Is it arrogant to say we couldn't make it worse?

Question

Is it arrogant to say that we are too small to have an impact on global climate change when the top scientific organizations (AAAS and NAS) say we are? Moreover, are they (AAAS and NAS) wrong when they say that we can help slow it by immediate action? (cutting CO2 emissions?)
How many of you even care to take a look at the mechanics of global climate change before you even form a belief? I think it's worth looking more into. Wouldn't you say?

Answer 1

Sarge927 - Here you go, head on with not a single tap.

Sarge927 - "Have the AAAS and NAS acknowledged the fact that the eruptions of Mount St. Helens and Mount Pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the human pollution caused since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Every piece of literature I have seen from these two organizations involves a lot of tap-dancing around that particular issue."

This is simply flat contradicted by measured scientific data. Proof:

"T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 are dwarfed the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced."

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

Quantitative graph, upper right.

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

Shows how volcanoes mostly cause a bit of short term cooling, by throwing a lot of dust in the air.

Global warming skeptics have words, and no data. Global warming scientists have the data. This is science - the data wins.

jim z - socialists like these?

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

"National Review published a cover story this past week calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"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.”

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 2

So basically you're asking if it's arrogant for a layperson with little or no scientific background who has done little or no research on global warming to claim that we can't be affecting global warming when the scientific experts are telling us that we're the primary cause.

Yes. Many times I've asked people why they think they know better than the experts. They usually answer something ridiculous like 'science has been wrong before' or 'Al Gore is paying them off.'

Most people who form the belief that we're not affecting the climate have not researched the science behind the issue. They usually display a stunning lack of knowledge of even the basic principles like the greenhouse effect:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoU9oiefDVPK.uyEIOBFN1MjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20071116093411AAu0ooz

Personally I think it's everyone's responsibility to understand the science behind an issue which almost all experts are telling us could have catastrophic results on the human race. Unfortunately, many people refuse to make the effort.

Answer 3

I think it's more arrogant for the doom-and-gloom criers to say they KNOW to a certainty what's happening and that they also KNOW to a certainty that mankind is causing the problem and that they KNOW to a certainty how to fix it.

Have the AAAS and NAS acknowledged the fact that the eruptions of Mount St. Helens and Mount Pinatubo released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than all the human pollution caused since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution? Every piece of literature I have seen from these two organizations involves a lot of tap-dancing around that particular issue. This is how environmental organizations operate -- they try to whip people up into a panic, at which time they don their Superman capes and say "Don't worry, WE'LL save you!" These same people who are screaming about global warming destroying the planet said our ecosystem will be destroyed within 20 years, and that was over 20 years ago. Gee, we're still here.

Isn't it more plausible to say the environmentalists really don't know what they're talking about and are basing their sensationalist predictions on an uneducated guess?

Answer 4

It does seem arrogant to say that there is no truth at all in the AGW theory.

Personally I'm quite interested in the science of global warming. I want to know whether it's real or not and how real it is. As an engineer in construction, policies on global warming will affect my work directly as it determines how much energy efficiency developers need in a building and how much their willing to pay for it.

A lot of engineers have looked into global warming and have reservations about the fit between predictions and real world data. We know how hard it is to model a complex system and are reluctant to trust a model that isn't proven.

Answer 5

I think one of the problems is that many of the non-believers have been brainwashed with the argument the climate has changed naturally in the past. However, they seem to fail to realize many of the abrupt and natural climate shifts of the past were in fact driven by greenhouse gases, precisely what we're releasing into the air in large amounts while I am busy typing this response..

Answer 6

Human's to survive were arrogant - war was dominateing mean's of survival, now we are overloaded with people and pollution (our blue planet) and everyone is rich (compared to 200 year's ago.) The blanket of carbon surrounding our planet is a new thing, it could do anything. It will likely become a system that we can understand in future. Right now it is so novel that any prediction's of it's dire consequence's are easily squashed by doubter's.

Answer 7

The arrogance clearly comes from those that pretend to know more than we do about the science of climate change. Too often, looking at the mechanics of global climate change means swallowing the Kool-Aid of the socialists pushing an agenda. Their beliefs are invariably tainted by their philosophy that everything from man is bad and polluted.

Answer 8

It is no more arrogant to build primitive computer models and lure the public into thinking that the only thing they have to worry about in the future is slowly rising sea levels and a slowly warming climate. When in reality the climate could and probably will cool dramatically. In just a couple of decades people could be fighting in the streets over bread, if the climate continues to cool.

Answer 9

Here is the same bogus argument - If you don't believe in global warming the same way I do, then you're for polluting the planet.

Pollution control is a multi billion dollar business. Many people get very rich helping the planet. You don't have to believe Algore to help the planet. You just have to care and have a good profit motive.

Answer 10

you are so right! everyone turns their head when u bring up this issue but we have to wake up and start trying to save what we have left.