Where do you stand on climate change? Skeptic, believer, unconvinced it's man-made?

I think the next generation will be in a better position to answer this question.

climate change is surely happening…caused by carbon emissions and various other factors. In simpler terms, nature reacts to the way we react to it and our world as we know is changing. Hi humourme :)

So much is being said from both sides and I don’t know who to believe. What I am is confused.

Don’t get me started. Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. What’s going on NOW is simply the result of intensified solar heating of the earth. Why do I think this…because I’ve listened to a very smart individual. Lord Monckton. He knows his stuff.

It is a natural cycle but it’s come early thanks to our raping of the Earth.

A raindrop never thinks it’s to blame for the hurricane.

I think that GW is real within nature as a natural cycle with no fault from humans or animals. However, I do not believe its actually happening now and taxing carbon emissions and other things is a load of bullshit bigger than the moon. That right there is to take your money all the while fooling people into thinking they are doing a good thing. Biggest ponzi scheme ever.

@Shatzee who’s taking whose money?

The overwhelming majority of scientific evidence points to it not only happening, but to our having contributed to it.

@holden I think she’s referring to governments and businesses that will charge us more for basically everything that produces carbon emissions. That will be their excuse to raise prices of their products. Any cost that businesses will incur as a result of a global emissions target will be passed onto us. The consumers are always the ones to suffer no matter what comes out of the Copenhagen summit.

@holden I like that analogy.

@augustlan You’d be surprised how much of that so-called scientific data has been debunked as fake, correct data suppressed, embellished and just flat concocted from nothing. You’d also be surprised to know how much toxic crap is still in our atmoshere resulting from the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Oh, we’ve added some since the beginning of the industrial age, but then what we’ve done is paltry compared to natural events and atmospheric cycles.

@SirGoofy Very good point about the natural events that have occured which have produced greater amounts of carbon and pollution compared to what humans have.

@HumourMe Thank you!! Now…if there is ONE thing that has not been mentioned in all of the climate change junk is this: What happened to all the radioactive crap released into our atmosphere resulting from literally hundreds and hundreds of above ground nuclear tests conducted in Nevada, from the late 40s to about 1960?? What did all THAT crap do to us all that they are not telling us?? Thoughts?

I know nothing of science, so I don’t understand what the specialists are saying about it, although I’m pretty sure that the level of concern shown for said event is quite real, so it must be true. Nothing lasts forever, and the religious counters to global warming are immature and deluded at best.

So…in this case, the only word I can think of for my stand on the issue is “agnostic”, which is slightly ironic, but eh.

@Symbeline Being concerned is a good thing…don’t get me wrong. Not being able to do anything truly concrete about it is another. The earth is bigger than all of us and the earth is in control…not us. Everything we do from here on out will be nothing more than a spit in the ocean…and just about the time we think we’ve made some impact…we’ll probably enter the next micro ice age.

@SirGoofy Right. Natural issues which threaten mankind are usually disocvered much too late to do anything about, if there was ever a way to rectify it…but I like how scientists attempt to gather knowledge from it, no matter how desperate it might seem.

@Symbeline BINGO!

I believe that climate change is happening, although I don’t believe that people are the cause of it.

My goodness. I had no idea there were so many doubters about. Can you folks link to some studies that you’ve used to form your opinions? I’m very curious to see reliable evidence that shows that climate change due to human activity is not happening.

Copy the URL, put quotes around a word or two in your answer back here on fluther, and then a colon directly after, like this

“Climate Study”:

Then paste the URL directly after the colon.

of course we are some cause of it it is show that we do go through warming and cooling patterns but the fact is carbon is going to effect this one way or the other no matter how you look at it

I do believe that things are changing, our wheather patterns have been changing just sooooo much lately, one have to see this happening!!

It remains to be seen if the changes that people are referring to are actually a climate change, or just a minor fluctuation in climate. I really do not believe that we can “fix” it by making any radical changes in our daily life.

I don’t know enough of the science behind it, or who to trust, to feel like I could take a definite stand one way or the other. So I rely on what I do know. For example, I know that I can see the smog in air. I know that I’m breathing it in. Therefore, I support carpooling and mass transit because that is less I have to worry about.

@YARNLADY I agree with you that we can’t really “fix” climate change. Honestly how is a 10 or 20% reduction in carbon emissions by (insert date) going to cool down our Earth or even slow warming? It just seems so ridiculous. At least we’re trying but I really doubt it will have any impact at all.

But also doing small things like replacing light bulbs with energy efficient ones seems kind of pathetic in the grand scheme of things. Any energy we as individuals save per year large businesses and factories will make up in a day.

