Do global warming skeptics hate win-win scenarios?

Question

Whether or not GW is primarily caused by humans and whether or not reducing human greenhouse gas emissions will have any effect on it, we have 2 options: either reduce emissions or don't.

If we don't reduce emissions, we're taking the risk that a large percentage of climate scientists whose models have predicted dangerous global temperature increases are correct. In effect, we're riksing the possibility of catastrophic climate change. We continue burning fossil fuels in the hope they're wrong.

If we do reduce emissions, we not only play it safe with regards to global warming, but we also reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve health (CO2 is not the only biproduct of burning these fuels), and improve energy efficiency which means economic savings in the long run.

To me that short-term investment means a long-term benefit on several levels. A win-win, if you will. So GW skeptics - explain to me why the first scenario is the smart one.

Look ya paranoid nuts, I'm not talking about creating a socialist state. I'm talking about simple steps like requiring better mileage efficiency from our new cars (even China requires far better mileage than the US) and putting a price on carbon emissions. Also subsidizing energy efficient technology. Simple things like that.

Sandi you are grossly misinformed.

1) The US still emits more CO2 than China. FAR more per capita. Even if we didn't, the US is still responsible for ~25% of worldwide CO2 emissions and FAR more of the atmospheric CO2 concentrations than anyone including China. To claim we are not the problem is wrong and grossly ignorant.

2) We do not have massive untapped oil reserves in the US. Even in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge there are only an estimated 6 billion barrels of recoverable oil. The US consumes 20 million barrels a day, so the ANWR oil would last us less than 1 year.

3) The vast majority of climate experts disagree with your claim that global warming is primarily due to natural cycles.

Next time educate yourself before answering, and then try actually answering the question that was asked.

Answer 1

Absolutely, the skeptics do....largely because any answer that requires them to make a change in their lifestyle or their notions of what living in a free country means is threatening to their world-view. Permanently damage the environment as we know it? Not a problem. Be shown to be dead wrong? Never, by God!

Answer 2

This sounds pretty bad but I personally, hope that a drastic climate change does occur (mostly to prove all those skeptics wrong). It could help clean out all those idiots and leave the rest of us smart ones to prosper.
I do think the short-term investment is better than the long-term consequences. The problem is that so many people don't believe in global warming and don't want to realize that: THEY are part of the problem (everyone is). I think we should think about our children and grand-children's future (and less of our own). By ensuring their future, we guarantee our own.

Answer 3

You get funnier and funnier as a read your "questions". Keep repeating the same lies and you might get some people to believe you. keep going you only have 3 more "questions" to go.

Your "If we don't reduce emissions" scenario is only based on your incorrect opinion this "global warming" falsity is actually happening. oh yeah, THAT is going to change my mind. Good job!

It might seem like a win-win in your narrow little mind, but only there. It makes you happy running around like "chicken little," but you know, I don't think the majority of the planet is going to follow you. Is that what is annoying you?

oh and I would explain to you why the first scenario is the smart one, but you wouldn't listen. You wouldn't believe me. You are always upset at the skeptics because you think they don't answer your "questions", but they aren't really questions at all. you don't want an answer, you want to rant. Your questions are misinformed, leading questions, that make you feel good.

"3) The vast majority of climate experts disagree with your claim that global warming is primarily due to natural cycles" Proof my good man, proof. Isn't that what MAKE science? By your own "religious beliefs" definition, this is not science. Consensus. Not proof. Why is it Global Warming nutcases keep going back to "experts" agreeing or not agreeing, instead of providing hard facts. Fact is you got a 4 billion year old planet and (on your best day) 200 years of climate history, and in the 70's your cry about cooling trends leading to a global ice age, now your crying about a warming trend heading to a flood. *slap slap* pull yourself together man! You haven't got a clue, and your happy about it!

Answer 4

There is no denying a warming going on. Over time it will probably be followed by a cooling, which in turn will be followed by yet another warming and so on. There is nothing to panic about. The world as we know it will not end. We are not all going to perish as a result of this warming trend. Just about everything we understand to date has a pattern. This wave pattern occurs often in nature, including ocean waves, sound waves, and light waves.All of these can be graphed or illustrated with a sine wave, and as a result can then be monitored and analyzed. In the case of global temperature we just don't have enough accurate data yet to ''plot'' a pattern which would help us predict coming changes. Don't forget, the only accurate recorded data we have dates back only about 100 years, everything else is just theories and guesswork.

That being said, you are correct. We should immediately start reducing emmisions as it IS a win-win situation! I think the part that scares most of us is the money (our money) that will be ''stolen''. Senators in their valiant crusade against global warming will build all kinds of ''green'' projects (with our money) which will all of course go way over budget. They will also give grants (our money) to corporations to assist them in making their factories environmentally friendly. Most of these companies will be owned or will give board positions to these same senators (and their buddies). Of course none of these actions will reduce pollution in fact we will find out years (and billions of our dollars) later that they actually caused more pollution. We won't find out about this without multi-million dollar studies (which as you may have guessed, will be payed for with our money). That's ''porkbarrel'' in it's purest state.

Answer 5

1) There is just as much evidence that proves humans are not "causing" GW as there is that we are. Carbon dioxide created by people account for .12 % of greenhouse gasses
2) Climate changes including warming and cooling of the earth (i.e. ice ages) have been occuring for hundreds of thousands of years or more, long before humans were around to contribute to it.
3) Drastic measures to reduce emissions could severely damage the global economy. If we destroy our economic structure at no benefit to the environment it will be lose-lose.
4) There's evidence of GW on Mars. Are humans to blame for that too?

I don't think anybody but CEOs of oil companies disagrees that it's time to find alternative sources of energy. Even GW skepctics support new energy sources. However imposing harsh restrictions before we find said alternative sources will break down our global economy.

Answer 6

Your question show that you have very little understanding how liberals, government, and the powerstructure works. Everyone wants cleaner air for many different reasons. However if you target your efforts incorrectly then you are just giving up the little power you have left and mucho $$$ for little or no results. The devil in in the details my friend. No one wants another government do nothing good agency that spends all our money for nothing. How much money are you willing to give Gore so he can buy carbon credits to plant one tree? $5000 each? An too boot it might be other countries telling us that the USA is bad and we can't do this or that which has nothing to do with air quality but everyting to do with power. That is why the facts need to be straight from the beginning. Cars are a minor cause China's industry is the main reason and my gas prices and taxes going up does nothing!

Answer 7

properly, the Aussies as is their wont will play confusing, that's no longer open to communicate! some gamers play ought to call the taking part in cards or the photos like Clarke, Chris Rogers (marvel), Faulkner, Haddin, Pattinson, Siddle, Lyon & Doherty. at cases England could desire to be very at risk of the colourful Aussie factor yet this is it, I difficulty lots with regard to the Aussie batting, a potential for a protracted time now. The bowling exchange into consistently promising, an incredible crop of quickly bowlers being attainable like Jackson poultry, Hastings, Kane Richardson all with some solid %. & circulate. although, the promising batters have not come by, Khwaja no longer in choose, Cowan promising yet no longer completely solid, Warner in ordinary terms standard for pulling the rabbit out of the hat & Maxwell untested at this point. Yea, England truthfully are the outright favorites, its in ordinary terms a count of time no count if the Aussies capitulate contained in the 1st try or no longer! which will deliver shivers down their necks & in the event that they're down 3-0, then the Ashes urn comes decrease back to previous blighty

Answer 8

May I set the record straight on one of your points------CHINA is the worlds biggest contributor to emissions, now if we could get THEM to clean up their act (in more than one area) we might have hope the rest of the world would jump in, but WE are not the problem here. Second point, we do not have to be dependent on foreign oil, we have so many capped well and un tapped oil fields here in our own country that it staggers the mind, the reason we have to depend on foreign oil is political. Global warming is a natural part of the earths cycling, it has happened before and will happen again, way too much hype over this brought on by politicians with their own objectives leading the way

Answer 9

It is only a 'win-win" situation for the socialists who have taken over the environmental movement and use it to damage America. No matter what silly claim they make (and believe me, they have been making them for over thirty years and not one has ever happened) people are willing to submit to the loss of private property rights, damage to our economy and the strengthening of socialism in America.

There is always a looming disaster and it is always America's fault. The solution is always for Americans to loose a bit more liberty and our economy to loose a little more value.

Right now they are selling new cars in China without polution control devices of any kind. Many countries burn coal for home heating. Factories in almost every other country spew black soot laden smoke. But the country causing the most damage? You guessed it. The good old USA.

You really need to get youself squared away. You must stop believing these people.


.

Answer 10

An economic analysis puts the cost of reducing co2 emissions at 2% of G.D.P. in perpetuity. That is billions of dollars every year. If you like government waste, go for it.