Global Warming Deniers

[DWill]

DWill, in my view, climate change deniers are Quislings to the oil industry, taking the devil's coin to spread lies in service of profit.

I read that the scientists themselves cringed at the first word of the title, as it calls to mind Holocaust deniers. But apparently these people are far from oil company quislings. One of Solomon's points is that consensus is really not very meaningful in deciding scientific questions. The agreement that may be said to exist among climate scientists means little; what does is the evidence that can be relied on. In these climate matters, reliable evidence (as to the cause of warming) may be realtively scarce. Since experimental evidence can't be produced, this scarcity is not hard to understand.

Robert, you obviously don't think much of the oil companies. They're not my heroes, but I don't suspect them of more villainy than other business entities. For the increase in gasoline and other energy costs, we can only blame increased worldwide demand for oil and the high price this has created on the world market. Now I'll wait for the first person to call me naive!
DWill

[Ophelia]

I haven't heard any scientist question the reality of global warming in France for... many years, at least ten years I think.
People here greatly respect Al Gore-- not because he says something new, but because scientists agree with him and both environmentalists and ordinary people see that there is a little hope from the US if there are people like him.

In the last two TV programmes I saw on the issue, I noted that all the scientists agreed on climate change, and the only person they could find to defend the view that climate change was not certain and everything had been exaggerated was... a journalist who presented the weather forecast on the radio.
The scientists presented a united message saying that yes, there were differences in the figures they came up with as to how much hotter it would be, or how long it would take to reach a crisis point, and exactly what was due to human activity, but they said the only thing that mattered was what they 100 % agreed on, ie it was going to get warmer and there was something we could do, and the time was now.

I think that in order to measure the urgency of the situation there are a few indicators worth following, for example the measures taken by people who are directly concerned by the rise in sea level:

1- The Dutch government. The Netherlands is a country of immensely practical people. They are working on "hydropole villages" which can float in the case of rising waters. How much they invest in this might be a test.
It's not attracting much attention in the media because there is nothing spectacular to see for now.

In theory, the Sacramento Delta in California and Bengladesh should be considering action too, but it seems that action is blocked or very little is done-- for very different reasons.

How about Florida? Aren't people worried?

2- One can watch the behaviour of insurance companies.
This is only an indicator, if a country or the planet waits until insurance companies start refusing to insure properties near the coast, it will be very late to act.
But I'd be willing to bet that, while some people and governments might still be arguing that they need to hear a few more dissenting voices before they make up their minds, the insurance companies would know for a fact that they've got every bit of information they need.

[psyops]

Like any other fanatic religion that denigrates its detractors as "deniers" or "heretics", the religion of global warming is discovering that its worst enemies are empirical science and a free press with conscientious investigative reporters.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation produced an excellent documentary (free online: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 2407994295) titled "Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off". It's excellent; if you're still unconvinced that "global warming" is a political movement having nothing to do with empirical science, watch it. It may change your mind for good.

And since this thread has a distinctive Canadian overtone, consider that Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the three original founders of Greenpeace, is campaigning against "global warming" hysteria as nothing more than a media and Marxist-inspired antidevelopment political movement with no basis in empirical science! Gosh, when one of the planet's most notable environmental activists is making statements like that, maybe it's time we sat up and listened.

[dillonbrownsisland]

Interesting discussion here, I had to chime in!
First off, has anyone here read the speech that renown author Michael Crichton gave a few years back? It's titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming" and basically the speech states that until the science is perfected, we will never know whether another life form exists outside of our planet and the same goes for whether or not we will ever know what the cause of Global Warming is. Crichton has a strong stance against Global Warming, however, so you have to take the speech in with an unbiased oppinion, if possible. I agree with Crichton here, to some extent. I do believe that the earth is undergoing major climatic changes, that's undeniable. But whether or not we're doing it or the fact that it's possibly being pulled into the sun's gravitational pull further or just simply ageing, we will never know. I personally believe that political figures and celebrities have simply jumped on the band-wagon to get elected into office and have something to promote. The thing that scares me the most is the fact that Global Warming is turning into more of a scare tactic to put on the nightly news amongst the murders, wildfires and car accidents, instead of being looked at as a scientific "happening" by the common public. I understand this view may be far different than others who are discussing this topic, but I feel people in general (especially readers) are open-minded enough to hear a different belief from time to time.

