Who do you hope is right - scientists or GW skeptics/deniers?

Question

First start off accepting the premise that global warming is happening:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

If global warming skeptics/deniers are right, then something other than humans is causing it. They don't have a scientifically valid explanation (it's not the sun, natural cycles, volcanoes, etc.), so the planet is just warming for some inexplicable reason. Since we don't know what's causing the warming, we don't know if it will stop. Therefore:

Scenario 1: There's a 50/50 chance global warming will continue, and we have no control over it.

Now assume that climate scientists are right. Most agree that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and that we still have a chance to avoid the worst effects by reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

Scenario 2: We have a chance to avoid catastrophic climate change, but we don't appear to have the political will to do it right now.

Which scenario would you prefer?

Monkey M - thanks for the nice words

= ^_^ = - I've contributed a lot of scientific information in both my questions and answers. A few examples:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApAxzaLK35bR9GTxQbYcAn3ty6IX?qid=20070807150713AAbb45q
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiBHBPhyRNMzr41QhpHCsh7ty6IX?qid=20070714092819AASZafR

However, the purpose of asking questions is to request information, not to provide it. Sometimes I ask questions with the purpose of correcting misinformation, such as the case of the 1934 questions. I asked 3 of them because it was important that people in both the Environment and Politics section, because people were spreading the misinformation in both sections.

Frankly, your questions don't seem any more enlightening than mine.

And not that it's any of your business, but my work is rather slow right now.

Answer 1

Actually there are 4 scenarios. Each contains a possibility of 25% to happen:

1.GW is not true - we don't spend any money to control it
2.GW is not true - we spend millions of dollars to control it
3.GW is true - we spend millions of dollars to control it
4.GW is true - we don't spend any money to control it

#1: Everything is fine
#2: We lost a lot of money. Skeptics and deniers were right.
#3: We spent money but we saved our planet and our lives.
#4: We' re dead. ALL of us

We get to play this game ONCE. We don't have a spare planet to live on. Scenario #3 is the less risky one. Unless people consider money to be more valuable than our lives and our children lives.

Take a few minutes to think about it.

Answer 2

Sometimes, I find it hard to believe that you hold the degrees you claim to hold. Can't you think of any more valid topics than re-hashing the old "I'm right and you're wrong" routine? Surely someone with a master's degree could contribute much more in-depth topics. It isn't hard to see what the scientific community has to say about climate change. It is happening, it isn't 100% human made, but we are responsible to a degree. Global warming aside, we should try our best to be good stewards of the earth anyway.

There are so many topics that could be discussed on the issue of climate change; from the projected effects to the research that speculates what percentage is attributable to humans to the laws and policies that can best prevent global warming without taking away the rights of the people.

Why don't you post some scientific articles and research that everyday people might not be aware of? Why not raise the bar in this section instead of sinking to the level of Mr. Jello and company? Also, why does someone with a master's even have the time to sit around on Y!A all day and argue with people on the internet? Shouldn't you be working?

PS: Thanks for the thumbs down. And I'm sure "Monkey M" isn't your sock-puppet account, either. Especially considering he just joined today. Hmm...

And Bob, that question was not a challenge to global warming. That question was a challenge to the asker's supposed credentials. I just think that he could contribute a little more intelligence to this forum than he displays with most of his questions, including the several times he has repeated the "1998 vs 1934" thing. AND I think most people have seen that link you provided.

Answer 3

i'm a "skeptic". My formal scientific education is constrained to the final education classes mandatory to fulfill the middle standards of the BS in Accounting I on no account finished. I labored 2 years as a help tech interior the moist lab of a corporation that analyzes smokestack emission samples for EPA compliance. i'm at the instant a stay-at-living house dad with way too plenty time on my palms (spouse's a mass spec chemist with a BS in Physics). whilst i'm no longer taking part in on right here, i'm tinkering with my recent "invention" or examining something and each thing spanning any and all disciplines, scientific or in any different case. Edit: And derek w proves why Sociology isn't a technology.

Answer 4

Scubapair makes offers of remarkably uniformed opinions. First off, the CO2 exhaled by animals is offset by the CO2 taken up by plants and marine cyanobacteria. These are in pretty good balance. Most of the present CO2 buildup is due to the liberation of carbon sequested since the permian--300 million years ago.

As for water issues, global warming is also likely to increase desertification of many areas. Some areas may see improved rainfall, but then, this is also likely to result in flooding until the land and vegetation adapts to absorb the excess water.

Another problem is that as the heat increases, the demand for water will likely increase. Much of the midwest currently pumps fossil water from the olagalla aquifer. This aquifer is being drawn down faster than it can be replenished. Pumping also requires energy, much of which comes from burning fossil fuel. Simply killing off billions of people isn't going to help--the CO2, once released, remains in the atmosphere until some process removes it. In the old days (a billion years ago) a lot of CO2 was removed by what became large limestone deposits. Calcium carbonates locked up substantial fractions of earth's atmospheric CO2. These remain sequestered.

