Are AGW skeptics happier and healthier?

Question

Are you happier and healthier for being a AGW skeptic? What benefits/positives do you get from being a AGW skeptic?

Please AGW 'believers' and skeptics be polite and courteous in your answers and comments to each other. This question arises from genuine interest in AGW skeptic's beliefs and values.

ADDED:

Thank you for all those of you have answered courteously, I really appreciate it.

For those who have not, please edit your answers. I am very interested in your opinions so I would be grateful if you would reword it then it does not cause others offense. Different opinions does not mean that it has to be combative. We can learn from each other, even if we do not share the same views.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation, bella

Answer 1

Yes I am, thank you for asking. I don't have the burden of guilt or the pessimistic view of mankind. I do regard pollution as bad and I am very environmentally conscious. I would like to see a cleaner world, but I don't think man has significantly effected the climate on a planetary scale.

Answer 2

I guess I'm a skeptic at heart when it comes to following the crowd. I've always been taught to lead, and in this case with global warming I see AGW used as if it were fact. I'm one to dwell on actual facts and not hypothesis which at this current time every study on global warming from believers and skeptics are hypothesis's. I'm a skeptic in if we do cut carbon I want it done right and not to tax the hell out of the middle class b/c thats who will get hit hardest. I'm all for cutting carbon for the sake of the environment and becoming less dependent on nonrenewable resources. I'm just not sold on how much Co2 will effect the climate considering we've never witnessed Co2 levels of this magnitude and we're not exactly sure what effect it will have. The models used to project the future climate cannot account for cloud cover which is vital. Am I healthy, I'd like to think so. Am I happy never been happier, am I pessimistic , yea I'm a glass half empty person given some situations. But neither of these things about myself effect how and why I am a skeptic of AGW. It is uncertainties that can equal to drastic change that I don't feel we know enough to make those types of decions just yet.

Answer 3

I'm not sure.

I know that being a believer in AGW is sometimes inconvenient. There are damaging activities, like driving fast, that I used to enjoy but have sacrificed to the cause. Foreign holidays, facilitated by air travel, are also sacrificed. I can understand AGW sceptics clinging to their scepticism rather than make those sacrifices. Maybe they continue to enjoy those activities in spite of the nagging doubts. Such enjoyment might make them happier and healthier (enjoyment can have both effects).

On the other hand, being an AGW believer, I have not only given up fast cars and holiday flights; I have adopted a simpler lifestyle which has made me happier overall. As soon as I sold the car nearly 40 years ago, money worries disappeared. My health and fitness has also benefited enormously from the exercise I get from walking and pedalling, which are themselves enjoyable activities.

Being released from the financial demands of keeping up with the neighbours, I have not needed to work so hard and am able to enjoy frequent music and dancing activities which bring me considerable pleasure.

People wonder why I am able to dance twice as hard and twice as long as most people half my age and the answer is - by selling the car.

Having written all that I now feel I must change the "I'm not sure" judgement with which I began. I now feel that the sceptics think they are happier and healthier but have got it wrong. I bet Permaculture Bella has far more fun than Dr Jello.

Answer 4

That's an interesting question.

Just thinking about myself, I think I'm happier being an AGW 'Alarmist' or 'Realist'. While I'm concerned about our future and rather pessimistic that we'll avoid catastrophic climate change, I do feel good that I'm doing my part to avoid this scenario and educating others about it.

If I were a skeptic, I think I would be disillusioned that the scientific community could be so wrong about an issue like global warming. I mean, the scientific experts are telling us that a catastrophic event is coming our way, and I think they're completely wrong. How could I help but be irritated by that? These idiots are supposed to be the experts!

Maybe it's because I'm a scientist myself and hold scientists in general in high regard, while most global warming skeptics don't think much of scientists, so they don't care that the experts are supposedly wrong. But personally I'm glad that I'm not a skeptic.

I also wouldn't be happy if I were the kind of person who ignored the scientific data and consensus on issues like this.

Answer 5

From the contrary perspective, anti-environmentalists have been using this argument for a long time.

I read a profile here that brought it home for me. Paraphrasing: "I realized it was neurotic and self-defeating for me to hate the country I lived in, hate the way I lived. So I gave up Liberalism and embraced the American Way."

