Are there still any DUers who doubt climate change, or that it's man-made?

If so, what are your justifications for believing that way?

I ask because I'm debating a moron on another BB about this, and he insist that he's not just parroting right-wing corporate talking points. So, I'd like to see if there's any other approach of his I could be missing.

:shrug:

Yeah, I think there are probably some DU climate change deniers lurking about somewhere.

Go figure?


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

unassociated with the subject of climate change with respect to global warming - has the opposite effect. That's been proven to be so.

1 so far.

Cows are responsible for a portion of it.

It's demented, I tell you!

However, I often disagree with the numbers in some studies. You hear right wing talking points that say the only reason scientists claim there is global warming is because they want to scare people into providing them funding. While this is silly, there is a TINY bit of truth to it. I deal with grant funding all the time at work, and often, the ability to get future funding is based on the results of previously funded projects. I believe that some scientists are using the worst case scenario in many of their studies and presenting it as the most likely scenario to help their cause. I see many people in my line of work focusing on the worst case scenario, and ignoring the best case scenario because they need to convince people that it is a cause for concern.

I believe we are part of the cause, but there are far too many factors involved to say that we are completely the cause of climate change. I was a meteorology major for 2 years before changing majors, and there was a lot of debate over how much impact humans have on the increasing temperatures. Some said it was almost completely due to our CO2 emissions, others said we played a part, but there was no definitive link between the two. I have seen many studies that show only around 60% of meteorologists agree that global climate change is due to human activity. We obviously have climate cycles, and many ignore this fact when discussing climate change, and we have no way of predicting these cycles. There is reason to believe that we may be in a cycle, but also that we are adding to the increased temperatures.

I do not see a lot of research that factors in the replenishing of the ozone layer since the Montreal Protocol. I believe that this has to have some impact on our climate. It has been a while since I studied this, but I believe the thinning of the ozone over Antarctica caused surface level temps to rise, while cooling upper level temperatures. Since we have made great progress in replenishing the ozone layer over the last 20 years, wouldn't it make sense that this would cause surface level temps to cool, while raising upper level temps? I just don't see this in a lot of research. (Although, I must admit that I rarely read more than the intro and conclusion if the paper is more than 5 pages).

I don't think there is any way to doubt that we are playing a factor in climate change. However, there is a great deal of reason to question just how much of an impact we play in this. Lets be honest, we still don't know quite a bit about our planet and how it works, there could be many reasons for climate change that we havent discovered yet. And from a scientific perspective, it is irresponsible to act as if we know all there is to know about weather and climate.

What would be the harm in dealing with climate change as if it IS primarily man-made, and that the worst case scenarios are probably true? Do you see any harm in doing that?

Even if we found out that humans had nothing to do with climate change, it is forcing people to think about their actions and how they impact the environment and others, which is definitely a good thing.

One thing that cannot be debated, we are hurting the environment. Climate change may not be completely proven, but our influence on air pollution is. Before global warming came around, people seemed to ignore how their SUVs hurt air quality. I guess it was difficult to convince people that air pollution was something to be concerned about. Global warming and climate change have convinced people that their actions do have some effect on the environment.

None of them will admit to any value in actions to decrease human impact on the environment. SIGH.

I wish I could export some of DU's reason to the world outside...

How difficult is it to drop your cans and bottles into a separate container? Or to turn off your car if you are sitting in a drive-through or at a train crossing? Even tiny changes, if done by enough people, have a huge impact. However, some think its their right to throw everything into a landfill.

Honestly, I don't think the biggest concern is the US. As China and India become more industrialized, they will start polluting like crazy and will make us look like tree-huggers. The only way is to develop cleaner energy sources that are efficient. We may have the money here to force less than efficient methods onto people for the sake of the environment, but they wont do that in China or India. They will only adopt green policies if they are cost efficient.

First, most people I know don't fall easily into the two buckets portrayed in the media - "complete denial" or "end of the world". There are lots of possible nuances. The questions of whether the earth is warming, whether or how much of that is anthropogenic, how much it will warm, what the impact of that warming will be are all different and people address them in many different ways.

As to the harm done, it depends on what we do. Every action has costs and benefits. There are costs associated with global warming and costs associated with attempts to address the problem. Making the consumption of fossil fuels more expensive by taxing them, through CO2 caps, our additional regulation will cause a lot of harm. I've yet to see good studies showing what the price of fossil fuels would have to be to halt global warming. If it would result in a 10% increase, we'd be insane not to do it. If it would be a %1,000 increase, we'd be causing a huge amount of suffering. Would that be more than doing nothing and letting termpertures rise? I don't know.