Are there credible scientists who claim global warming is false? Not really. Almost all climatologists and meteorologists concur, and virtually all the most powerful models agree it is occurring. ExxonMobile offered $10,000 to any scientist willing to write a paper opposed to global warming. So you have a few civil engineers, computer programmers, hydrodynamicists, and maybe a biologist or two willing to prostitute their integrity for a little extra cash. Big whoop. ExxonMobile has paid out over $40 million in propaganda in the past few years--which represents only a tiny fraction of their 2006 tax subsidy alone. Most honest scientists have no economic interest in the outcome of their research one way or the other. When you have 2000 independent, skeptical scientists all agreeing the evidence for human caused factors is pretty solid, it is hard to dismiss them as self interested bozos.

Mike (above) is spot on. Most skeptics dismiss global warming on the basis of popular press (read ExxonMobile propaganda) instead of actual peer reviewed science journals (virtually ALL of which concur on this issue). Rush Limbaugh is not well respected for his accuracy. He claimed, for example, that there are more acres of forestland in North America now than there were back in 1492. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination could that be true. Unless we define "forestland" as "federal forestland." Then the statement becomes nothing more than a dishonest distortion--a gross parody of "truth."

That is what we have from global warming deniers--a gross distortion of the truth akin to those who deny the holocaust. I won't go so far as to claim there is a moral equivalent, but it is still pretty close.

Answer 5

"The global warming crowd is mostly nothing more than left wing anti-capatilist communists."

Like these guys?

"Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich challenged fellow conservatives to stop resisting scientific evidence of global warming"

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr. "I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart Company

Lee Scott is very surprised to find out he's anti-capitalist. And Newt didn't know he was in the Communist Party.

"Why don't you post some scientific articles and research that everyday people might not be aware of?"

OK. Here's solid proof that global warming is 80-90% caused by man (which is the accepted figure). From the Source below:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 6

I prefer scenario 3: The deniers are right; global warming isn't even =happening= much less human caused.

Unfortunately the universe doesn't seem to much care what I want, and generally goes about doing whatever it jolly well pleases.

Answer 7

120 thousand years ago, the earth was much warmer than today, then it started cooling, ala the ice age. 25 thousand years ago there was a glacier where Central Park is now, then it started warming, even though there were few humans.
Humans maybe contributing to global warming but also dogs, cats, and other animals, anything that breathes. Global warming does have a good side, the growing season will be extended so we can grow more food for the growing population, but bad side is that as the population grows more food will be needed. The GWs like to blame it on fossil fuel, but if the population were reduced, less fuel would be used. What we should do is start using more birth control & start eating less. If we eat less, less food would be needed ( fossil fuel is used in food production). If we eat less food we would lose weight which would cause a reduction in the amount of green house gases we produce through breathing. Some of the GWs live in huge mansions, it takes more fossil fuel to heat & cool a large structure. They are hippocrites who want others to conserve but not themselves.

Answer 8

It's too bad that you have no sense of history past last week. The Earth has warmed up and cooled down many times over it's cycle. Other planets in our solar system are experiencing the same kind of warming effects that we are seeing here. By driving a Toyota Prius, turning off your air conditioning or by only using 2 sheets of toilet paper will do nothing into changing the Earth's climate. We can't even accurately predict the weather 3 days from now let alone 50 years from now. If it makes you feel better by driving hybrids, then by all means do so, but don't come and preach to me and try to force me to change my lifestyle. The global warming crowd is mostly nothing more than left wing anti-capatilist communists.

Answer 9

I think = ^_^ = is being very belligerent with dana1981! Dana has spent so much time and has sacrificed himself to dedicate whole heartedly to fight the misinformation campaign here on Y!A. If he wasn't fighting the battle with Bob and Trevor, where would we all be? Brainwashed by propoganda from Exxon and Mobil! This is hard work and takes alot of time and effort. Somebodys got to do it!

We should commend dana 1981 for spending so much of his time and giving so much of his intelligence and wit to combat the denier propoganda. Dana is one of the shining lights of this site. We owe him a debt of gratitude. He is a true hero and fighter for what may be the most important cause of the 21st century and beyond. Keep up the great work, Dana!

Answer 10

Certainly the degree that humans have added to global warming is in doubt. Those that pretend that it is not are ignorant of the facts. Those that pretend that there isn't an industry springing from the government sponsership of global warming research are also ignorant. There is far more economic incentives to push global waming than for Exxon to say that there is no global warming. Blaming Exxon and industry is typical of the left and is without merit.