Global Warming and the Environment

[WinePusher]

It's bad enough when individuals deny reality or threaten others, but when such views are widespread, that's when its damaging.

Examples:

denying global warming.

Questions:

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

[Adurumus]

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

This statement holds if Global Warming is a reality. At the moment, a large majority of qualified scientists have stated that Global Warming is able to be caused by man kind. Because these statements can be modeled, recorded and proven by scientific methods, it's fair to say that Global Warming is something that is truly occurring. Thus denying it means denying reality.

[WinePusher]

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

I don't really care what their concerns are. What I care about are the totalitarianist policies they advocate for because they would do simply increase the size and scope of government while doing nothing to protect the environment. There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

I like how the quoted user uses such loaded language. When one individual makes an assertion and another individual does not accept the assertion, it is called skepticism, not denialism. That's why atheists are also commonly referred to as skeptics, not denialists. The fact that environmental fundamentalists resort this type of language only attests to their arrogance. And for the umpteeneth time, it's not Global Warming that's an issue, it's Anthropogenic Global Warming that's an issue. It's sad to see so many environmental fundamentalists running around, demonstrating how little they know about subject they so dogmatically believe in. The issue is not that the earth is experiencing a warming trend, the issue is that the earth is experiencing an unprecedented warming trend caused by human activity, hence the term anthropogenic. So please forgive me if I am skeptical of such a grandiose claim. The facts aren't established, the evidence is disputable, and the circumstantial evidence cuts against the idea that recent human activity is causing an unprecedented warming trend in mother earth's climate. Yet, we have environmental fundamentalists throwing around supercilious words such as 'denial' and saying those who don't accept their claim are in denial of reality.

[Wyvern]

Generally speaking, what are the main concerns of environmentalists and how should these concerns be dealt with?

I don't really care what their concerns are. What I care about are the totalitarianist policies they advocate for because they would do simply increase the size and scope of government while doing nothing to protect the environment. There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

Would you say the creation of the EPA has done nothing to protect the environment? Simply put companies are in business to make money while pollution control measures cost money with no foreseeable financial benefit to the company so why would a company on its own institute such measures? Yes the market works wonderfully and efficiently when and where there is money to be made. But the market is also rapacious and exploitative typically overextending itself in emerging markets(internet bubble, subprime loan crisis,fisheries) until it collapses. Exactly which issues do you think the market could deal with better than the government and which issues do you think the government is furthering and perpetuating?

Is denial of Global Warming a denial of reality?

I like how the quoted user uses such loaded language. When one individual makes an assertion and another individual does not accept the assertion, it is called skepticism, not denialism. That's why atheists are also commonly referred to as skeptics, not denialists. The fact that environmental fundamentalists resort this type of language only attests to their arrogance. And for the umpteeneth time, it's not Global Warming that's an issue, it's Anthropogenic Global Warming that's an issue. It's sad to see so many environmental fundamentalists running around, demonstrating how little they know about subject they so dogmatically believe in. The issue is not that the earth is experiencing a warming trend, the issue is that the earth is experiencing an unprecedented warming trend caused by human activity, hence the term anthropogenic. So please forgive me if I am skeptical of such a grandiose claim. The facts aren't established, the evidence is disputable, and the circumstantial evidence cuts against the idea that recent human activity is causing an unprecedented warming trend in mother earth's climate. Yet, we have environmental fundamentalists throwing around supercilious words such as 'denial' and saying those who don't accept their claim are in denial of reality.

By making a difference can we assume you are convinced we are on a global warming trend and your actual bone of contention is not whether it's happening but simply the cause?

[McCulloch]

I don't really care what their concerns are. What I care about are the totalitarianist policies they advocate for because they would do simply increase the size and scope of government while doing nothing to protect the environment. There are some real issues and problems when it comes to environmental harm that would best be dealt with by the Market, as nearly all things are, and only furthered and perpetuated by the government.

