My sense is that "global warming" has given some people an easy way out of discussions on environmental responsibility. Moreover, I think that humans could face another similar string of events, leading back, at least in part, to environmental problems that we caused through our agriculture and resource consumption.
I try to redirect global warming skepticism back to the original and extensively more empirically supported discussion, which is that our civilization may be at risk of collapse whether or not we are directly contributing to a hypothesized warming trend. But these efforts to redirect are often ignored.
Anyway, will anyone admit that they're skeptical about man-made global warming, yet have done legitimate reading and research to discover that there are still reasons to be concerned about our impact on the environment?
If so, please speak up. Thanks.Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?Hierarchy of global warming opinions
Global warming deniers form a sliding scale of denial which is outlined below - in general these beliefs are designed to prevent action being taken.
Simply deny Global warming is happening - and maintain that no action is necessary - an increasingly uncommon position.
Apparently unconvinced by the clear evidence of global warming and unwilling to accept that human behavior has a significant effect on climate change - would not support spending taxpayers' money without even more and more and more convincing evidence. So we don't have to do anything.
Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing] - so we don’t have to do anything.
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China isn’t doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China does something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us money - so we don’t have to do anything.
(There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something, but it's too late now")
The newest one: global warming does not exist, but, in fact, the opposite is occurring
When debating global warming, it is wise to establish beforehand which of the opinions each debater holds, referring to the list above - otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point. It may be similar to arguing with someone about the New World Order as you need to find out exactly where they stand before engaging with them. 'Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?
Most of them either don't know or don't care. In a society that's overrun by oil tycoons a lot of the information is kept from us. Also, those bureaucrats in Washington are trained to think like oilmen in that the environment will recover. Others believe that a catatonic event won't occur in our lifetime. They expect to leave the responsibility for the next generation to deal with.Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?I am very skeptical about man-made global warming.
But most of the skeptics are concerned with our impact on the environment, I have found the "problem" is with environmentalist. They don't seem to grasp the entire issue. Take sustained farming, I've had environmentalist tell me with a straight face that there should only be organic farming, no gmo's etc, after all it the best for the environment. Never mind that if every farm did that you would need to kill off over half the people in the world. So on one hand we need to keep care of the environment, and we need to feed everyone, so we have to be careful because if we don't keep care of the environment the crops will fail and there will be world war.
EDIT
The case you’re thinking about was a farmer who claimed it was from cross-pollination, the court found he knew what he was doing, that is using Monsanto’s GMO to improve his crop and not pay for the work, yes I followed the case very closely. What you haven’t heard was the cases where Monsanto was sued for contaminating a non-GMO crop they’ve won some and lost some of those cases.
As far as safety, GMO have gone through more testing then any non-GMO crop, but really there are no crops in mass production that haven’t been modified, wheat, corn, potatoes, etc all have been heavily modified, the only difference is that they haven’t been tested. There are cases where using just cross-pollination, where the resulting plant could kill you, and in once case it went into production only to find out it poisoning people.
On your second thought, if we went with only organic farming and no GMO's half the people in the would would die. So next time you’re at a family reunion or with a group of friends, count off everyone, 1, 2, 1, 2 etc then pick a number say 2, everyone who’s a two is now dead. Also starving people do stupid things like start wars, maybe drop a nuke or two. All it takes for a government with a nuke to say "Give us food or we'll use a nuke against your country. Right now there is plenty of food to go around, despite what the press is telling you. The problem in those countries is the government, and we've been luck that they don't have nukes otherwise who know what would happen.Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?
Reducing Co2 emissions as a very inefficient way of helping out the environment. ( assuming global warming if false) If one is indeed concerned about the environment (clean air and water) we can get more bang for our money by concentrating on other methods.Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?Some will claim to, as to appear more credible, but most are attached to the belief that our quality of life is dependent on perpetual fossil fuel usage.
You stated:
The Anasazi, Maya, Easter Island, Norse Greenland, and numerous others have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have collapsed due to human-inflicted environmental damage and the problems and consequences that arose from it (thank you Jared Diamond).
