Can I be a 'Climate-change doubter', without being considered to be wicked?

Can you link to some? I haven’t yet seen anything I’d consider credible which says that climate change due to human activities is doubtful, myself.

Sorry – to answer your question: in some circles you would not be considered wrong-headed or ignorant, because it seems like you’ve made an effort to educate yourself about the issue. However, climate change is an issue where peoples’ beliefs tend to trump stated evidence. For instance, as you can see I’m inclined to call BS on studies that come out in favor of the climate-change-is-bunk side. To self-analyze a bit, I’m guessing that my inclination is due to the tendency of the climate-change-exists camp to throw their hands up in exasperation that the other side continues to claim otherwise for what seem to be primarily selfish reasons (the ability to continue polluting, as it would appear, is a fiscal boon). This gives a generally accepted impression that the latter is sane and the former, selfish to the point of insanity. Due to this impression, I’d say that your suspicions are correct, and you cannot claim something like “Climate change is not a proven fact” without being widely seen as willfully ignorant.

I think there is a climate change occurring I just am not convinced of the absolute cause or cure. Because of this I have been lectured, talked down to or just plain ignored.

So I would say you are in for an earful.

I googled anti human caused climate change or something like that and had over 5,000,000 hits but was told they are all bogus. I figured the law of averages had to say maybe 1 or 2 out of the 5 mil might have some validity but apparently not.

Wicked isn’t the same as willfully ignorant. I’m sure you are educable.

There are always counter arguments, even in science. But the consensus of science is hard to dismiss.

Wicked? No. Believing that human actions are a leading cause to the increasing climate of the earth is not a religion.

If, after educating yourself completely on a topic, you find your opinion is contrary to that of others it is not evil. It is just your determination.

The key is to properly research all sides- not just the one that supports your ideas.

On a side note- any time someone uses the Holocaust as a comparison example on something completely unrelated to genocide I get an involuntary twitch. Just sayin’

@wildpotato Well, I think that here might be a good place to start.

@lloydbird But: “According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4’s head of documentaries, the film was commissioned “to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide.

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film’s contributors). The film’s critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases. However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.”—from Wikipedia.

Now, I know that Wiki is hardly the most authoritative of sources, but this article is well-cited, and I’ve found most of their articles ideologically neutral. They pretty much just present the facts. And if this is what Wiki says, I’m worried about the credibility of that movie. I’m still looking for a bunch of resumes for the folks the movie is quoting.

@Dog Quite a few seem to be using the suffix ‘denier’ to try and insinuate an association between the two. Sadly

If you could provide credible sources that show that carbon is Not directly linked to temperature then I’d love to hear it. Other wise there is so much evidence that shows that carbon does relate to higher temperatures that its a sure thing. So yeah you are not wicked but I guess to people like me who have seen the numbers its so obvious it hurts.

@wildpotato OOOH that was quick. Did you just watch it all in superspeed?
Methinks that you had a prior stance.
Thanks for the extensive response but, I do recall that no fault was found with the basic substance of the film.
Unless you know better.

That depends – are you driving a Hummer and burning tires while you proclaim your views? That might make you evil. Otherwise, you are just a puzzling example of someone who does not accept the consensus of the scientific community.

@lloydbird, I noticed that @wildpotato provided citations to substantiate his claims. You, howver, seem to quote only yourself. Would you care to document some of this nonsense for us please, or is it all just too ephemeral to have scholarly import?

@pdworkin
How sweet of you to attempt to come to the rescue.

Play nicely, children.

@lloydbird About superspeed. You linked to the same video in the Q:“Shall we create a god?”

I just would like to ask, why would anyone want to question why we clean up our production and society? That’s what I would like to know. If we can avoid changing the mixture of atmospheric gases, it’s a good thing.

I don’t see it likely that scientists around the world – from so many different countries -would be taking part in a world wide conspiracy.

@lloydbird Dragging out an ad hominem doesn’t seem to me to offer much support for your “case”. Can you provide some citations instead, or are you implicitly admitting that your stance is intellectually bankrupt?