I would have thought that a professing Christian would understand that not all benefits to humanity can be measured in monetary terms. The market is not always the best way to deal with all human problems. In fact, the environment is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons, each agent in the market place, acting in his or her own best self-interest, will make decisions detrimental to the collective whole.

I like how the quoted user uses such loaded language. When one individual makes an assertion and another individual does not accept the assertion, it is called skepticism, not denialism. That's why atheists are also commonly referred to as skeptics, not denialists. The fact that environmental fundamentalists resort this type of language only attests to their arrogance. And for the umpteeneth time, it's not Global Warming that's an issue, it's Anthropogenic Global Warming that's an issue. It's sad to see so many environmental fundamentalists running around, demonstrating how little they know about subject they so dogmatically believe in. The issue is not that the earth is experiencing a warming trend, the issue is that the earth is experiencing an unprecedented warming trend caused by human activity, hence the term anthropogenic. So please forgive me if I am skeptical of such a grandiose claim. The facts aren't established, the evidence is disputable, and the circumstantial evidence cuts against the idea that recent human activity is causing an unprecedented warming trend in mother earth's climate. Yet, we have environmental fundamentalists throwing around supercilious words such as 'denial' and saying those who don't accept their claim are in denial of reality.

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The evidence for this temperature rise is unequivocal and, with greater than 90% certainty, scientists have determined that most of it is caused by human activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.¹²³⁴ This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries.⁵

At what point does your disagreement with the consensus of opinion of the experts become a denial? Have you expertise that is greater than these folks? Just who is being arrogant here? The fact is that no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on anthropogenic global warming.


___________________
¹ Treatment of Uncertainty, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A.. ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN ISBN 92-9169-122-4. "Three different approaches are used to describe uncertainties each with a distinct form of language. * * * Where uncertainty in specific outcomes is assessed using expert judgment and statistical analysis of a body of evidence (e.g. observations or model results), then the following likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence: virtually certain >99%; extremely likely >95%; very likely >90%......""
² Section 2.4: Attribution of climate change, in IPCC AR4 SYR (2007). Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K; and Reisinger, A.. ed. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC. ISBN 92-9169-122-4.
³ America's Climate Choices: Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change; National Research Council (2010). Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0309145880. "(p1) ... there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * (p21-22) Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities."
⁴ "Understanding and Responding to Climate Change". United States National Academy of Sciences. 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2010. "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
⁵ "Joint Science Academies' Statement" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-08-09. The 2001 joint statement was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK.[181] The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S. The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization.

Sourced from Wikipedia.

[Question Everything]

The facts aren't established, the evidence is disputable, and the circumstantial evidence cuts against the idea that recent human activity is causing an unprecedented warming trend in mother earth's climate. Yet, we have environmental fundamentalists throwing around supercilious words such as 'denial' and saying those who don't accept their claim are in denial of reality.

Fact: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat. Fill bottles with air and varying amounts of CO2. Start them all out at the same temperature. Place them in sunlight. The higher the percentage of CO2 in each bottle, the more it warms.

Fact: Burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

These facts are totally established. The only thing that can be disputed is what the effects will be.

[WinePusher]

Would you say the creation of the EPA has done nothing to protect the environment?

I'm open to what you have to say about it. Can you show me some areas where the EPA has sucessfully or significantly reduced pollution or preserved fragile ecosystems?

Simply put companies are in business to make money while pollution control measures cost money with no foreseeable financial benefit to the company so why would a company on its own institute such measures? Yes the market works wonderfully and efficiently when and where there is money to be made. But the market is also rapacious and exploitative typically overextending itself in emerging markets(internet bubble, subprime loan crisis,fisheries) until it collapses. Exactly which issues do you think the market could deal with better than the government and which issues do you think the government is furthering and perpetuating?