Well I’m not particularly knowledgeable in climate science so I’m not qualified to judge the evidence on it’s merits. I have to rely on the authority of the scientists who study it for a living. The majority of peer reviewed scientific research appears to support the man made global warming theory. Ordinarily that would be enough for me to say it is the best answer we have, but the extreme politicization of this issue has left me hesitant to trust what anyone says about it. There seems to be a lot of lies and misinformation on both sides, which is strange. You don’t usually see good science supported by lies.
So the short answer is that I don’t know. Though I still lean a little in favor of the apparent scientific consensus.

I’m a believer. I’m not an expert, but the proof is there. Melting polar icecaps, strange weather that’s getting stranger and more dangerous each year… and it’s not like we’ve been treating our mother planet very well.

I remain skeptical. Some things are just too good to be true and if you’re the kind of person looking to be hysterical about something (and doom from atomic bombs and genetically modified onions just aren’t doing it for you anymore) global warming will satisfy your jones for a force-of-nature/angry-mother-earth/Godzilla-will-now-destroy-your-city-for-your-arrogance.

Once upon a time groups of people expected that God would punish them for being wicked. While a lot of the population dispensed with God they can’t seem to manage without the punishment part.

@Factotum While you’re point is valid, not all believers in climate change are looking to be hysterical. I don’t think the apocalypse is near, I don’t believe in karma, and I personally am perfectly content with being stress and drama free.

But how else can you explain the facts?

I have not read the above, sorry if anything is redundant. I believe better to not rape and polute the earth whether climate change is true or not. Generally, I think there is natural fluctuations in our earths climate. It seems irrefutable that we are in a warming trend right now, maybe it will reverse on it’s own, maybe not? Maybe we are contributing to it, maybe not? I think why not err on the side of caution and go towards a “greener” planet. Look, it seemed odd that we were affecting the ozone layer, but that turned out to be true from what I understand.

I did not mean to tar all believers in anthropogenic global warming as hysterics, only those who ‘dig’ the idea of it.

As for the facts, C O 2 and temperature doesn’t track as well as people maintain they do. Sunspots and temperature track better. This is not to say that there is no global warming or even that man doesn’t contribute to it. Both are likely true but not in any way proven. Phrases like ‘not up for debate’ and the good old ‘settled science’ are bizarre when used in connection with something that is only, according to the IPCC, only ‘most likely’. Weirdly, the author claims there is ‘no doubt amongst the world’s leading experts that the current dangerous warming trend is primarily caused by humans’. Obviously the IPCC has some degree of doubt, yet he claims that they are the very scientists who don’t doubt it. Moreover the writer attempts to compare the theory of gravity with the theory of global warming by claiming that theories are ‘well-tested’. The theory of man-made global warming is of course untested. Or if it has been I would like to know where they are keeping the other Earths with the control groups on them. After this explanation of theory the author then tells us we should spread this ‘proof’. If there really was proof we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There isn’t. It’s a distinct possibility and worthy of further study.

I found this sentence to be somewhat worrisome as well: “If you are interested, you can quickly learn how to stop the spread of this kind of misinformation using these innovative tactics.” If his innovative tactics are anything like those of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, well I’d rather people didn’t sign up to stop the spread of ‘misinformation’.

@JLeslie While I have no real disagreement with people erring on the side of caution or choosing to be greener I do have a problem with people – and businesses – being forced to be greener through law and most especially ‘international law’. And beyond that I have more problem still with the uneven application of such ideas where certain countries will be exempt, certain other countries won’t play ball, European countries will pledge – as they did in Kyoto – to reduce their emissions by this amount over that many years and then not actually do it. Any countries that actually do honor such a treaty – more fool they – are rewarded with a weaker economy due to lower production.

We don’t have enough years of accurate measurement to make anything more than guesses. The climate changes naturally because of sun spots- we get ice ages and warmer periods, and I think we even had a mini- ice age during the dark ages. If we happened to be going into an ice age and had the same industrialization we do now, maybe people would think our pollution was blocking the sunlight and making the planet cold. My guess is that what we are doing is causing the warming, though.

@Factotum Yes, I have heard these arguments before and can see some validity in why greener laws and agreements can be inequitable and backfire. Part of me thinks you have to start somewhere. I also think that generally businesses don’t change much unless forced. I don’t want businesses to close down because of a regulation just to see it open up in a country that doesn’t have the regulation, then the polution to the environment is the same. But, I don’t want to hear some company that makes millions is not willing to make a few million less to do the right thing. I am fine with profit, I am a capitalist at heart, but the extreme greed as of late is not healthy. For sure the subject is complicated.