I guess my point is that I'm not willing to write a blank check and say do what it takes to fix global warming and assume that the most pessimistic warming scenarios are true. I want good assessments of the likely costs of warming and the costs of remediation and I want a balanced response.

i will go with that
it doesnt help the debate when as soon as any skepticism is voiced you are labeled "denier" i dont deny climate change
it happens 4 times a year
i do wonder if the scant evidence collected SO FAR can be useful
the fact that i am not 100% bought in on it does not make me a "denier"
any more than your passionate belief in something makes it true

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x80181

I've used all the same arguments to doubters that Al Gore does but to no avail. This one is a little different inasmuch as this article dates back to 2007 before we started experiencing much of the effects of global climate change. Bill McGuire of the University College London's Hazard Research Center predicted that we would have global events like huge earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes erupting, and I would add giant tornadoes and floods. So many 8+ earthquakes, mile wide tornadoes, and volcano eruptions that are occurring frequently within the past two years were rare events prior to that.

Now, there are other signs like the melting glaciers and land that is so drought stricken, crops that were grown there, can't be grown there anymore that have become evident, but the doubters aren't in those places so they don't want to believe it. However, those other events have been widely publicized throughout the world even here in the USA by our propaganda media. I convinced a doubter acquaintance that something is wrong by giving him a copy of this article where no other argument would work with him.

Basically every whacktacular and fringe belief you can imagine has some support at DU -- and every other web forum, of course.

there are DU'ers who believe the moon landings were faked. There are DU'ers who believe Sorcha Faal is credible.

Du'ers have a wide range of beliefs. Some reasonable, some not-so-much.

Sid

However I don't believe it's man made. In fact, I find it laughably arrogant that humans believe they have that much power over the planet.
All of the arguments for man made global warming rely on cherry picked informatino and a very narrow view of climate history. I'm replying from my phone on my lunch break and I'll be back later on my laptop to deal with the inevitable flames. I'll be happy to provide the science behind my position at that time.

persuade me otherwise.

If we did, there would be no need to cherry-pick information from either side.

Look at the Earth's over all climate history. It's quite impressive. Look at the temps during the Permian/Triassic extinction event and tell me how it's NOW 'the hottest it's ever been'. There were FERNS growing where Santa lives.
But the best rebuttal is from the last 50,000 year's history.Look at that and tell me why you believe any thing right now is out of the ordinary.

Is human activity the largest producer of atmospheric Co2?

The answer to both questions is yes. Anything else is a moot point.

Natural decay of organic matter in forests and grasslands contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere than does human activity. Humans contribute about 8 or 9 gigatonnes per year (some sources say as much as 32 gigatonnes). Organic decay and the oceans contribute hundreds of gigatonnes.

Human activity contributes more CO2 than does volcanic activity.

that was because of some as-yet-undiscovered race of humans? No. Stating that humans are the largest producers of CO2 is false in a big way. 'Human activity'doesn't amount to shit.

That CO2 has been trapped for hundreds of thousands of years and we're releasing it.

I understand long-range changes, but I think we're flipping the switch to something different than what we have now.

We're releasing a lot of that, but it's still small potatoes compared to natural processes.

I don't mean to say human CO2 production doesn't matter or that it won't affect the climate in a big way, just that in terms of tonnage it's pretty small.

you can tell us which era featured hundreds of millions if not billions of cars, and countless factories that burned fossil fuels and spewed carbon non-stop 24/7 in to the atmosphere in addition to what the Earth naturally produced via vegetation, volcanoes and such.

I'm curious as to what type of automobile T-Rex drove, I have them pegged as the Hummer type but I could be wrong.

So much CO2 that the oceans are uninhabitable.
All this crying and moaning about the weather when you really don't know how good you have it. And also how little bearing or influence you have.
Facts are persistent things.

and placing it into the atmosphere could trigger an anoxic event?:shrug:



Did you even read your own argument?

Facts; are great but you if don't apply logic to connect the dots between the facts, they mean nothing.

Believe whatever you like. If accepted climate history doesn't suit your purposes and you choose instead to substitute your own 'dot connections' it has no bearing on my life or what I believe. I did my own objective research and found that the actual climate history of the earth does not support the 'man made global climate change' position.

No, I don't believe for a second that we generate nearly enough greenhouse gases to trigger anoxia. Even going full bore we only generate a tiny fraction of them - the earth creates exponentially more than us on its own.

Tipping points are extremely fine, what we contribute is on top of what the Earth will do on its' own.

Temperatures don't have to warm that much from man made carbon to trigger a natural release of methane from thawing tundra and that becomes a whole new ball game.

Speaking of creationists, believe what you will or listen to the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists; they are alarmed by our relentless burning of carbon.

Edit for P.S. It's not just our burning of carbon, it's the vast elimination of forests which absorb carbon.

.

