How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Spectral]

Yeah, I agree with that. There's couple more things I'd like them to change - for example the completely useless normalized car CO2 emission tests and related ransom they demand from car manufacturers, but that's for whole another topic.

Are you saying you're against emissions standards for cars or am I misreading you? If that's accurate, why is that your position?

[Skippy88]

I just know on Saturday it was +14 Celsius where I lived. Most of the snow is gone from my lawn. Sure occasionally there is a bit of a thaw around this time but not to that degree. 2 years ago we had one of the most snow-filled winters ever which caused flooding in my basement when it melted. Last year we hardly had any snow. This year we had a big snowstorm around Christmas but little anything else although we are expecting 5-10 cm this weekend.

Yep, everything is just fine with the weather. /sarcasm

[h4rr0d]

Are you saying you're against emissions standards for cars or am I misreading you? If that's accurate, why is that your position?

I'm not against emissions standards per se, I'm against their current implementation in EU (and to lesser extent the new ones being implemented in the US). The whole problem of the EU standards and the battery of tests related to them is, that they work only in theory. Car manufacturers are forced to downsizing, implementing tons of electronic assistants and systems that no one wants just because according to some table those systems will - in ideal conditions - decrease fuel consuption by 0.1 l/100km which translates to xy g of CO2.
The result is car that no one really wants, but since there isn't anything better (new) on the market, consumers are forced to buy them. Have you checked BMW production lately? Manual transmission models are reserved for US market. Why do you think that is?

About those table fuel consumptions - my car is supposed to have 13.8/6.8/9.3 (city/outside/combined). No one I know with that car ever gets below 10.5 long term.

The table limits might be working for ordinary cars. But once you get a real car (200+ bhp), those tables suddenly stop working and do more harm than good - the car is tuned to score high in the theoretical test, but in real life no one is going to drive the car like that. And thanks to the tuning, you are getting higher fuel consumption with less fun than you'd be getting without those limitations

[Cthulhu 2020]

"The earth goes through normal cooling and warming periods."

Yeah but our current warming period is warming at hundreds of times the normal rate of any previous warming period, that's not natural.

[Sayl]

CFCs were a real problem that was largely resolved, because of regulatory action.

Speaking of which, I wonder how many people have seen this: The World We Avoided by Protecting the Ozone Layer (NASA)

Global reduction in ozone levels would lead to a huge increase in dangerous
ultraviolet (UV) radiation, with summer noontime UV index values at mid-latitudes
rising to 30—three times the level currently considered extreme.

Yikes.

[Raelbo]

Speaking of which, I wonder how many people have seen this: The World We Avoided by Protecting the Ozone Layer (NASA)

I pray that one day our children will look at a similar graph showing global temperature. Sadly, and given the way the world has a propensity to rather try and deny reality in order to avoid inconvenience, the graph will be the other way round, showing what the situation could have been had the politicians bothered to think about our future...

[bergmann620]

Here's the bottom line, with regards to climate change, and it doesn't matter if you 'believe' in it or not:

We could take many different actions to limit our impact on the warming of the Earth. There are problems, though:

1) Many of these actions have severe negative impacts on the lifestyles of people in particular regions. I'm not saying they aren't for the best long term, but 'the long term' doesn't feed peoples' kids, or protect them from fallout.

I'm breaking this out with a quote, because I can't help but appreciate the irony of a push for more nuclear power in the wake of Fukushima Daiichi. Instead of incremental damage to the environment through emissions and warming, we'd rather wager catastrophic damage at some point down the line. Now, I am largely pro-nuclear, but to ignore the risks and costs associated with nuclear energy seems as dangerous or moreso than the status quo. That's the problem inherent with any plan devised by humans- we talk ourselves into believing something can be foolproof. We think that with enough 'oversight' or 'regulation' we will be safe, when it's all really a roll of the dice.

2) We have a limited understanding of the long-term consequences of our drive to 'improve' the environment. I'm pretty sure no one predicted that our efforts to reduce large-particulate air pollution would acutely contribute to a warming trend, but it did.

3) Our dependence on cheap energy is going to undermine any governmental effort. We'll never be able to afford the cost of clean energy without a fairly large reduction in energy usage. This is quite the catch-22, as we're never going to reduce our energy usage without an economic imperative to do so.

4) We have no way to deal with the international nature of the problem. Developing countries are not willing to shoulder a carbon burden their 'big brothers' never had to carry, and at the same time, any country committing to a change in energy sourcing is going to put a sizable portion of their economy at a competitive disadvantage.

It's easy to look at a coal mine or coal-fired power plant and think, 'There has to be a green alternative!' It's more difficult when you have friends or family in the mountains of Kentucky or West Virgina that are already close to poor working in a mine. There are whole towns and counties whose economies depend on those coal jobs. We need to makes changes, but you have to remember that the voters fighting against climate change legislation aren't necessarily dupes- they're quite often people whose lives depend on the thing being decried. Theory is a lot easier to debate than reality, and theory that is detached from YOUR life is even easier.