First, we don't know what killed the Anasazi and Easter Islanders. It wouldn't be shocking to me if some drought or other natural catastrophe struck them. Easter Islands are very small and easily harmed by removing all the trees etc and putting all your eggs in one Easter basket. Greenlanders certainly perished due to natural climate fluctuations. I loved Guns Germs, and Steel by Diamond and therefore cut him a lot of slack but he is off on the deep end on some of his assumptions. Resource depletion is exaggerated. What resource do you think the Anasazi or Greenlanders used up? There are plenty of resources. The problem is that there are too many people easily swayed into thinking we are running out.
E=mc squared. Think about what that formula means and yet alarmists feel like we have a finite amount of energy we can use or so it seems by their tactics. We live on a planet with 2 thirds covered by miles thick water and they pretend we must preserve water for our grandchildren.
I am skeptical of significant or harmful human caused climate change and work in the environmental industry keeping the groundwater safe. We have to decide how much pollution is allowable and how clean is acceptable. There is no such thing as no pollution.Do any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?
Yes, I do.We have had man made accidents, such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill. This did cause harm, but it was temporary. There was also the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, ( which is a prime example of why government should not run any business) which did cause death and will still result in cancer for many, but still the earth survived relatively unharmed. We have deforestation for a multitude of reasons, some of which include clearing land to plant corn for ethanol. This land clearing in itself releases co2. We also have natural disasters, such as floods and hurricanes that have disrupted the planet, but the planet has survived. I think man made pollution has been brought more under control, but we need to stop polluting the waters and the air we breathe.
Yes
But my answer to our future is not to lie to the public about Man Made Global Warming.
Using that lie to tax the people and get control over their Energy use.
then having that control and money create a socialist Society to rule the world through th United Nations who would have global control over individual countries!
Let's look at real solutions to our energy
Nuclear power that would provide energy for 300+ years
and that through a process of super heating water at a nuclear plant and charging it with electricity separate hydrogen and Oxygen from the water at a rate of 1/2 the power unit into the water to receive 1 full power unit of hydrogen out. (Less power to produce than what you get)
We could use that for hydrogen fuel cells or flip the switch and send the electricity to the Grid instead of making hydrogen
How about spending that billions in Research money they use to try to fool us into believing some phony Man Made Global warming agenda and use it to Research way of cleaning up, increasing efficiency of things, improving the power Grid, and better power storage (batteries)
America has not got were we are by punishing people or businesses
nor having government control our lives.
I have a positive outlook for our future if we pull together for the right reasons and right direction of our resources.
I have no faith in letting our government control us and expect that we will all be better off.
Government is too subject to Corruption and Waste
clowns to the left of me jokers to right here i am stuck in fantasy land with all of you
DrBlob
co2 is a inert gas and does not pollute anything its only been accused of causing warming which has never been provenDo any global warming deniers nonetheless still feel concerned about human-caused environmental damage?
1) Global warming is hooey.
2) Don't be a slob.
I think the denialists are just ignorant of the scope of the problem, as you alluded to in your question.
As such, it is impossible to get an intelligible answer out of them. Of course, they haven't done the hard work necessary of reading and discovery in order to understand the problem. If they had, they would not be so intransigent in their denial. And if they still had doubts about man's impact on the environment, they would be able to form a cogent argument. Like, how it would be possible for man to use the world so completely as to transform it into a pile of waste, and yet still leave a world for us to live in.
For instance, something a bit more convincing about how we can pollute and drain all the worlds aquifers without consequence. There are thermodynamic limits to how much energy is available for filtering and desalinating water. There isn't enough energy in the world to desalinate sea water and pump it into the interiors of continents to grow grain on the scale we do now. There is a limit to how much contamination an ecosystem can withstand. So we should pollute without conscience because we can just filter it out later if we need to? It takes orders of magnitude greater energy to remove a contaminate after it has escaped rather than to prevent the escape in the first place.
I think this kind of discussion is beyond those in denial. Cosed to new information, closed to discussion. Man has an inconsequential effect on the environment and even if he did we could just clean it up. This argument shows a lack of understanding.
It's the psychology that interests me. To be able to look and not see.