This is interesting, the last time this question was asked, I said I thought the climate was changing but I am not sure if it is a natural cyclical occurrence or man made. I was lambasted! I barely survived the onslaught. Wonder where they all are.

Anyhow, I do what I can to save energy, I use cloth bags to carry my groceries, I recycle. Can’t hurt and might help.

The developing countries are not going to cut back on their carbon emissions until their standard of living is equal to countries like the USA, Australia, etc. A concrete plant here just had to close because the added expense of CERP (carbon emission reduction plan) was more than they could handle. Put 300 out of work and the irony is that now the concrete will have to be imported from probably India, so there will be more emissions by shipping it here and the actual production process in India has in place none of the controls that are required here, so in the long run, more pollution.

I do believe the climate is changing. But not because of anything man has done. The earth goes through changes in its regular cycle. First they want to tell you it is getting hotter. But do you know there are places in Europe that can no longer grow grapes because it is TOO COLD they grow grapes for centuries. But no more. Of course this is why they changed the name from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.

I think we need to be asking ourselves, “Who has the most to gain from global warming and all the new taxes they’re going to levy that go along with it?” How convenient it is that our awareness of global warming came at such a fantastic time! We almost missed our window of opportunity…...Whew! That was a close one.

Oh…..you didn’t know you were going to pay MORE taxes than you already do on the hundreds of things you purchase year-round? Relax! It is so much worse than you think. I hope you’re not buying anything in a plastic container, or that has any plastic parts on it. There’s a carbon tax on it. But that kind of excess taxation (without representation, or did that escape your attention) is just for the smokers, right? Because they deserve it for being so reckless.

Surely they won’t tax US by adding more taxes than what we already pay on things we MUST to have in order to survive…..right? We’re the good guys! Damn…...how cold would THAT be?

Here’s a hint: Don’t buy a house with a fire place in it. Don’t use space heaters, either. Or natural gas. Is it getting cold in here, or is it just me?

It’s already happening. All in the name of global warming. France announced it is now positioned to impose a carbon per-mile tax for every mile a car is driven. If you’re very, very astute, you’ll notice the date on it. This is somebody’s idea of a bad joke, and we’re the punchline.

http://www.eta.co.uk/2009/09/11/france-introduce-carbon-tax

And it’s coming to your neighborhood. Think you can get around it? Don’t bet on it. All public and private transportation will be assessed per-mile tax, too. But wait – there’s more! Fossil fuels and motor oil are going to be assessed a new tax, too…...there’s your carbon tax. Are you drawing the correlation, yet? For those of you sitting in the back of the class, EVERYTHING can be assessed a carbon tax.

Maybe that per-mile thing won’t be too bad. We’ll get used to it in time, as long as we can also get over the carbon tax on…..clothing? Better take care of those duds, dude! It’s for the BEST possible cause! Try this on for size: Cap and trade agreements will cost every US household above the poverty line an extra $1,700 per year. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22cap+and+trade%22%2C+%241%2C700&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

They’ve even found a way to tax cow farts.

By the way, the filthy rich (emphasis on filthy) want to impose a “war tax” to fund the war in Afghanistan so that they can get their oil for free. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/23/lawmakers-propose-war-surtax-pay-troop-increase-afghanistan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+foxnews/politics+(FOXNews.com+-+Politics). Disagreeing with this may be the only decent thing Pelosi ever does, so I hope you caught it. We’ll watch her flip-flop like a fish on a yacht deck on this issue at a later date. What do you mean, you don’t know what a yacht deck looks like? They do.

But I’m sure that after the war, the US government will do away with those taxes just like they’ve always done. It’s just temporary, right? You don’t mind if one or two of your neighborhood boys die to help them out with that little oil problem, do you? After all…..it’s a matter of national security.

Watch the damn clip. +5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rHURTDNBaI

@SirGoofy, that is covered in the clip link I gave! Interestingly, all those tree hugging environmentalist groups are strangely MUM about the TONS of pollution our own governments dump into oceans and the atmosphere. But heaven forbid you give an answer when the grocery clerk asks: Paper or plastic?

It’s manmade in the sense that the military (or whomever) most likely is using weather control technology. See here and here—> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.2977.IH:
That fits with the idea that we are going to see weather extremes as a result of global warming climate change. If the chemtrails I’ve seen nearly every day for the past couple of years aren’t for reflecting solar radiation, then they’re probably part of a more interactive weather control system.