The reality is, the only way we jump off the treadmill is through a generational change of values. We need to leverage our new-found efficiency at everything from making shoes to growing food in a means that lifts us up, rather than drags us down. We need to slowly wean ourselves from the consumerist teat. We need to raise kids that are citizens (of their community, country, and planet) rather than sales demographics and brand whores. We need the answer for once to not be 'more stuff'. We need to realize that, for the future of the species, whether in regards to climate, jobs, world economy, etc, we need to fundamentally change the course we're on. We need to do so, though, in a manner that is respectful towards everyone being impacted.

[The Riddler]

Mostly because the global warming / climate change / whatever-the-heck-they-call-it-now issue is hopelessly mired in bad science, political bias, and blind activism gone amok.

The mere discussion itself cannot take place because AGW advocates can't get so far as the basic terminology down. They keep saying "Global Warming" but when they can't prove any "Warming" then they talk about "Climate Change" - as if that hasn't been happening since the planet first started circling the sun.

Then the AGW advocates go even further and start mixing their definitions and cherry-picking their terms to favor themselves. Here is the rhetorical trick they use... When an AGW acolyte talks about "climate change" what they really mean is that "human beings and their C02 emissions are the primary cause of climate change and we must implement high taxes, strict limitations on human activity, and Draconian restrictions on industry and production to save the planet." However, when most normal human beings talk about "climate change" all they mean is that the climate is showing signs of - well - CHANGE.

So when an AGW disciple says "climate change" they are talking about a far more radical, far less scientific, and far more controversial thing than 99+% of the population. However, they never explain that. They simply say "Climate change" as if they were talking about the same thing everyone else was - when they are definitely not. That's how they get away with such sophistry as claiming that "this is settled science" and "90% of all scientists agree..." Bzzzt! Totally untrue. Scientists agree with the very banal, unremarkable claim that the climate is changing because that's like saying "humans need oxygen". It is self evident. However, if you get specific and ask, "Is human activity the primary factor that is causing current trends in climate?" and the story is completely different.

That's why people say they do "NOT" believe in "Global Warming". Because AGW zealots are mixing and matching the language so that they can wrap up whatever bull-crap theories they have into the words. However, right thinking folks who do not accept those faith-based theories can rightly be critical of them, while still believing that yes the climate DOES change but no human beings are NOT the primary cause of it.

[Grizzly Willy]

Good thing these aren't faith based theories then.

[bergmann620]

That's why people say they do "NOT" believe in "Global Warming". Because AGW zealots are mixing and matching the language so that they can wrap up whatever bull-crap theories they have into the words. However, right thinking folks who do not accept those faith-based theories can rightly be critical of them, while still believing that yes the climate DOES change but no human beings are NOT the primary cause of it.

You can't blame the prevalence of misinformation on just one side. Both sides of the debate have extremists that are obviously more politically or economically driven than science-driven.

You can't logically hold a position that what we introduce into the environment has no effect on the environment. Overall, we're dealing with a fairly closed (albeit infinitely complex) system. We can study and debate the rate/amount our actions exceeds nature's ability to neutralize those actions, but you simply can't debate that our actions themselves are not neutral. Also up for debate are the measures we take to counteract our contributions, but, once again, there isn't really any debate that generally trying to 'keep the planet nice' is a bad thing.

It's kind of like going camping. You're sure to affect the area you camp in, whether through a fire, or catching fish to eat, or even affecting the flora by pitching a tent. You might even generate trash. The fire and the tent will be dealt with by nature in little to no time. Hell, a bird might even incorporate some of your 'trash' into a nest were it left behind. That said, can you really argue that it's not best to bag your trash on the way out?

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 11:32 AM ----------

Good thing these aren't faith based theories then.

To the scientists, they're not. To the advocates and politicians, they might as well be. To the businesses that have interests in funding the advocates and politicians, they worship at the alter on a daily basis.

I acknowledge the business interests behind traditional power and manufacturing- I just ask they people be cognizant that there are plenty of people looking to make a buck going the other way, too, and much of that business can be equally unsavory.

Doing some research on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and then looking at the political push for Cap-&-Trade laws, you can see just how much money interested parties have/had on the line. Money inspires a lot of faith.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Mostly because the global warming / climate change / whatever-the-heck-they-call-it-now issue is hopelessly mired in bad science, political bias, and blind activism gone amok....snip

You seem to be stuck on the terminology and language, so I'm going to explain this in a way that's really simple to understand.

Global warming is the term for the observed phenomena of the increase in Earths average surface temperature. The earth is warming. We have empirical data to back this claim up. No one denies this (except people like Rush Limbaugh who claim its currently cooling, without evidence).

Climate change is a long term change in the Earths climate, or a specific region of the Earth.

Both terms are correct, both terms are used by scientists and laymen alike.

