why do people generally spend more time and energy trying to DISPROVE global warming than to REMEDY it?

Question

if all that effort were harnessed constructively, we could make a real difference. so really, skeptics: why all the huffing and puffing?

Answer 1

Because the people spending all that time and energy trying to disprove it are the ones that have the most to lose if alternative fuels and resources are used. They would rather squeeze the last penny out of the last consumer before they change.

Answer 2

Well maybe some people think your huffing and puffing.

I personally see the logistics to your claims and the idea of global warming. However I would also like to point out that you persoanally are not making as many changes and sacrifices as you can. For example your on here burning electricity, probably sitting in a home heated and or cooled by either electricity or natural gas, and I'm sure your driving a fossil fuel vehicle.

So maybe it is taking so long to get anywhere with this idea because the majority of the people yapping about it are a bunch of hypocrites??? just a thought.

Answer 3

Global warming is certainly happening. I am not yet convinced that science is able to say that CO2 is the primary driver.

Just today I was reading a journal article about how the coupling of the four major ocean oscillations and there subsequent decouplings coincided very well with the global temperature anomaly of the past 100 years.

Here is the abstract:

We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state-of-the-art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.

Here is the Editors Highlight:

In the mid-1970s, a climate shift cooled sea surface temperatures in the central Pacific Ocean and warmed the coast of western North America, bringing long-range changes to the Northern hemisphere. After this climate shift waned, an era of frequent El Niños and rising global temperatures began. Understanding the mechanisms driving such climate variability is difficult because unraveling causal connections that lead to chaotic climate behavior is complicated. To simplify this, Tsonis et al. (2007) investigated the collective behavior of known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, and the North Pacific Oscillation. By studying the past 100 years of these cycles’ patterns, they found that the systems synchronized several times. Further, in cases where the synchronous state was followed by an increase in the coupling strength among the cycles, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged, associated with global temperature changes and El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability. The authors showed that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Niño variability in the twentieth century.

Look at that last sentence in the editors highlight again--

"The authors showed that this mechanism explains all global temperature tendency changes and El Niño variability in the twentieth century."

If this stands up to scrutiny (it is new) then this may be an alternative to the CO2 only argument. If this stands up, and it is found that most of the change in global temperature anomaly can be attributed to this coupling, then working to reduce CO2 becomes moot.

No huffing and puffing from me, just patience.

EDIT:

2 Thumbs down already? And here I thought I was providing a service by bringing to light some of the newest stuff out there regarding climate change. Oh well.

Answer 4

For one...

Global warming hasn't been proven to be caused by man...

Global warming hasn't even really been proven.

30 years ago the big scare was global cooling... using most of the same data that is now being used to claim global warming...

If you can get a copy of the "game" SimEarth... it is essentially a climate model... and it expects the world to freeze due to pollution (including the effects of CO2)... the game is from the early 1990's. At the time it was made... it was considered to be pretty accurate...

In the 1970's "Prevailing scientific opinion" was that we would have completely depleted the world supply of petroleum before 1999...

Essentially... the enviro-scientists are good at making bad predictions.

Maybe if they didn't go around hollering that doom was right around the corner all the time... and always being WRONG... some of us that have seen it so many times (over 30) would care what the scientists were saying.

Answer 5

There are far worst environmental issues than global warming. Look at how many trees are being lost because of non native species. The American Chestnut Tree is all but extinct. 6 BILLION trees gone, and no one cares.

Answer 6

They'll find a 'remedy' for salt in the oceans before they find one for global warming. it's natural. Live with it people.

Answer 7

Because IT ain't happening , and if it is my bottom line answer to the alledged "Global Warming" BS is "SO WHAT", who cares and what would be so bad about the alledged "Global Warming".

Answer 8

Maybe because we can't remedy what may prove to be largely a natural phenomenon.

Answer 9

the data is made to fit the theory. instead of using ALL THE DATA to come to a logical conclusion.

i feel jiped that i burnt all that gas and didn't get any ice like the "experts" predicted last go around

Answer 10

Republicans think doing something about it would be inconvenient, so let the next generation worry about it.