And I thought to myself, that's just great. A surefire, simple way to feel better about yourself, your country, the world: Denial.

In another answer a skeptic pointed to a scholarly article about the neurosis of the environmentalist - taking on the sins of the world, so to speak. My response was to say that I went through all the stages of environmental grief many years ago. I have arrived at environmental acceptance. I will do what I can, when I can, with what I have, even if I believe nothing an individual can do will make any difference.

The anti-environmentalists are stuck at denial. As long as they remain before the barrier they can convince themselves that nothing is wrong, nothing needs to change. With the steely resolve of denial nothing contrary shall breech their beliefs.

And the key point is - it's an all or nothing proposition. As soon as you peel back the curtain, allow a crack in the dam to go unplugged - the searing light of the truth will blind you, the crushing waters of realization will smother you. A giant wave of remorse will crush you and hold you beneath the waves… until you… somehow… learn to accept the truth. Many good people don't make it through. Most, I think, quickly realize it's more than they can handle and return to the beaten path. It's no wonder many choose never to venture the less worn path, never even to see there is one.

Happier and healthier? Who is to say. I can only say for myself I would rather search for the truth than live a lie.

Long way to say “Ignorance is bliss”.

Answer 6

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere should be absorbed into the ocean at an increased rate. The ocean holds something like 25 to 50 times as much CO2 (or its appurtenant carbon ion) than does the atmosphere. I don't' think human emissions of 100 ppmV or so (maybe 1 part in 200 of the carbon in the ocean) is going to significantly affect pH over the long run. In addition, there are buffers that drastically reduce the effect. I have studied formations formed from limestone that is chemically precipitated and oolites which are sand grains of calcite (CaCO3) that remove excess carbon in warm waters. First, I think since CO2 solubility is related to temperature, climate and sea temperatures naturally fluctuate, and the ocean fluctuates in its acidity in a dynamic equilibrium. We may have bumped up the acidity but I don't think it is very worrisome. If we were to suggest the ocean is becoming less alkaline (which is closer to the truth) that just doesn't sound as scary as making it more acid. It is all about making things seem more dangerous than they are, it seems to me. Dana suggests that it is killing reefs. I would like some evidence for this and not next to a bubbling volcanic vent spewing carbonic acid as was done a few weeks ago. pH is all about alkalinity and/or acidity. If some liquid has a pH of 6 it is acidic. If its pH is 6.5 it is less acidic or more alkaline. At least that is how I remember my chemistry.

Answer 7

I am a AGW Skeptic. I don't think it effects my state of happiness. I am skeptical because I have looked at the data and opposing arguments. Being a skeptic does not mean I am saying the theory is wrong. I am just not yet ready to follow the herd. I feel the CO2 driven theory is a valid and logical argument. I also feel many of the opposing theories are valid.

I AM a proponent of going to alternate fuels like Nuclear, Solar, Wind, etc. to reduce pollution and get off foriegn oil. I am for smaller cars and houses to conserve fossil fuel uasage. I am for reducing the world's population and reducing the rate of destroying out natural resources.

Answer 8

In the short term, yes I think AGW sceptics are happier and healthier. I worry about global warming so therefore my blood pressure rises and my hair is more likely to fall out.
Ignorance is bliss i suppose and denial is a surprisingly effective defense mechanism.

Answer 9

My skepticism has no impact on either my health or my mood. The benefit of being a skeptic is nil. The benefit of being a vocal skeptic is to help educate the open-minded reader in a targeted attempt to thwart the proposed paradigm of basing global economic and political policy on fantasy. In that, vocal skeptics are being altruistic in their attempt to conserve resources and freedoms that AGW proponents would have you squander.

Answer 10

Are AGW skeptics any healthier? no! and are they more happy? no! they are way too serious to smile very much ,they think life is one gigantic conspiracy all orchestrated by tree hugging greenies,how old fashioned it is to think like that.You never hear anything positive from them ,if they are not putting down Hillary then they pick on people they know are better than they are,their paranoid negativity reminds me of the Cold War the 'Russians' are now infiltrating 'tree huggers'?Oh well they should look at the GEO-4 summary,all they have to do is type it in,that's if they have an open mind?