Now that we have gotten past the language, are you willing to look at the science?

[Wells]

There's too much misinformation so I'm going to side with the people spreading misinformation!

[Endus]

You seem to be stuck on the terminology and language, so I'm going to explain this in a way that's really simple to understand.

Global warming is the term for the observed phenomena of the increase in Earths average surface temperature. The earth is warming. We have empirical data to back this claim up. No one denies this (except people like Rush Limbaugh who claim its currently cooling, without evidence).

Climate change is a long term change in the Earths climate, or a specific region of the Earth.

Both terms are correct, both terms are used by scientists and laymen alike.

And just to be clear, the reason scientists have tended to move away from "global warming" and use "global climate change" instead, is not because "global warming" is innaccurate. It's just descriptive of one factor, when there's a host of factors in play that are better described as "climate change".

It also means that people who don't understand the term can't say "it's totes colder here than it was two years ago, so global 'warming' ain't true!" Climate shifts may mean certain locations see short-term drops even while the global average is increasing; that was never a contradiction of the theory, and the new label makes that more clear to even those who don't understand the science behind it.

[Stasso]

Worse case scenario, modern society falls, the same society causing the planet to warm, and we are force to live the way we did for thousands of years before steel, and gold. So the activists will have there way either way, do something we live, do nothing we live.

So really i rather spend all this money in climate change for educating women across the world and preventing tragedies against our own kind. All this concern wasted on a planet who is indifferent to us is sickening when we have aids rampant in Africa and gang rapes in India. We have more pressing concerns than this.

[The Riddler]

You can't blame the prevalence of misinformation on just one side. Both sides of the debate have extremists that are obviously more politically or economically driven than science-driven.

This is very true. Both sides have their extremists. However, I have not yet seen any conclusive data that proves that human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are the primary (or even a significant factor at all) in global temperature. There are far more powerful variables involved. Most of the models being slung around are absolute bunkum from a purely statistical point of view. I have seen nothing to cause me to believe that there is even a "problem", let alone convince me that global-scale tax and spend programs (and accompanying crackdowns on human industry) would "solve" those hypothetical problems.

I have found that when confronted with the reality that there is no conclusive scientific "proof" for the claim that anthropogenic theory of global climate change, and that the so-called 'consensus' is in fact only a consensus on far less radical things such as the fact that temperatures have increased (without associating causality), the radicals on the "AGW Zealot" side fall back on the rather unscientific and emotional argument of "We can't take a chance! We must do SOMETHING!" No - such Chicken Little arguments hold no truck with me.

Doing some research on the Chicago Climate Exchange, and then looking at the political push for Cap-&-Trade laws, you can see just how much money interested parties have/had on the line. Money inspires a lot of faith.

Bingo.

[Doktor Faustus]

This is very true. Both sides have their extremists. However, I have not yet seen any conclusive data that proves that human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are the primary (or even a significant factor at all) in global temperature. There are far more powerful variables involved. Most of the models being slung around are absolute bunkum from a purely statistical point of view. I have seen nothing to cause me to believe that there is even a "problem", let alone convince me that global-scale tax and spend programs (and accompanying crackdowns on human industry) would "solve" those hypothetical problems.

I have found that when confronted with the reality that there is no conclusive scientific "proof" for the claim that anthropogenic theory of global climate change, and that the so-called 'consensus' is in fact only a consensus on far less radical things such as the fact that temperatures have increased (without associating causality), the radicals on the "AGW Zealot" side fall back on the rather unscientific and emotional argument of "We can't take a chance! We must do SOMETHING!" No - such Chicken Little arguments hold no truck with me.



Bingo.

Pretty much my POV.

People lap up statistics that reinforce their opinion and ignore others.

Also, i used to work for an 'Eco' company - a bunch of money grabbing bastards with 0% interest in 'protecting' the environment.

[Cthulhu 2020]

There's too much misinformation so I'm going to side with the people spreading misinformation!

And Wells once again hits the nail on the head with the denier argument.

[semaphore]

It's amazing how all these people insists they haven't seen "conclusive data" for anthropogenic global warming. In threads where such data has been linked time and again - often directly in response to them saying just that. I guess when you refuse to accept facts and scientific evidence, everything must seem sceptical.

[Deadvolcanoes]

However, I have not yet seen any conclusive data that proves that human-generated carbon-dioxide emissions are the primary (or even a significant factor at all) in global temperature.

Do you understand the greenhouse effect and accept it to be true?

There are far more powerful variables involved.

Name a few.

global-scale tax and spend programs

Let's leave carbon taxes out of the discussion. Let's focus purely on the science.

[oblivionx]

It really doesn't. When you flip a coin what it landed on last time has zero bearing on how it will land this time. That the climate has changed in the past has zero bearing on whether we are changing it now or not.

Trying to use the gambler's fallacy argument on things that are actually linked doesn't make any sense.