The Anasazi civilization crumbled because of the increase in temperatures and drought during the height of the Medieval Warm Period.
This question has no correct answer.
Both extremes of this argument have fired their guns the bullets are in flight. On one hand do we go green or on the other dry and brown.
The 1972 Club of Rome reports two conclusions are definitely showing signs of being correct if we carefully examine our world 37 years latter.
quote
In 1972, the Club of Rome shocked the world with a study titled “The Limits to Growth”. The two conclusions were:
1. … That if economic-development-as-we-know-it continues society will run out of non-renewable resources before the year 2072. The probable result being a sudden uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity. …
2. … Collapse occurs in this scenario because of pollution instead of resource depletion. The bottom line is traditional forms of economic development will end in less than 100 years – one way or another. …
End quote
In the last 18 months I've flown across China, Mongolia, Russia, (northern asia) Europe and Australia considering the land I could see there was little of no water or trees (forrest) on these lands.
In Australia the Murray river is 3 to 5 metres below normal flow levels at Murray Bridge in South Australia which is about 1,000 miles down the catchment of this river complex.
I would also point you to examine Google earth globally and in this media you can follow the expansion of man out of Africa by the desertification of the countryside. We are told by researchers that North Africa was lush forest at about the time of mans entry on to the earths stage.
In the forest state of Tasmania Last month I hired an aircraft to fly over the South West area in particular the Gordon and Franklin River Catchment area. There is a 100 year old copper mine in the area called Mount Lyell which dumps its tailing's into the Queen and King Rivers, I first seen these rivers in 1969 and they caused me to change from she will be right attitude I had then, The rivers were an estimated 30 feet deep in some areas of crashed rock from the mine 40 miles away. 40 years latter this sand is pouring into what was a beautiful harbor there is now a growing mine tailing fan at the mouth of the king river.
Deforestation does the same with the topsoil - it just pours into the sea.
Examine the profile of the Mississippi valley and the growth of the Delta since Europeans came to North America look at early maps.
It was the beginning stages of the little ice age that brought on the droughts that put an end to their culture forcing them south into warmer and more fertile territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pue…
The Viking culture of Greenland was ended by the little ice age starting with the Oort solar Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Merika
Henry Sinclair on his voyage to North America around 1400 mentions that even though conditions had eased some at that time few were left alive in the colony and many asked to return to Iceland or the isles on his return. Columbus visited Iceland prior to his taking the southern route to see if northern conditions had eased enough to allow his taking the northwest passage the Viking masters had documented using during summer months. On finding conditions even in high summer colder than Sinclair had documented he decided on the longer, but warmer southern route that had been documented by others earlier.
The decimation of Easter Island was from internal religious wars, not foreign occupation or influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Isla…
The long-and-short of it is that there are dozens of environmental concerns that need to be addressed that have nothing to do with global warming. Ultimately, the common denominator is how the environment will affect human existence. "The World," said George Carlin, "is doing just fine." In his sarcasm there is a grain of truth. We are only concerned with environmental issues because they deal with our survival as a species.
Global Warming will not be the end of the human species. In all likelihood, rapid desalination of the oceans will lead to an ice age before the average temperature on earth reaches a point that makes human life impossible. Granted, a lot of us may die before the glaciers advance, but there will still be humans around to witness the next ice age...barring a planet killing meteor strike or a massive volcanic eruption.
Groundwater, or lack thereof, will probably kill us off. Sure, the world is 3/4 water, but you can't drink it or use it for farming without removing the salt. Drought and melting alpine glaciers are contributing to a lack of sustainable groundwater. Additionally, toxic materials still leach into the groundwater throughout the world. Maybe we are only supposed to be able to feed a couple billion people. I don't know, but I have to believe Cyclones hit India and Southeast Asia for a reason...natural population control.
Hotels and Restaurants have a maximum capacity for safety reasons. Maybe we should have a government imposed limit on population like China? Maybe we need to kill off a couple million people? Maybe we need to start a Eugenics program to engineer more advanced humans? All of these sound like EXCELLENT ideas!!!
Let's eliminate man made impact by eliminating men. That would be the best answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment