Are both sides ignorant?

Question

People on both sides of global warming refuse to listen to the arguments of the other side, or say that a good arguement is not valid for whatever reason. I think that part of it is caused by mankind but another part of it is caused by the natural cycle of our planet. So I want you to answer the question do you think that instead of fighting both sides should at least consider the facts the other side has to offer.

Answer 1

I agree that there are many reasons (in my opinion) for global warming. However, I believe we need to do all we can to improve the portion that is due to human abuse of the planet. What is natural can't be fixed...What is man-made is our responsibility.

Answer 2

I wouldn't go as far to say ignorant they just have there own opinion just like you do . As far as we know there could be a bunch of asteroids bombarding the sun putting more fuel onto the fire but i give the two sides credit they are at least talking about it . Allot well most peoples eye cross when you mention global warming and have no idea what your talking about . The fact of the matter is we need a new energy source if it gets hot or cold these are the things we should be working on not just because of global warming it would be for us to breath better and be more productive and maybe allow us to explore space so that we can colonize other planets besides of having wars to decrease the population

Answer 3

I don't think both sides are ignorant at all. They are both trying to present points to explain what is going on in our world. I stand on the side that believes in global warming and that it is our fault it is happening but I won't shut down ideas from the other side if they are presented to me in a valid way with reasoning and research behind it. So far that just hasn't happened. The problem is that the two sides are always arguing over it. What really needs to happen is a discussion in which both sides actually listen to eachother and understand eachother's reasoning. Only then will we be able to do something about this. And something needs to be done and fast. If we don't do something about this, in a few years we may not even be here to argue over who's right and who's wrong. Earth is a home to all of us and all of us need to get together and figure out what to do instead of fighting over it constantly. It's as simple as that.

~*~FirEdhel~*~

Answer 4

There are no "sides" because this is not a political issue, it is a scientific issue. People can debate all they want about the causes of global warming, but the physical phenomena will not be affected by the debate. It is not really a question of listening to the arguments of each side. It is a question of science that will be settled by experiments proving the validity of scientific theories. We can all just try to do the best science we can, or we can disbelieve science, or we can just sit back and watch whatever happens, happen.

Answer 5

No, both sides are not ignorant. Here's my breakdown of the two sides.

Humans are the primary cause of global warming side:

Notice the key word is "primary". I don't know anybody who thinks humans are the sole cause of global warming. The planet has warmed since it came out of the last ice age due almost entirely to "natural" causes. Once we hit the Industrial Revolution and humans began to emit larger and larger quantities of greenhouse gases, we began to contribute more and more to global warming. Over the past few decades, the estimate is that we're responsible for 70-95% of global warming because natural causes only account for a small percentage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

I've listened to and analyzed every argument made by those who don't believe humans are the primary cause. Even when someone claimed global warming was due to carbonation in soda pop and beer I researched it and proved otherwise. I'm perfectly open to alternative explanations, but nobody has come up with a reasonable one. The best alternative is that cosmic rays play a bigger role than we think, but this has yet to be proven.

Humans aren't responsible for global warming side:

I think most of these guys listen to the opposing arguments and try very hard to find flaws in them. Their main argument is that we're just not sure enough that humans are the primary cause - it's not 100% proven. The problem with that is that if we wait for them to be sufficiently convinced it may be too late to minimize the consequences of global warming. I wouldn't call their side ignorant, but I would say they're unwilling to be convinced that they're wrong.

Answer 6

This is the rationale I simply can't accept:

"If we are wrong about global warming and we do something to stop it, no harm done."

I have seen statements that echo this same sentiment FAR too many times. NO, if we are wrong about global warming and we do something to stop it, then potentially GREAT harm will be done, possibly more harm then we originally intended to prevent.

We are not talking about conserving energy, decreasing consumption of carbon fuels, etc. If we are wrong about global warming, then there would be no effect at all If on the other hand, we pursue policies that we know will negatively impact global economy, but deem it a necessary sacrifice, then mark this in the "harm" column. Ditto artificial carbon sequestering schemes. And global dimming schemes. And organic carbon cycle "enhancement" like seeding the oceans with thousands of tons of iron.

If people are going to believe that man created this problem through ignorance, then we owe it to all the living things on this planet that our next action is not yet another one of ignorance.

The idiom, "Out of the frying pan and into the fire" is still relevant today...

Answer 7

The people who are involved in the study of global warming are of course scientists and by their very nature they look at all aspects. Much understanding of a subject and advancement of science is made by taking on board the comments from all sides. Before anything is accepted in science it has to be tested to destruction and that means that any theory put forward has to be subjected to every attempt to refute it. Rather than being closed minded the scientists are very open minded and welcome all constructive comments.

There are of course a great many people who are closed minded, not just about global warming but about all manner of subjects.

One of the problems with the global warming debate is that all the science and the evidence is on one side of the argument. When you look at the questions and answers that are posed just on this forum you'll find that the proponents are able to verify their answers with links to credible scientific organisations, the skeptics, in the main, have to rely on media reports and personal websites. Science is based on fact, the media and personal websites are largely based on opinion.

To answer your specific question - both sides should listen to each other, both sides should be prepared to accept facts when confronted with them, both sides should be prepared to admit when they got something wrong.

Answer 8

Of course some is natural and some is man made. But it's simply untrue that we don't know how much is each.

Scientists _know_ how much of the problem is natural and how much is man made. It was primarily natural until about 40 years ago. Now it's about 90% man made.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Outside of a (very) few skeptics, this is well accepted in the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Among scientists this is considered proven. This is one guy, but what he says is generally accepted, simply because that's what the data says:

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point,You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

We read the skeptics claims that we don't know these facts. We answer them. I won't say they're not intelligent. I will say they're not quantitative, ie backed by data and calculations.

And so their arguments are not valid. Not "for whatever reason" but because that's what the science says.

Answer 9

I don't think there are many who don't agree that mankind has a hand in global warming BUT the earth has gone through these cycles on many occasions and it's going to keep happening we can't stop it, we may be able to hasten the inevitable but in the scheme of things we can only wait for what will happen.

People think we can destroy the planet but we really can't because no matter what we do the planet will continue to exist whether we are on it or not. The earth has killed off pretty much all forms of life that have ever lived on it due to the climate changes and impacts from asteroids but the earth has survived. Don't try to act like the savior of the planet that will force us to adapt due to it's own irreversible cyclic changes

So both sides make valid points but history speaks volumes in my opinion and change in earths atmospheric conditions is documented history.

Answer 10

Of course. That would be the educated thing to do, but both sides are so busy seeing who can scream the loudest they drown each other out. My solution to it for myself is to look if at nothing else the destruction that man alone is causing our planet. Our entire family members are implementing things in our homes to save energy, drive energy saving cars, and recycling everything that we can. Even if it doesn't stop the natural cycle of the planet per se, we at least are doing our part to help clean the environment.

Look at all the flooding this past two weeks in states that usually do not have flooding. There is something happening whether it is due to the climate's natural change or man-made is still a question, but we cannot deny something needs to be done.

Answer 11

When dealing with something as staggeringly complex as the atmosphere of an entire planet there are bound to be some incosistencies in the evidence. In some places the planet is actually cooling down, but the overwhelming evidence is that global warming is quite real. What I don't understand is why don't the naysayers realize that this is actually a business opportunity for them because new technologies are going to be needed to combat the effects of global warming. If we are wrong about global warming and we do something to stop it, no harm done. If we are right about global warming and do nothing to attempt to stop it, heaven help us.