With respect to all the carbon emissions hullabaloo, I think it’s a sign that (long) suppressed efficiency/energy technologies are going to debut either because the oil and gas equation is no longer sustainable or because the faction that controls oil and gas can no longer suppress those technologies. Much like proposing a per mile tax for automobiles in advance of fleets that achieve higher mpg, a carbon tax scheme ensures that tithing stays intact when our current tax mechanisms fall away.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that groundwork for U.S. carbon taxes were laid out in the original bailout bill, nor that the OMG-the-world-is-going-broke financial crisis is happening concurrently. If you were part of a carbon-based energy cabal and you were faced with loss of hegemony due to technological- or resource-based sea change, wouldn’t you take all the money back so that the people remained indebted and so that you could control “investment” in “new” technology?

IMHO, the global climate change narrative is the new paradigm for social control religion. Carbon emissions are the new Original Sin. Just as John Perkins, Economic Hitman would have us believe, we ourselves created this mutant capitalist monster through our own greed, because we are obviously bad, greedy people who, for example, conspired through our own carbon-based lust and greed to kill mass transit in major U.S. cities in favor of automobiles.

A few hundred years ago, the ruler of an empire in region of Mexico City claimed that without human sacrifice, the sun (which brought life and, more importantly, food) would cease to rise in the morning and over time would cease to exist at all. This dogma allowed for the ritual sacrifice of that society’s undesirables and was later used to justify imperial expansion (since the sacrifice of enemies was just as good). Obviously, we look at that today and think it’s silly, just many today think it is silly to believe that if we don’t do what religion tells us to do, then we will suffer eternally. Now we are told that if we don’t practice environmental conservation, we will perish. (Oddly, environmental evangelicals are mostly the the same group that decries overpopulation, so you would think they’d be in favor of a cull or two.)

Either it’s true and part of the natural order that human sacrifice is required to sustain civilization or we are so gullible in our indoctrinated guilt that we allow someone “important” to claim ownership of the sun (and all of its byproducts) on our behalf.

I think it is the Dance of the Most Absurd that Al (my monthly carbon footprint beats your annual one any day) Gore is touting global warming, is in favor of both the carbon tax AND taxing the shit out of every household in America to the tune of $1,700 annually over the cap and trade debaucle, while he is a member of The Bilderberg group, who have (by far) the most to gain by implementing global policies, that WILL force you into parting with most of your money from each paycheck. Why would a person who is SO CONVINCED that global warming is real have a carbon footprint the size of a caldera?

Thanks for all your interesting answers guys, I would respond to each one but I’d be here forever.

@HumourMe, oh… they didn’t tell you? Haha!

HAHAHAHAHA!!! I knew there was a catch to this place :)

@kevbo they didn’t tell me what?

@SirGoofy “Climate change has been going on since the beginning of time.”

Irrelevant. Forest fires have been going on for millions of years and can be started by natural processes. That doesn’t negate our ability to start a forest fire. Similar outcomes can have different catalysts.

“What’s going on NOW is simply the result of intensified solar heating of the earth.”

Amazing! But there are a couple of small problems.

Incoming solar radiation has been virtually constant (other than a slight decrease) over the past 50 years, accepting 11 year solar cycles. Trends in solar irradiance over the last 20 years have been in the opposite direction needed to account for warming. Furthermore, globally winters are warming faster than summers, and nightime minimum temperatures are increasing faster than daytime maxima….once again the exact opposite of what would be predicted if increased solar irradiance was the cause. Over the last three years the sun’s output has decreased to its lowest observed since direct measurements began in the 1970s.

We can safely state that there is no convincing evidence that variations in solar output are contributing to the majority of warming over recent decades, because all measurements and predictions directly contradict such an explanation.
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/463/2086/2447

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/default.html

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html#_Toc240972838

“You’d be surprised how much of that so-called scientific data has been debunked as fake, correct data suppressed, embellished and just flat concocted from nothing.”

So suprise me. What evidence do you have to support this mind boggling assertion.

Oh and perhaps see here first.

http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/DOCS/SelectCommitteeAnalysisStolenElectronicDocuments.pdf

NIce video here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

“You’d also be surprised to know how much toxic crap is still in our atmoshere resulting from the eruption of Mount St. Helens. Oh, we’ve added some since the beginning of the industrial age, but then what we’ve done is paltry compared to natural events and atmospheric cycles.”

Actually I think you might be surprised.

The net effect from volcanoes over this century has not been one of warming, but one of net cooling. In terms of GHG emissions, the emissions from volcanoes represent approximately 1% of total anthropogenic contributions. Not to mention the compensatory cooling caused by the aerosols volcanic eruptions emit into the upper atmosphere.

