Why the either/or mentality regarding global climate change?

Question

Having spent a lot of time on this topic here, I see a clear pattern of needless divisiveness that seems to come from nothing but narrow thinking and simple ignorance. Uneducated individuals keep repeating either that "humans are the cause" or "it's been going on long before humans; it's all natural." But in fact, science shows that it is BOTH.

We've known for a long time that climate patterns have changed dramatically over Earth's long history -- nobody of merit is disputing that. We are also acquiring ever-more data which shows mankind has *contributed* to and accelerated the much more recent trends of climate change.

Whether their motives are laziness, ignorance, or subterfuge, this childish oversimplification is getting in the way of public acceptance by artificially extending settled "debate"! It amazes me how common this is!

Unless and until we stop seeing it as one OR the other, there will be unnecessary bickering, rather than a focus on the facts and the solutions!

Answer 1

Global warming is like Evolution. Did man come from monkey? Did Global warming come from man? Nobody knows for sure.

Answer 2

You're right.  Although some of our actions have contributed to the process thereby speeding it up, Nature runs in cycles.  One of those cycles is the changing temperatures.

Answer 3

Actually the global warming over the past 30 years has been ~80-90% due to human greenhouse gas emissions.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Clima...

We're in a gradual long-term cooling portion of the Milankovitch cycles

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

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

and solar output has decreased over that time period.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/62902...

Honestly it kind of bugs me when people say "global warming is a natural cycle but we're making it worse", because we're not in a warming portion of the natural cycles, so this is simply wrong.

Answer 4

The oversimplification can sometimes be annoying, but the issue is complex and it doesn't make sense to state the complete scientific background or every potential caveat for every point being discussed.  

Regarding the people who simply don't know better, that's simply a reflection of who's out there and we need to involve everyone in the discussion and solutions.  Perhaps they'll hang around long enough to make more informed contributions in the future.

In the meantime though I don't think that you can stop people from seeing it as one OR the other.  There are companies paying millions of dollars to make sure that illogical but reasonable-sounding arguments are in front of the public on a constant basis, so get used to seeing them.  For thsoe special interests, the longer they can foster the appearance of some great debate or controversy, the longer they can delay our response and the more money they make.

Answer 5

I concur.

climate change is a problem, but even if it's not really happening, pollution is, and we only have so much atmosphere and water to suck it up. We need to use less power and go renewable / electric regardless.

Answer 6

A)  Money.

B)  The potential consequences to the planet and population.

A)  Exxon,  "Don't mess with our profits."  SUV owners, "Don't take my car away."  some ordinary folk, "I don't want to pay $10 or $20 a gallon for gasoline, like Limburger is telling us we'll have to."  others, "It's those money grubbing politicians, and environmentalists, trying to rob us blind.  You got a problem, you go fix it.  My money's mine, and i don't want to waste it on these lies."

B)  "I'd like my grandchildren to live in the kind of world i live in. "  "I don't want the dust bowl days to return, and people standing in soup lines for their daily meal."

this really is not an issue in which it's okay if we do, and it's okay if we don't, address it.  the time is critical, the money is huge, and the consequences are potentially very large, but invisible to most of us today.

add to that that there are a large number of folks who can only think of 2 answers (yes or no, right or wrong, stay or leave (in Iraq), etc) to any question.  when you apply that limited thinking to complex problems, you get simple solutions.  if there really were simple solutions, then they wouldn't be problems -- they'd have been fixed.

Answer 7

you've obviously mistaken yahoo answers for an intelligent forum, this site is for amusement purposes only.

now are you for us or against us? you have to choose!  either red or dead no pinkos allowed!

how about this theory. AGW is countering the global cooling we should be entering into based on the 10 to 13 thousand year average span of past interglacial periods.

its elegant & it cant be disproven,everybody wins

NEXT PROBLEM PLEASE!

Answer 8

Anyone who still believes in global warming is either

1 a wacko who should be in a mental hospital

2 Special interest group who like this hoax to go on so they can make a profit of it or to help their political careers.

I am not going to waste my time going over point by point why this hoax is so dangerous. It seems i have done that on several previous answers and people are too ignorant to listen. Maybe they will listen when their lives and the lives of their children feel the effects of the economy after it collapse due to the billions of dollars flushed down the toilet because of this nonsense. I guess we want to be remembered as the most stupid and ignorant generation off all time.  .

Answer 9

I think that this issue is much more divisive in the USA than elsewhere.  I read The Economist and New Scientist, both with a European point of view.  They will discuss degrees of influence. You do not find an article that says either industrialization or natural systems are 100% of the impact on climate.  That would be laughable.  

I think the either/or attitude has much to do with our (US) two party system.  If one party seems to "own" a position on an issue, the other side is duty bound to attack it.  

Bush denied it, Gore made a movie about how important it was.  The party lines were drawn.  

Although Bush has recently admitted to man made climate change, many of the die hards still believe in a conspiracy.    I think the original denial of global warming was thought to help US business.  Bush did not want to regulate the oil and coal companies.  US manufacturing, especially our auto industry, is in decline and on the defensive. The Bush administration thought its denial would help these industries by not adopting further environmental standards.  I think this ignores the possible long term gains by kicking these industries to be the leaders rather than the laggers in environmental science and energy use, but that's debatable.  As the billions of Chinese and Indians adopt an American lifestyle in the next decades, we will certainly find out if man made climate change is a hoax or not.