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers."

Could this be because the so-called 'skeptics' are able to prove their point by using science instead of just believing media hype?

'Cindy W' is more 'tuned in' to reality, because she understands science.

Science does not lie, nor does it have any 'hidden agenda' to promote nor does it have any 'vested interest' which it needs to protect.

I would just like to add to Cindy's already brilliant contribution to show however exactly how insignificant mankind's impact really is on a 'Global Scale' if CO2 were a 'Greenhouse Gas'.

Mankind's production of CO2 according to the latest available statistics that I have found (2005) accounts for .014% of .038% of atmospheric levels, which makes mankind's yearly contribution to be 6.6 million to 1.

This should help to put things into perspective.

The so-called skeptics  are said to be in a state of denial because they either understand science, or have actually tried to find the truth out for themselves, and try to sort out the fact from the fiction.

I would say that the ones that are in denial are the AGW proponents, because they are only interested in their arrogant and misguided beliefs.

They will not let science, or basic intelligence, divert them from their 'religious belief', and fanaticism.

The only really 'Inconvenient Truth' for these people is the TRUTH!

Answer 8

The best answer I could give is look at the history of the earth. It has gone through ice ages and global warming without humans and with humans. I would take it with a grain of salt. To me it is just some scientist trying to make a name for himself.

Answer 9

if global warming was not happening it would be great. i would love to be wrong but i don't think we should Gamble on the 20/1 long shot that global warming is completely natural? (ipcc 4th report)

you take out insurance eaven though there is a small chance you will need it but with global warming not acting will be so much more costly.

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

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Answer 10

Because he's not well educated on the subject.  Individuals can mess up.

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/a...

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

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

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

EVERY major scientific organization has issued an official statement that this is real, and mostly caused by us.  The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

Good websites for more info:

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.a...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sci...

http://www.realclimate.org

"climate science from climate scientists"

http://environment.newscientist.com/chan...

Answer 11

It seems quite simple minded for people to say that the scientific evidence is that global warming is probably occurring.  If you look at the scientific evidence, the warming last century could easily be entirely natural as the earth has been hotter and warmed faster in human history.  It's not easy to come up with a plausible explanation how CO2 could be significantly effecting the environment.  The absorption band of CO2 is so small it's like saying that if you spit in the ocean you will cause the sea level to rise - with lots of positive feedback mechanisms.  

If it was even plausible that we the human race was causing catastrophic climate change then everyone would want to do something about it.  Nobody wants to damage the environment, but not everyone has blind faith that we are.  

For the IPCC to state that we're 90% likely that we've caused significant climate change seems to be putting the survival of the IPCC above scientific objectivity.  Lets face it, if they said it's 10% likely that we are causing significant warming then people would start to ask why are we spending billions on something that's probably not even real.

Answer 12

If I found out that someone I trusted was lying to me, I would be severely disappointed.  Maybe he is finding out that global warming is not proven, or that skeptics are not flat earthers.  Environmentalist, the people he trusts, are saying the opposite, and he is having trouble coming to grips with the fact that they are wrong or are lying.