The issue is not whether volcanoes can alter the climate (of course they can and have as any paleoclimatic record reveals), the question is whether volcanic eruptions are a significant cause of the net increase in ghg concentrations in the atmosphere over the last 50 years (relative to cooling from aerosols), and similarly a significant contributor to the net global warming occurring over the last 50 years. In short there is no evidence that volcanic eruptions can account for recent climate change. In fact they are offsetting some of the heating that would have likely occurred in their absence.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm

Download the full report, check figure 2.5 and read the caption. The blue band represents volcanoes and solar irradiance.

Also examine the figure and text on page 39.

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html

see figure 1.

“Everything we do from here on out will be nothing more than a spit in the ocean…and just about the time we think we’ve made some impact…we’ll probably enter the next micro ice age.”

We have increased concentrations of CO2 (not to mention other greenhouse causing gases eg. methane), by over 35% above pre-industrial levels (that’s not a drop in the ocean) to the point where they are likely to be higher than at any time for approximately 15 to 20 million years, and certainly higher than in the last 800,000 years.

There is no viable alternative explanation than anthropogenic emissions to account for the majority of recent global climate change (last 50 years) that can withstand independent scrutiny in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Any such alternative cause would have to negate basic principles of physics that have been known for 150 years (since John Tyndall) regarding the capacity of CO2 to absorb long wave radiation (infrared heat) as reflected from the Earth’s surface (hence, the greenhouse effect).

And sorry to disappoint, but another ice age isn’t due for approximately 15000 years.

If you want to continue being completely misinformed regarding the evidence for anthropgenic climate change, then by all means keep listening to someone like Monckton.

Alternatively, here’s some nice primer videos on climate change. I can only hope they’ll be of some benefit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoSVoxwYrKI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms

@HumourMe I’m not a “believer” by the way, I tend to reserve such terms for other subjects.

I just understand the rigour of the peer-review scientific process and am familiar enough with the scientific litertaure (the only source that counts) to know that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that humans have caused the majority of climate change observed
over the last 50 years.

I just wish that more fo the general public could develop the critical skills necessary to spot the difference between hard won scientific evidence and the easily digested and fallacious Mcfactoids which tend to dominate the general media.

I also hope that this sudden outpouring of pseudoscientific myths isn’t indicative of what answer baggers have to offer Fluther.

We all have things of value to offer, including viewpoints, points of reference and feelings. Hopefully, those things can be offered by all parties without unnecessary, hurtful comments. A truly intelligent person will be able to understand the human aspect that is inherent in every endeavor undertaken in a social forum, since it is unlikely that it will ever disappear.

See, I told you so. I knew you would be in for it once the guys that speak in absolutes appear!

As I said in an email earlier today, to the flutherites credit, no one has said a word after an exchange like this. I happen to admire that a great deal. I took a risk with a total stranger, appealed to an assumed sense of decency, and that decency won out over the negative feelings that person possessed, sheerly by that person’s choice. I cannot ask for better than that from a stranger. That was a gift.

Thank you, Critter. I didn’t have the time or the energy.

@wildpotato No worries

It’s been my observation that the climate change deniers are getting very desperate. Quoting people like Lord Monckton is one sign of sheer desperation. The Lord might be a smart individual. But he’s not among the world’s leading climatologists. He knows his stuff, yes. And his stuff is media and politics. People like him getting involved with science can lead to confusing people. The same can be said about some politicians on the other side. Most of our most excellent scientists are rather shy and many of them are not very good communicators. But the public climate change debate is about emotions, same as with evolution.

So all of us who are concerned about climate change and are in favor of applying the precautionary principle should ask the following questions:

1) Why do people reject the idea of evolution?
2) Why do people reject the notion of of man-made climate change?

Fear of not being a special creature anymore? Uneasiness about the notion of a worm, fish or bird being a (remote) cousin of our ancestors? Fear of a multicolored world which is not a simple black and white, good and evil as it might appear at first in religious texts?

Fear of losing our life styles and the accomplishment of modern civilization? Uneasiness because green technology promoters might be part of a disguised communist movement wanting to raise taxes? Fear that the proven economic growth model might be in jeopardy?

I think many high-level scientific arguments have been exchanged, like natural cycles and man-man contribution are not mutually exclusive. The rate of change and so on. @Critter38 is very knowledgeable and we can read more details following the excellent links he provided.

To make some real progress in this debate we should focus on why people are worried. On both sides!

Did you all see the article Eugene Robinson wrote about Palin’s flip flop on climate change? Here is the link http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121402712.html Not sure if she has really spoken out about how climate change is a conspiracy by the left, not sure she is guilty of that? But, she certainly has let go of being interested in climate change in response to the beliefs of her hard core, far right, followers. I find it a shame that she and other politicians are willing to let people believe untruths and be swayed by radicals.

