Climate change naysayers

[Boozy]

Time for a Boozy rant!

Despite a strong consensus among the world's leading climate scientists, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the UN founded Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, there are still a large number of global warming naysayers. These are people who refuse to look at all the data, read the reports, or even read newspaper articles on the subject.

Not into science? No problem, I can understand that. There are only so many hours in the day. But if they don't want to do their own research, why would someone feel they know enough to disagree with the vast majority of scientists who have done the research?

I understand the natural proclivity towards denying human-caused climate change. The consequences are frightening. To do anything about the problem is expensive and requires major lifestyle changes. Its not a pretty picture.

But burying your head in the sand and hoping it all goes away is not going to change the harsh reality we all face.

Agree, disagree, discuss. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks.

[Lace Neil Singer]

My view is that all the people waving their arms and shouting, "We're going to destroy the planet!" are talking BULLSHIT. We can't destroy the planet. We've only been here five minutes; the dinosaurs were there for billions of years, and they didn't manage it so it's very egotistical to assume we can. -.-

However, we can save the human race for destruction, which to me is what helping climate change is all about. We are NOT saving the planet; we are saving OURSELVES.

[Boozy]

We can't destroy the planet. We've only been here five minutes; the dinosaurs were there for billions of years, and they didn't manage it so it's very egotistical to assume we can.

Dinosaurs were fortunately not able to industrialize, probably due to their pea-sized brains and lack of opposable thumbs. Dinosaurs, despite being given a very generous allotment of time here on earth, failed to (among other things):

- Achieve massive deforestation preventing the absorption of excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
- Refine and burn fossil fuels, releasing previously unprecedented levels of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere
- Drive SUVs

It is frankly impossible to be too "egotistical" in evaluating the impact of human industrialization on the planet. Nothing in the past 4.5 billion years of the earth's lifespan has prepared the planet for the onslaught of human progress.

Edited to add: I completely agree that the planet itself will not be destroyed by climate change - it could just become unrecognizable to us. Obviously we would be acting to save humanity as opposed to life in general.

[AFPheonix]

Dinosaurs also failed to reproduce like rats like we apparently can. My kingdom for blow dart Depo-Provera....

There's so many things about the anti-climate change argument that floor me.
1) The idiots who protest that conservation alone will never displace all the fossil fuels we use. Well no shit sherlock, but hey, we can still REDUCE the amount we use, thereby REDUCING the amount of CO2 we produce, thereby SLOWING climate change. Same for morons who quibble that any one of the alternative energy sources we have cannot replace fossil fuels. No, you're right. However, DIVERSIFYING the number of energy sources we utilize, and increasing our usage of alternative sources like wind, can still make a dent, thereby reducing our oil usage, reducing CO2 and reducing our trade gap while we're at it.

2) The idiots who protest that changing over will result in economic ruin. Last I checked, innovation was not bad for the market, it was good, creating new wealth and JOBS. Whodathunk. I'll grant, I only had a semester of Econ 101, but the above makes sense to me.
I will also grant that the market will not force us into trying to find alternative fuels until gas prices makes them look more appealing. Perhaps we as a country could maybe consider looking into those technologies now, so we have a head start when the market will bear them better.

Rant #2: Car emissions are not the only source of CO2. Large buildings are a big contributor. Would it cause economic ruination to retrofit them to be more carbon neutral? Hell no, it would help the construction sector. There are already private businesses springing up who's sole specialty is to make green skyscrapers.

Rant #3: The US Government is getting too much money from oil and coal producers. The House is trying to get the government complex to be carbon neutral, but they have a small problem. The plant that produces the steam that heats the place runs on coal. Tasty treats. The House has gotten enough members in line to get the place retrofitted, but they also have to get Senate approval. Which may not happen, cuz of the senators from coal-producing states. Way to show leadership there.

Rant #4: why WOULDN'T we allow the market to help reduce emissions through carbon trading? I think that would be a great idea to get companies who otherwise wouldn't care because it really wouldn't help their bottom line otherwise to take action.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COZ4q1gpMmo
Guy applies Pascal's Wager to climate change. It's an oversimplified argument, but it's an interesting one.


I'd rant more, but there's so many issues about this topic, including radiating issues that head over into the corruption of our government, the inability of our society to figure stuff out on their own, that I'd be here for hours and this would turn into a monster post that would make all of you glaze over.

[Dreamstalker]

I'm not sure how many of you have heard of Lyndon LaRouche; he's some nutball running for president (what party, I'm not sure). Every few years I get harassed by his local campaign. How they got a hold of my number, I have no clue as I always use fake info when approached by them...I don't even know what his platform is.