I am sure you are not wicked. But if you make input in the tense debate of Climate Change: true or false?, you have to expect some heat.

@lloydbird I started watching the movie, saw a bunch of people making claims, and wondered who the people were. Cause, you know, I like to know the qualifications of the people I’m listening to. So I went to Wiki on a new tab while continuing to listen to the clip, skimmed over the bit I copied-and-pasted for you, and decided to quit watching.

Of course the climate is changing. It changes all the time. It is part of a cycle which has gone on as long as the world has existed. We are going through a hotter phase at the moment, but some time in the future it will cool down again. There is a lot of dishonesty masquerading as science out there, as evidenced by people like Al Gore who preaches climate change, and flies around in his personal jet. Any scientist who dares to disagree with climate change is hounded almost out of the scientific community- that is why the scare mongers seem to be in the majority. To answer your question, you are not wicked, but will be portrayed as such. Best of luck!!

If you drive a cargo ship or own a medium-sized dog, then you are a total a-hole.

Carbon tax should fall all on China and India because they are the mega polluters. What did you buy this black friday that wasn’t from China But then again, someone has to pay for all of our consumption-even if it has been imported from overseas.
I am more worried about going into another ice age, now without any manufacturing here, without air travel screwing up the atmosphere its bound to occur. I want warmth.
What will happen when we have another mega volcano, than I wonder what all the pundits will say who is at fault-that will be amusing.
Man does impact the climate, but to think we blow mother nature away like a dried dandilion is hard for me to believe.
As I have always said follow the money-who is going to get rich from this mandate.

@Garebo Guess which country stands for the most pollution in the world.

Tell me – statistics always satisfy the needy.

Brazil?

Perhaps you need to look beyond the arguments—to the politics of those who insist that humans have nothing to do with any of the climate changes. What is to be gained by those who say this is not happening? And what is to be gained by those scientists who are alarmed at the rate things are changing?

I am in the camp of seeing the change and acknowledging humanity’s role part in accelerating the change. I am convinced by what I have read and seen and heard on the subject.

For a good film that shows the connection between all things, see HOME—which you can find on utube.

To more fully answer your question, you need to do real work to check out why you thinking the way you are, and if you don’t like or agree with the science put forth as proof, then you should be ready with some strong research showing an alternative vision. There is always room for other opinions, but they should be educated and fact based—and not just conversation makers.

I have not read the above answers so forgive me if any of this has been said. We have been in a warming trend, that seems to be undeniable. I guess there are two questions out there: 1. Will this trend continue, and 2. is it caused or influenced by things we are doing to the environment?

Personally, I think it doesn’t matter, because it just seems natural to me to want to use clean energy that does not rape the earth, pollute our air, and does not weaken us politically by being dependent on other nations for oil. Not to mention that wind and sun are free over time if we can lower the cost and improve the technology of these types of energy. It will help your personal pocket if we can get this right.

So, maybe ignore the topic of climate change and just focus on our amazing planet. For me there seems little reason to argue. And, I don’t think you are wicked. It is always good to question, but don’t dig your heals in so far that you lose your ability to accept you might be wrong.

@JLeslie – that is a good answer. All these “believers” want to convince everyone they are right and I don’t see why that is necessary. I am in favor of not polluting the earth any more. I do as much as I can to reduce my footprint. (I got rid of my super-tanker but I am keeping my dogs). But that doesn’t seem to be enough.

I also think one must be sensible about how these goals are achieved. There was a cement manufacturing plant here. It was forced to close because when it increased its prices to cover the cost of the carbon pollution reduction scheme it became noncompetitive and went out of business. Meant the loss of about 150 jobs and here is the real klinker, the cement will now be brought in from India where the pollution created in the manufacturing is so much greater than it was here because they have little to no pollution controls in place over this sort of manufacturing.

I think the believers should concentrate their energies on solutions instead of conversions to their rigid beliefs.

@rooeytoo Thank you :). Generally I do not like scare tactics, and at least here in the states everyone lately seems to resort to frightening people to influence them. At least among the politicians and others associated with political parties they have been using this technique and the media loves it.