People are worried because the media requires viewership. To get viewership, you need to catch their attention. The only thing that captures the attention of the public at large is sensationalism. Global warning fits that bill in two ways; it serves those who own the news conglomerates, which lines thier pockets, and it scares the bejeezus out of the population, who loves a good scare story if they can’t get a warm, fuzzy human interest story. END of story.

@JLeslie My understanding is that the US has lowered its emissions since Kyoto, despite not being signatories and not having it forced by law. There is social pressure rather than governmental coercion and I like that just fine.

We also have the benefit of a crappy economy right now and that also helps lower emissions. And vice versa of course.

@JLeslie – Well, Palin feels that creationism and evolution deserve equal time at school and she also ridicules fruit fly research, so it’s only consistent that she keeps her anti-science stance on climate change. Actually it would make a lot of sense to ignore totally ignorant people like her, expect when you are a hunter and need some advice, but the trouble is she’s got too many political supporters. I think good education is the only remedy. The whole world would go into collective shock if she became vice president in 2012.

@phillis – Sensationalism is wrong and needs to be exposed. However, the dangers related with some topics being exploited by the media are real.

Yep! I totally agree. But not THIS topic. When we figure out a way to throw a wet towel on the sun, I’ll be sure to read the articles. I think I’ll start a parasol company and jet us back to the Edwardian period. There’s more than one way to capitalize on a major human event. Right, Mr. Gore?

@phillis…so you admit to not even reading any articles or studies? I find this confusing – how can you possibly say something like “Al Gore is full of it” without doing some research on the scientific evidence he uses to make his claims? That’s not an informed opinion, that’s slander.

It is because I have read so many articles (many of them came from members of this site), along with watching many documentaries on this subject, that I was able to come to this conclusion. Whether it’s slander or not can be decided by reviewing the 1st amendment in the US Bill of Rights. Here’s the link to make it easier.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights

Granted, I don’t know where YOU reside. Are assumptions normal in your culture? You sure assumed a lot about me.

@phillis – Well, Al Gore might have been a bit too emotional in his movie trying to get the message across, but the vast majority of reputable climatologists support him. Al Gore is the recipient for the Nobel Prize for a reason. The international community knows climate change is a serious problem. The vocal climate change denier movement is mainly an American phenomenon. Ultimately it will fail, but sadly it’s slowing down innovation and creativity. The US should really innovate in green technology like hell. Otherwise the rest of the world will get all of the market share with the US being the largest importer.

Why, Matt? So that they can tax the hell out of us? Cap and trade agreements are going to cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,700 per household, annually, for households above the poverty line. France has already made plans for the coming year to charge a per mile carbon carbon tax on every vehicle, train and plane. Carbon taxes for all fossile fuels will go up, too, meaning Gas an motor oil.

My question is, why is Al Gore so eager to tax us from all sides? Ohhh….that’s right. He’s set to make Billions because of his Hara investment. Do you not see a conflict of interest here? Can you now understand WHY he “went a little overboard”?

Cap and trade isn’t enough. We have to add carbon taxes on everything we buy. And believe me when I say that, when you get down to it, there is NOTHING that cannot be assessed a carbon tax. They will find a way to tax the CRAP out of every single product we buy, including massive increases on natural gas, electricity and other monthly recurring bills. I see QUITE CLEARLY where this is leading. and exactly who all is going to benefit from it. It sure isn’t the taxed-to-death consumers. By the time they’re through, we’ll have legally been forced to give all our wages to them.

If ya ain’t got money, ya ain’t got power.

That’s the whole damn point.

Gasoline costs twice in Europe. Electricity is also more expensive. Look what it did

1) Far more smaller cars on the road
2) More fuel-efficient cars
3) Better public transportation system
4) High-speed comfortable bullet trains that make Amtrak look like horse-drawn carriages
5) Great windows and insulation
6) More efficient utilities and power grid

Or check this out this success story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_Energy_Law

Obama realizes he can learn something from Europe.

Of course a lot more needs to be done in Europe as well. The smart grid comes to mind.

To be honest I’d much rather pay a bit more tax than run the possibility (a likely possibility in my opinion) of my great grandchildren (or great-great-great³ grandchildren, whatever the case may be) living on a planet totally destroyed by our ignorance.

@anon – Yes, applying the precautionary principle is the responsible way to go forward.

I have 2 wonderful friends who live in Great Britain who beg to differ with you. We’re not comparing apples to apples here. For one thing, they’ve had national heathcare in place for at least a decade, so guess what? No medical bills, no medical insurance to buy. If you look at the cost of private insurance, which we’re all struggling to pay, our cost is a whopping 25% of post-taxed income.