I debated these issues in-depth in a head to head debate with Abraxas. The reason why environmental damage and exploiting resources isn't a problem is because demand is controlled by prices. Take fisheries, for example. If the public demand for fish rises but the supply of fish remains constant, or evens decreases, the price rises and consumption will necessarily be reduced. Until the supply of fish is renewed, prices will remain high and consumption will remain low. Apply this to any other sector of the market and you get the same results, so nobody should be worried about depleting resources. As for pollution, there is a role for government and that is the courts. When a company adversely affects the property of another party by means of pollution, that company is liable for the damage. They would have to compensate affected parties based on the extent of damage, and depending ont he circumstance it could be alot. Tort law acts as a deterrent when it comes to pollution. And again, Wyvern, simply instituing a governmental agency with a nice, comforting name doesn't do anything. Unless this agency actually enforces policy that is better than the policy I laid out above, it's worthless. And I asked you to articulate some beneficial things the EPA has actually done.

By making a difference can we assume you are convinced we are on a global warming trend and your actual bone of contention is not whether it's happening but simply the cause?

I don't know. It's the job of environmentalists to show proof of a current warming trend, and to also show how it is unique and unlike any other warming trend the Earth has ever experienced, and how human activity is driving it.

[Adurumus]

As for pollution, there is a role for government and that is the courts. When a company adversely affects the property of another party by means of pollution, that company is liable for the damage. They would have to compensate affected parties based on the extent of damage, and depending ont he circumstance it could be alot. Tort law acts as a deterrent when it comes to pollution.

Humans can certainly hurt humans in the long run with a lack of regulation, but it's not just sentient parties that we're worried about. If the harmed party is, say, a rain forest or what have you, who sues on their behalf? Can the case be carried out preemptively if someone points out that the company's ecological projects are harmful, or do we have to wait until damage has been inflicted? If we can sue preemptively, why not just say "You can't do that" in the first place?

[WinePusher]

I would have thought that a professing Christian would understand that not all benefits to humanity can be measured in monetary terms. The market is not always the best way to deal with all human problems. In fact, the environment is a classic case of the Tragedy of the Commons, each agent in the market place, acting in his or her own best self-interest, will make decisions detrimental to the collective whole.

What does being a Christian have to do with this? Help me understand that. I think your problem, McCulloch, is that you translate all market solutions into some sort of greed and money driven term. When I referred to the Market, I was not referring to what you called 'monetary terms.' I was referring to solutions that would better address the problem of the environment better than government intervention. And as with all 'tragedy of the commons' situations, this is also easily resolved by creating property rights. Nearly every single tragedy can be viewed in terms of entities looking only to short term interests, and all the while ignoring long term interests. But what happens when an entity actually owns the property on which they do business on? When ownership becomes a factor it then becomes within their entire interest to look after and care for the property. Again, look at fisheries. If a company actually owned the portion of the environment on which their fisheries existed, it would be within their interest to fish only to a moderate extent and avoid harming the land.

At what point does your disagreement with the consensus of opinion of the experts become a denial? Have you expertise that is greater than these folks? Just who is being arrogant here? The fact is that no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion on anthropogenic global warming.

You of all people should know that this tit for tat game doesn't work. Didn't you play this with evolution already? For every scientist and intellectual produced supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming, a scientist and intellectual can be produced against Anthropogenic Global Warming. And should I start calling you a denalist when it comes to God? Using your reasoning, denialist would be an apt title for you since there's certainly a greater amount of consensus throughout the entire history of humanity when it comes to God.

[Goat]

There was an interesting article about Global warming, and it being predicted in the newspaper just 4 day ago. It referred to a 1975 article whose headline was 'Are we on the brink of Global Warming', and went on to estimate how much carbon dioxide was probably going to be released by human activity in the next 30 years, and it made predictions on what the effects on the climate would be.


Funny thing, his numbers on the global temperatures were spot on, as well as the amount of CO2 that was put into the atmosphere.

http://ktar.com/509/1455522/Why-is-US-a ... al-warming