To read Crichton's speech (I believe he's written a few on this topic, as well as controversial issues reguarding gene-therapy and genetic research) you can visit his official website at www.crichton-official.com

[LanDroid]

One of the reasons for confusion is climate change skeptics have changed positions over time, something like the following.

1. Global warming is a complete hoax, the earth is not getting warmer.
2. Earth is getting warmer, but this is due to natural phenomena.
3. Earth is getting warmer and human activity has some effect, but this is not a significant factor.
4. Earth is getting warmer and human activity has a significant effect, but the problems this causes will not be very serious and corrective actions are not required.

It used to be all climate change skeptics were at level 1. Now it seems most have moved on, but they rarely clarify their stance.

[shawnrohrbach]

Interesting discussion here, I had to chime in!
First off, has anyone here read the speech that renown author Michael Crichton gave a few years back? It's titled "Aliens Cause Global Warming" and basically the speech states that until the science is perfected, we will never know whether another life form exists outside of our planet and the same goes for whether or not we will ever know what the cause of Global Warming is. Crichton has a strong stance against Global Warming, however, so you have to take the speech in with an unbiased oppinion, if possible. I agree with Crichton here, to some extent. I do believe that the earth is undergoing major climatic changes, that's undeniable. But whether or not we're doing it or the fact that it's possibly being pulled into the sun's gravitational pull further or just simply ageing, we will never know. I personally believe that political figures and celebrities have simply jumped on the band-wagon to get elected into office and have something to promote. The thing that scares me the most is the fact that Global Warming is turning into more of a scare tactic to put on the nightly news amongst the murders, wildfires and car accidents, instead of being looked at as a scientific "happening" by the common public. I understand this view may be far different than others who are discussing this topic, but I feel people in general (especially readers) are open-minded enough to hear a different belief from time to time.

To read Crichton's speech (I believe he's written a few on this topic, as well as controversial issues reguarding gene-therapy and genetic research) you can visit his official website at www.crichton-official.com

I think along these lines as well. Even though I might not take the view of Crichton quoted here, I am skeptical that human behavior is the sole cause of the climate changes we are experiencing. As a political tool, it has become as effective as George Bush's use of "terrorism". Any thinking person could se right through his fear tactics and I am sad the Democrats have adopted the same tactics. Yes, I drive less because burning fossil fuels pollute the air. In fact I ride a bike typically 100 miles a week for this reason (and I look better naked) but there are natural cycles that are not human caused that have as much to do with global climate changes. I appreciate this thread has ut the brakes on the argument a bit and taken a realistic view.

[Grim]

You think climate change is a serious problem, don't even mention peak oil and we could possibly cope with the seriousness of the problem.

Global warming is analogus to terraforming of the planet to man's needs. In a sense we have evolved to the point where I would argue that we are no longer a part of a natural earth system. This is possible due to our reliance and utilization of high-energy compounds, all practical forms of which are non-renewable, and the vast majority of which become invisible compunds in the air which cause the global warming or the greenhouse effect.



Earth follows imperfectly cyclical trends in all aspects, including ambient temperature. We are disrupting a balance that has been established billions of years ago.

The melting of arctic sea ice ironically opens the area to extended human exploitation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 239D60.DTL

http://www.athensnews.com/opinion/comme ... plies-cou/

One of the most of the most insidious effect of fossil fuel use has been the over-population of the planet, stressing earth's natural carrying capacity to the point where we are all in a sense living beyond our means. Nothing we do in our daily lives is not in some way seriously detrimental to the earth and/or other peoples and animals/organisms depending on it.

http://dieoff.org/page112.htm

My recommendation: hope you are not the 5 of 6 extra people that the earth will soon not be able to provide for sustainably (or with the use of greenhouse gaseous emission), live renewably by your own means. Urban centers where people are concentrated will be the most effected by resource and luxury shortages.

[Ophelia]

Look at your photos, apply a little high school student's logic and you can get what a colleague of mine read last week:

"Global warming is the consequence of the rise in sea level."

[Grim]

Look at your photos, apply a little high school student's logic and you can get what a colleague of mine read last week:

"Global warming is the consequence of the rise in sea level."

Meaning?

[Ophelia]

Ophelia wrote:
Look at your photos, apply a little high school student's logic and you can get what a colleague of mine read last week:

"Global warming is the consequence of the rise in sea level."


Meaning?

The student's meaning? He thinks the sea rose, thus causing the climate to get warmer.