Additionally, if you make below a predetermined monthly income (which is considerably above thier poverty line, but I have never looked it up to see what their poverty line is) you don’t pay for heating costs AT ALL. It is supplied to them via the government, and natural gas and electric companies are subsidized by the government.

Despite what it may look like because you don’t know me, I’m not being contrary, or attempting to do anything other than have a conversation. I’ve no interest in making any enemies here. However, I am very, very angry at what I consider to be the biggest scam in human history.

My question was never answered, which was, where does the carbon taxing stop? While I certainly agree that becoming more eco-friendly can do nothing but benefit every living creature on earth (indeed my own family of four has a carbon footprint of merely 39, as opposed to the 110 from the average 4 member family), I must ask you to consider the possibility that this carbon tax has every potential to become a runaway train, since there is literally NOTHING that cannot be assessed this tax.

Do we really NEED to asses a carbon tax on cow farts? I mean, please! Farmers are already losing farms in record numbers that have been in thier families for generations. Guess who bought the farm? The US government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Sorry, but all I smell besides cow farts is a one-sided, absolute monopoly.

Uh, the Government don’t pay our heating costs if we’re considered under the poverty line, that’s only for OAPs and only a percentage of the total cost and only if you use up to a certain amount of electric/gas—they will stop paying if they feel you’re using too much. I’m not sure where your British friends are coming from but they’re misled—or at least as far as I’m aware; nobody ever paid our (family) heating costs except us, and we’ve been there.

Also, while you pay for private healthcare we pay extra tax for our National Health System (which isn’t great but at least everyone gets health care) and on-top of all the other silly taxes we pay, it does add up quite significantly. Not that I’m complaining, I’ve been in a situation that lasted a few years in which I had to rely on the state for income, and of course all the health care I’ve recieved which would amount to a small fortune in the States.

I’m British and this is just an FYI ;D

@mattbrowne ”...the vast majority of reputable climatologists support him. Al Gore is the recipient for the Nobel Prize for a reason.”

How ‘vast’ is that majority? Who defines ‘climatologist’? Do you have to have a specific degree to be one? Do these climatologists actually support Gore in the sense that they back up all his bizarre and lurid claims? Have they said so, each and every one, that ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ is on the money (so to speak)? And if Nobel prizes are such a gold standard why does our current president have one? Why did Arafat get one? That’s an appeal to authority (the Nobel committee) that doesn’t really do anything for me.

Scientists qua scientists don’t say ‘the science is settled’ (which sounds strangely like STFU to me), nor do they speak of ‘consensus’ as a means for determining truth (truth is not determined by a popular vote)...policy wonks do. They do this because they have an agenda – bills to write, exemptions to peddle, money to make – and they want to get that done ASAP: hence the often ludicrous predictions of doom just around the corner. We’ve passed some of these doom benchmarks little the worse for wear.

Climate models are notoriously inaccurate – they can’t predict the past, are often wrong on the future. It is my contention that until we are considerably more sure about our effect on the environment and indeed what the environment is actually doing as opposed to what some people think it might be doing, we have no business inventing laws and transnational regulatory bodies that can and will limit growth and show a remarkable tendency to limit some countries’ growth while allowing that of others. Even if climate change is everything you think it is the proposed ‘solutions’ are unjust and will be largely ineffectual – assuming they are obeyed in the first place. If the record of Kyoto Treaty compliance is any indication, they won’t be.

I hate to snipe and run by I really do have a plane to catch. I’ll be gone for about three weeks or more (house guests on my return). Since that is the case and I shall be gone until long after this thread expires I suppose I should add in closing; ‘neiner, neiner, neiner’ in case the debate devolves into childishness. ;)

@anon, Okay then! There is little I can do to stand against a Brit when I’ve only been able to rely on others, and have never been there myself. Unfortunately, one of them is an ABer who is not registered here, and though the other one IS registered here, she never shows up. So I guess I’m at an impasse for now. GA, by the way.

Still, I almost forgot, strong proponents of this global warming have not taken on the question I offered up, that being, where do the taxes stop? Shouldn’t we KNOW where we’re going with this before we sign on for it? Doesn’t that at least make sense?

The Kyoto Treaty was facilitated by Sir Maurice Strong – aka Mr. Green, as he is known in China, where he resides, also is responsible for being the central figure in helping a Chinese car company cranks out hundreds of thousands of carbon-producing cars – is a GREAT visionary – for HIS future, that is. There is a reason it is refered to as the Strong Kyoto Treaty. Anybody want to take a guess as to who stands as financial backer for Climategate? Anyone? Al Gore is small potatoes compared to this man. Plenty of money for the few, zip for the rest of us. Gee, that smells like monopoly to me.