I do think we will have a very cold winter this year. Our summer was very mild. Gore got lucky and released his movie during a hot streak. I am not saying a cold winter means we are not in an overall warming trend, but the average guy was easily influenced when summers were very hot.

I think better to err on the side of caution, so I am inclined to go along with the “believers.”

Yes. Doubting climate change has nothing to do with wickedness.

Denying evolution is much harder because of 4 billion years of history that has left its mark. Comparative genomics confirms all the evidence. Unfortunately, climate is far more complex. There are only a couple of hundred really good climatologists in the world. A weatherman or woman having studied meteorology is normally not an expert climatologist. Drawing conclusions from a few winters or summers is downright silly. There are many open questions how our climate will be in 2050, but the dangerous signs are strong enough to apply the precautionary principle. We are pumping 100 million years worth of solar power into our atmosphere in a mere 100 years. Every chemist knows that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The effect can be measured in every lab in the world.

I wonder why the climate change denier movement is much smaller in Europe. It seems to me that the US is very prone to all kinds of denial movements, not only evolution. They form quickly getting loads of funding. The vast majority of climatologists in Asia are also in consensus about climate change.

@lloydbird – If there was serious controversy, they would never have been a Kyoto protocol. And there would be no major conference in Copenhagen, Denmark next month.

It’s okay to have doubts, but it’s dangerous to listen to polemics. Videos titled “the climate change swindle” are in fact very polemic and downright foolish in the same way videos titled “the evolution hoax” are. Strong language is often a clear sign that there’s a hidden agenda. Don’t become a victim of it.

You should check out a book called “Climate Confusion.” It’s by Roy Spencer.

In no way does doubting global warming make you a wicked person. It means you’re a critical thinker and that you like to use actual information to form your opinion as opposed to just believing someone who says, “The world is warming and it’s all our fault.”

Just keep in mind that for all the evidence out there against global warming, there is information out there supporting the theory as well. I think it’s more wicked to only give credit to one side of the argument. Keep doing what you’re doing and form your opinion rationally.

Well….., where to start? I watched ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, (all the way through @wildpotato) when it was broadcast on tv a couple of years ago. It caused quite a stir and wide debate in the in the media over here. Both pre and post the broadcast. Yes,Channel 4 did get its knuckles rapped for daring to question the prevailing and burgeoning orthodoxy. But the finding that the audience was ”..not materially misled.” says something about the validity of the content of the programme. It seems to me that there might be significantly more baby here than the over emphasised bathwater.
Prompted by the “heat” generated by this thread (good pun @oratio), I decided to have a little rummage and found a couple of interesting sites that might be worthy of open minded scientific scrutiny @mattbrowne . I would genuinely like to know how any ‘believers’ would dismiss their content. Perhaps, “You can’t believe what you read on the internet.” might be employed.
p.s. I am merely doubtful. But it seems that to doubt is heretical. According to the bleats of some. @pdworkin
p.p.s @Allie, @rooeytoo and @Harold, I sense the flow of clear, clean, free-thought air coming from you.

Bleat. Another ad hominem, but no scholarly citations: just the sound of crickets. You make my case, sir.

@pdworkin Bleat on.

@lloydbird – I think Critter38 is one of the few Flutherites who got a deeper scientific knowledge about climate change. See

http://www.fluther.com/disc/62307/what-do-you-think-about-the-hacked-e-mailsdocuments-that-have-allegedly/

for example.

People who believe in man made climate change are stupid fools so I would not care if they considered me wicked.

@beancrisp You have demolished all other arguments with your wisdom. I suggest you place an emergency call to Copenhagen and let them know, too.

Wow. Just “wow”.

@pdworkin LOL. I love that answer.

@beancrisp – Your comment sounds a bit like people who don’t believe in man made web browsers (which rely on the results of science of course) and they don’t care if they are considered denizens of wonderland.

”..wonderland.”.. Sounds like a nice place. @mattbrowne