OK I don't doubt climate change.

Is it man-made? I don't know.

Has climate change ever happened before? Yes. Way before man could have made an impact.

Are we humans helping to accelerate it? I believe we are.

Climate change before the eighteenth century was gradual, now it's on steroids and we are at fault. Unfortunately, those idiots who don't believe it, will have to wait until our atmosphere won't sustain us as life forms anymore and then it will be too late. Earth will go on and other species will adapt but I doubt if we can.

Ice core data shows that present temperatures and CO2 levels are not unprecedented in the last 400,000 years or so.



Human civilization is a product of the latest warming cycle. It's clear that we're also exacerbating it.

Seems our species is about to find out if we can survive the ride. Doesn't look all that promising.

Why are liberals so afraid of calling it global warming? Climate change happens all the time.

Simplifying it that way leads people to dismiss it when faced with a cold winter, not realizing that it will involve a wide range of changes in weather and climate.

they don't understand that it means global average temperatures are increasing but specific locations may not be or may even cool. Not to mention the day to day fluctuations of the weather ... one colder than usual day in winter and 'global warming' is debunked in the minds of some.

'Climate change' is more accurate than 'global warming' for the way most people interpret the phrase.

They've got a photo exhibit on how fast they're retreating. They even show the years it didn't retreat - the depression era when all the factories were closed.

for the past month and a half, I don't doubt it at all. And all the tornadoes and earthquakes have really frightened me. Of course, I didn't doubt it before, but now I am all the more convinced.

I certainly believe in man-made global warming and the horrific consequences we'll suffer down the line. But I won't blame today's tornadoes, droughts or heat waves on it. Few respected climate scientists will either. The data are just too complex to posit any kind of link today. It bugs me when RWers laugh about the latest blizzard or cold snap: "so much for global warming, eh?" and it bugs me equally when liberals do the same thing about hurricanes and heat waves.

consensus behind it?

I don't think I'm smart enough to understand it. I also don't think the vast majority of people understand it, but that doesn't stop them from having an opinion. But I realize that 99 percent of scientists believe it exists, and I trust a scientist over a politician or a preacher.

You all will have to excuse me if I am a bit skeptical. It's just that I have lived through a few over hyped end of the world (non)events. The population bomb, although well intentioned, was moronic. The much heralded ice age of the 1970's seems pretty silly today. The acid rain of the 1980's, I can assure you was completely survivable. The hole in the ozone layer, Pisses me off the most. God, how I miss the 80's big hair. Sometimes when I close my eyes and remember, I can still smell the hair spray. Y2K, although a nice party, was the non-event of non-events. Besides, we should always be the best possible stewards of our environment without the need of some looming catastrophe.

but we required factories and power plants to put in advanced scrubbing equipment so it's less of a problem now.

It's not like some bullshit thing that was overhyped and then went away of its own accord.

Theory:
Rearguard of Modernity

in the journal Global Environmental Politics

Environmental skepticism denies the reality and importance of mainstream global environmental problems. However, its most important challenges are in its civic claims which receive much less attention. These civic claims defend the basis of ethical authority of the dominant social paradigm. The article explains how political values determine what skeptics count as a problem. One such value described is “deep anthropocentrism,” or the attempt to split human society from non-human nature and reject ecology as a legitimate field of ethical concern. This bias frames what skeptics consider legitimate knowledge. The paper then argues that the contemporary conservative countermovement has marshaled environmental skepticism to function as a rearguard for a maladaptive set of core values that resist public efforts to address global environmental sustainability. As such, the paper normatively argues that environmental skepticism is a significant threat to efforts to achieve sustainability faced by human societies in a globalizing world.

Download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers/71775/Rearguard-of-Modernity



Study to test theory:
The Organization of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticism

Co-authored with Riley E. Dunlap and Mark Freeman published in the journal Environmental Politics, June 2008

Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed 'sceptics' claim to be unbiased analysts combating 'junk science'. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
download here: http://ucf.academia.edu/PeterJacques/Papers

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

We can only live in a certain range and much of the life we are dependent on has a smaller range or one that doesn't go as high and we can't exist in anything like our present numbers.

Climate maintenance is important in any event. We can't hold up to snowballs or much higher temperatures. I think talking temperatures in eras before humans is out of context except to get a grip on possible extremes based on certain conditions. We are creating or entering a phase that isn't super friendly to our sort of life and civilizations, that is all that is important to believe then it is time to do what it takes to sustain our kind.

Is it scientifically proven to be man-made? Technically, no.

HOWEVER, there is a high correlation between greenhouse gases and climate change, and we know humans are releasing lots of greenhouse gases. It's not a huge leap to conclude we are at a minimum contributing to climate change even if we aren't the only factor.