@phillis – The UK is a bit of an exception when it comes to trains and good windows. It’s shocking how many houses still feature single-pane windows. But on average British cars are smaller and more efficient than American ones.

I like debates and I appreciate people who differ with my opinions. Fair and meaningful debates are a great tool for progress.

Man-made climate change isn’t the biggest scam in human history. Using strong language only discredits the arguments climate change deniers want to make.

By the way 90% of all methane emissions from cows and sheep are actually burps and only 10% are farts. So the concept should be called burp tax.

Meat requires far more resources than plants. This fact is worth thinking about.

@Factotum – Who defines ‘climatologist’? I would actually refine this question and ask who defines reputable ‘climatologists’?

Answer: the science community does. In fact, it’s one of the best features of science as a whole. There’s a built-in correction mechanism. There will always be dissenters and occasionally they turn out to be right like Wegener or Einstein or Heisenberg. In most cases dissenters turn out to be wrong and usually this is not recorded in the history books.

You and I we are amateurs when it comes to climate change. We need to rely on the experts and what the science community as a whole has to say about the reputation of those key experts. Sorry to say this but you are betting on the wrong horse. However, even if the reputable climatologist split into two groups of equal size, we’d still have to act. If 50% say the potential harm is huge, we still need to apply the precautionary principle. In addition, with the growing middle class in Asia and other regions fossil fuels will become a scarce resource. We will get hit by the mechanisms of supply and demand. Green technology offers a great way out. The longer people resist the longer it will take for them to become an affordable commodity.

Skepticism is a foundation of science. But it is only a starting point. If it is coupled with curiosity and intense intellectual effort, it generates knowledge. But if coupled with apathy and distrust, it leads nowhere. It ceases to be motivator and instead actually ends up preventing understanding.

For example, I provided a link (along with the page and figure number) which specifically points out that climate models are in fact entirely capable of recreating past and present climate.

Nevertheless, Factotum subsequently states that “Climate models are notoriously inaccurate – they can’t predict the past, are often wrong on the future. ”

Which is simply false and misleading. They can recreate past climate with a high degree of accuracy. Longer-term future predictions are of course limited , because they are dependent on knowing the rate and extent of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, which in turn depends on our capacity and motivation to develop effective international policy mechanisms to reduce such emissions (which is why they don’t make predictions, but rely on running scenarios).

Furthermore, models are not the sole basis of our understanding of the climate (although they certainly contribute to it), they are a tool to testing such understanding and making projections of possible future climate scenarios. The core basis for our understanding of the climate are physical laws, such as conservation of mass, energy and momentum, along with an overwhelming abundance of observations, both recent and from the paleo-climatic data.

There are a 1000 pages of text that specifically deal with the evidence, uncertainties and confidence in the underlying science of climate change, all freely accessible by anyone who cares to look (see link below).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm

see also
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

But if you’re not willing to do the work required to test your own understanding of the science, and you’re equally unwilling to trust the conclusions from those who have, then what could possibly shift your opinion?

Happy holidays.

if there is anyone curious about this issue and would like to ask me a specific and honest question, feel free to send me a personal message. I’ll do what I can to answer it to the best of my abilities, and accompany any answer with links to the relevant peer-reviewed scientific evidence and reviews.

Thanks for the gastric update, matt :)
I honestly didn’t know that. Now that I think of it, it makes sense! Let’s tax farmers for cow burps. Perfect!
I didn’t know about single pane windows. Interesting! I love knowing little details about how other places live.
Strong language would be a deterent only to people so myopic they couldn’t get past 2–3 words to read the other 2,000 words. But you’re an author, so I’ll overlook the fact that words mean more to you than normal folks.

@phillis – There an excellent book by Thomas Friedman that I’d like to recommend:

http://www.amazon.com/Hot-Flat-Crowded-2-0-Revolution/dp/0312428928

@Critter38 – Thanks for sharing your insights!

I ask the following: Why are Oil and Coal extracting companies, Truck and Automobile manufacturers, Fossil fuel power plant operators and countries that disproportionately consume and pollute insisting the loudest that Global Warming and its potential consequences are a hoax and insisting that human activity plays no role in any of this?

Why are those with little or nothing to gain ringing the warning alarms?
Aside from a few proposing hair brained schemes to trade carbon credits as a commodity as some kind of solution, most of those warning us are scientists with no significant vested interest beyond the survival of humanity and the planet.

Follow the money to discover the truth of the matter!