For All You Global Warming Deniers

[Solitary]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/photos-this-is-life-on-a-sinking-island/ar-AAd45Ev?ocid=iehp#image=1

[TomFoolery]

It doesn't seem as though there are quite as many people denying climate change is actually a thing at this point, but rather it seems as though the brunt of the denial extends to 1.) whether or not it is man-made and 2.) if it's going to be as bad as all the scientists say.

[doorknob]

So we could end up with a "water world" ?

[Solitary]

We are in a water world now aren't we?   The Great Flood has just started again I tell you, it's those damn lesbians and gay men causing God to go insane again. 

[trdsf]

My attitude towards climate change is really simple.

If the climatologists are wrong and we are not in a period of accelerating anthropogenic climate change, the worst that happens from following their advice is that we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto cleaner/renewable technologies, and dump less pollution into the planetary atmosphere, and have a better awareness of our impact on the world around us.  Oh, and a couple oil executives might make a few million dollars less than they already do.

If the climate change deniers are wrong, the worst that happens from following their advice is the genuine possibility of the extinction of homo sapiens as the planet ceases to be habitable to ourselves and the organisms (plants and animals both) that we rely upon.

Let me also add here that the one significant thing we've done -- banning CFCs in response to the thinning of the ozone layer -- has worked.  There is direct observational evidence that human activity impacts global climate: the ozone hole in Antarctica is repairing itself now that we're no longer dumping the stuff that caused the damage into the air.

[Solitary]

Good post! 

[Hydra009]

It doesn't seem as though there are quite as many people denying climate change is actually a thing at this point, but rather it seems as though the brunt of the denial extends to 1.) whether or not it is man-made and 2.) if it's going to be as bad as all the scientists say.

In much the same way that creationists don't deny evolution, they're simply not sure about macroevolution and whether or not evolution happened "by accident".  Denialism lite - half the calories, still none of the facts.

[Munch]

If the climatologists are wrong and we are not in a period of accelerating anthropogenic climate change, the worst that happens from following their advice is that we wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto cleaner/renewable technologies, and dump less pollution into the planetary atmosphere, and have a better awareness of our impact on the world around us.  Oh, and a couple oil executives might make a few million dollars less than they already do.

If the climate change deniers are wrong, the worst that happens from following their advice is the genuine possibility of the extinction of homo sapiens as the planet ceases to be habitable to ourselves and the organisms (plants and animals both) that we rely upon.

But.. they've got to have... Money!!

[SGOS]

In much the same way that creationists don't deny evolution, they're simply not sure about macroevolution and whether or not evolution happened "by accident".  Denialism lite - half the calories, still none of the facts.

I thought it was (and still is) interesting to watch the corporate spin on global warming evolve over the years.  At first it was outright denial, "It ain't going to happen."  As the evidence mounted and public opinion started to shift, "It might happen, but it's not man made."  Currently, "Well it might be man made."

I predict the next evolution of the argument will be, "Yes, it's man made, but it's too late to do anything about it now."  (I'm thinking the last spin may actually be correct, even as of today).  Not sure, but I have heard that when carbon dioxide reaches a critical level, the effects are not immediate, and seemingly unrelated events are set in motion.  We can take measures to reverse the CO2 levels, but the degree of warmth now added has started a chain reaction that can't be overcome by lowering CO2 levels.  I won't be around to see the end result, however.

It's oddly like the delayed reaction of the public.  Even after the corporate "scientists" come on board, or are faced with admitting that their main function is to serve as corporate shills, much of the public is still dragging behind the times and stuck in the arguments which have already been abandoned, even by their fearless leaders who worked so hard at shaping the cult of denial.

[PopeyesPappy]

In other news the 2014 average global surface temperature was the warmest since record keeping started. 2015 in on track to be even warmer, and July 2015 was the hottest month on record.

[stromboli]

Here in Utah the air is hazy because of fires from 3 different states. We went camping in the Uinta mountains in June. Entire acres of forest have been killed by drought and by bark beetles. Utah as of this next year will be considered in drought conditions, and there is already concern that there won't be enough water for culinary and secondary usage. And we have one of the best series of reservoirs and water collection systems in the west, thanks to the Bonneville water projects of the 50's.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Don't worry ..global warming is all part of gods plan ..It'll be fire instead of floods..

[A Sea of Red]

The people the deny climate change are usually people that are caught up in the idea of anti-environmentalism, and they associate any kind of responsibility as being left-wing ideology -- while being ideological about the whole thing themselves. It's that classic conservative projection wherein they accuse you of being guilty of something they actively take part in. The evidence is all there. We have have satellite, ground, and geological records of temperature. We have the cooling in the stratosphere, the dynamical changes to ice sheets, the predicted levels of carbon dioxide, and on and on it goes. There's as much evidence for human caused climate change as you can get from theory.

Bitching about the conclusion of a theory because it disagrees with ideology doesn't make the science any less real.

[PopeyesPappy]

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

[Munch]

I don't want to sound like an anarchist or someone who believes the 'only strongest survive' attitude, but taking a broad scope of the world today, the growth of human kind, and it using up resources at an alarming rate, the sad fact is either one way or another, nature will out, and events will happen that will kill countless people in the future, thus lessening the impact humankind has on the planet. Either the temperature will get so unbearable it causes dramatic weather patterns across the globe, or resources simply are no longer sustainable, people will see the effects of it.

When an animal species grows to large, human kind culls that animal species, so it can't effect other animals in those areas. But while humankind does this to certain species, it as a species grows, kills of countless other species, and uses up resources.

Sad fact is, our future generations are going to be fucked because of how many people there are today.