He's one of the naysayers; basically, his shtick is that climate change/global warming is a complete hoax and Al Gore is a Communist (I thought that insult died out). I caused a flunkie's brain to vapor-lock last year when using his own graph against him: "If climate change is a natural cycle, how come your chart here shows a sudden drastic increase? Aren't cycles by definition supposed to remain largely consistent? This one isn't." I made my escape while he tried to redefine "cycle".

[Lace Neil Singer]

Dinosaurs were fortunately not able to industrialize, probably due to their pea-sized brains and lack of opposable thumbs.

They however farted continuously; all that methane gas can't have been good for the environment. O_o

I completely agree that the planet itself will not be destroyed by climate change - it could just become unrecognizable to us. Obviously we would be acting to save humanity as opposed to life in general.

That's the point I was trying to make, hidden as it was by my rantery. XD

[Boozy]

They however farted continuously; all that methane gas can't have been good for the environment.

One of those would really put my dog's gaseous contributions into perspective.

[AFPheonix]

There we go, we can blame global warming on farts.
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science...cbccdrcrd.html

Apparently whales let em' rip pretty good too, according to the first entry in that article.

[Greenday]

Dinosaurs were fortunately not able to industrialize, probably due to their pea-sized brains and lack of opposable thumbs.

Lack of opposable thumbs - True
Pea-sized brains - Load of crap

No real scientist would have the gall to say they had pea-sized brains, unless they were extremely small themselves. And brain size has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. On average, male humans have larger brains than female humans, but that means pretty much nothing. There's a few species of birds who hide HUNDREDS of seeds for various reasons. And they find them all. Their brains are a lot smaller than ours. I know I couldn't do that.

Is global warming happening? Yes
Is it as big a deal as people make it out to be? Not a chance. The change over time is slow enough that the effects won't occur for a long time. Something should be done to slow it down more, but on the list of priorities, it's not that high on the list.

[Boozy]

Is it as big a deal as people make it out to be? Not a chance. The change over time is slow enough that the effects won't occur for a long time.

Where do you get data to support this position?

Effects are already being seen, and are predicted to become rather serious by the year 2030.

By the time the effects of climate change become serious enough to alarm the average person, it will be far too late to do anything about it. This is something that must be headed off immediately.

(PS - "Pea-sized brain" was used metaphorically.)

[AFPheonix]

Perhaps we can start instituting "pea-sized frontal cortex" or something like that

[Greenday]

People look at temperatures rising and say that's significant reasoning for global warming. They haven't been skyrocketing. They've slowly been going up. I mean, everyone freaks out over the temperature in a certain area being higher than normal and it has to be from global warming. Then the next year is colder than normal. Global warming again? Nope...

[AFPheonix]

But an overall increase in global temp leads to greater pressure fluctuations, leading to different jet stream and current behavior, which can lead to cold weather the next time.
The global increase in temperature isn't necessarily going to lead to higher temperatures and desertification and drought all over (although we definitely observe that happening in many places across the globe). What it DOES do is lead to greater volatility in the weather from the reasons stated above.



Not to mention the effects of decreasing glaciers and ice cover from the poles, and we have some interesting storms coming up, along with species migration, increased political strife due to lack of potable water (see Darfur), and we have a clusterfuck in the making. Heck, it's a clusterfuck that's already making itself felt.

[protege]

I'm surprised nobody figured jets into the CO2 equation. I'm sure those things spew out huge amounts of pollutants even idling at terminals--everyone seems to leave those out, and ill-maintained diesel trucks too. When's the last time you saw a diesel truck that was *not* spewing black clouds when accelerating?

[Boozy]

People look at temperatures rising and say that's significant reasoning for global warming. They haven't been skyrocketing. They've slowly been going up. I mean, everyone freaks out over the temperature in a certain area being higher than normal and it has to be from global warming. Then the next year is colder than normal. Global warming again? Nope...

I don't think you understand what has to happen in order for global temperatures to go up even one degree celsius. Since 1900, global temperatures have risen "only" .79 degrees...and this change alone has turned glaciers that have been there untouched for thousands of years into water. One degree is a very big deal.

Cold winters mean nothing. People who fall back on the "I was cold last winter" defense know little to nothing about our earth's complex weather patterns.

Like I said in the original post, the biggest thing holding us back from making major policy changes to address this serious problem are people who step outside in the mornings and say, "I don't feel hot. There's no problem."