How arrogant is the mindset of the global warming debate?

Question

Our time on this earth is minor in comparison to the geologic and ecologic timescales. The Earth has endured many changes over it's long history. How is it that we can honestly believe that we can predict cycles of the earth accurately given our limited observable knowledge of what has occurred over the entire history? Accepting this basic concept is it possibly true that scientists who support the man made global warming theory may be wrong, or may have another agenda entirely such as governent funding? Let's not forgot that the whole debate has reversed course in just the last 30 years from global cooling to global warming. This is not a debate on whether global warming is occurring, but rather a question of cause and effect.

firespider: Weak at best. Can't answer the question so attack the asker. Further I did not give my opinions on global warming in the question one way or the other. But I think we can chalk your answer down to arrogance since your mind is committed to the idea that global warming is manmade and any counter opinion is naive.

hichefheidi: At what point did express the idea that the earth only exists for man?

hichefheidi: I firmly believe we should do what we can for the Earth including conservation and pollution control.

david r: I have absolutely no idea what your tirade is all about.

Secret: At what point did I say that global warming is a farce? Further you believe in Global Warming, but you are against alternative fuels to reduce emissions? Speaking of greehouse gases, are you aware that one of the new leading theories propose pumping more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to {ahem} slow down global warming by blocking out the sun's rays?

Joey Bagadonuts: Absolutely...No fragile ego here :)

Answer 1

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)
The agenda would be .....
"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University)

The truth is total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect, approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes biologic activity in earth's oceans , volcanoes and decaying land plants etc..CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature and have been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years,according to Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica.The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered because of urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time.Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data .

Answer 2

Bryan you are wasting your time if you are looking for rational debate the first answer from firespider should let you know that she said that you are naive for thinking that the world is going to recover on it's own, first of all whats there to recover from the cycle that we are witnessing has happen before and will happen again. That's what the earth has been doing for millenias if were are so all powerful to prevent global warming why not prevent hurricanes while we at it. I just find it amazing the mindset of the global warmist they never mention volcanoes or forest fires that put more crap in our atmosphere than anything we could ever do it almost like tunnel vision.

Bereal 1 you go girl.

Answer 3

I agree that we shouldn't be certain about the cycles of the earth. Maybe the warming is happening due to naturer causes that would happen without the greenhouse effect.

However, what is the harm in being safe and trying to reduce greenhouse gases? There are so many reasons to do this... Even just based on supply of oil versus demand, there is a benefit in using less. There is the immediate impact of construction ruining wildlife habitats, such as highways and roads as well.

Better safe than sorry

Answer 4

Over the last 30 years the poppulation has exploded. This has drastically increased the ammount of greenhouse gasses released into the atmosphere and has sped up the rate of global warming faster than George Bush can snort an 8-ball. If you honestly believe that global warming is a farce than you are no more than a puppet of some big corporation who is using you as a mouthpiece to spout their ignorant dribble and seed doubts in the minds of Americans so they can delay the inevitable switch to alternative fuel sources and continue to line their pockets for as long as possible.

Answer 5

A genuinely great question. Although the climate is changing and there are reams of data on that few people seem to want to admit that the climate has always been changing, sometimes faster than other times. The actual study of the cause and effect between climate change and the impact of humans is called climatology and is not a very widely studied area as compared to biology or meterology. While a biologist or meterologist can prove that the climate has changed they cannot make any estimate of the cause. Furthermore, only an actual climatologist can comment on the impact that humans have on the climate.

Answer 6

Bryan,

Here here!

I think global warming IS occurring but I do NOT think that man is the cause of it....and just last week it was reported that several scientists agree with that theory.

PS...So many uninformed people are clamoring for the USA to sign the Kyoto Protocols.....but do they have any idea what that agreement calls for? I don't think so. That agreement is basically a plan to economically chain the USA.

...and don't you love it when people with the opposite viewpoint can only resort to name calling and abandon discussion and FACTS? Thats when you know that their position has no merit.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

*

Answer 7

Global warming started before man, otherwise man would not have made here on earth during the ice age. So Glabal warming has been going on for 10s of thousands of years before Al Gore and all his hot air.

Answer 8

VERY ARROGANT.

These scientists only want the funds (their salaries) that would be given to them by making Global Warming a big issue. Surely, governments would invest into research and the scientists can pocket the change.

How arrogant is it to think that moratal man can actually CURB the natural processes of our planet?

Thank you for being BOLD!

Answer 9

"Government funding". Notoriety by being published. The chance to be immortalized by historical recording.

The global warmers are almost pathological in their grasping of these things.

Arrogant? Utterly.

A simple, yet pivotal question they avoid: explaining the eleven or so previous ice-ages.

More to the point: why they occurred and receded.

Answer 10

To think that the earth exists for us is arrogant. Sure the earth will be around...but humans won't be. we have to be conscious of our footprints. By conserving natural resources, how can we go wrong? But if it turns out that we DO have an impact on our future, and we do nothing, we are dead. I'm going to err on the side of caution, and recycle, conserve, and keep my footprints to a minimum. You're welcome