A question for the GW deniers..?

I do not deny that GW is happening. I deny that we are causing it and that we can prevent it.

My three reasons are:

1- there has been global warming before we arrived on this planet.

2- the sun warms the earth and the sun changes output.

3- animal and insect (termites in particular) flatulence causes more greenhouse gasses that humans have ever or will ever create. Stop these little buggers from farting and you will stop a grand portion of greenhouse gasses.

Interesting question. Sorry to butt in, but I'm going to play the role of a denier and give it a shot.

1) Climate has changed in the past, or did dinosaurs drive SUVs?!

2) Humans are too insignificant to have an impact on something as big as the global climate.

3) Global warming is just a communist plot led by Al Gore to give the UN control of the world and.....shoot, I couldn't do it!

In all seriousness, most deniers try to blame the Sun, yet they can't explain the fact that no scientific study has ever attributed more than one-third of the warming over the past 30 years to the Sun, and most attribute just 0-10% to the Sun.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApEBL...

I'm sure they can come up with 3 reasons. They just won't be good reasons.

I think I fit into your category, closeminded though it is. So I'll say a few things. First most of us agree that the earth is warming. I even think that this is partly our fault. I just think it isn't nearly as much our fault as the pro GW people say. There are too many factors involved in global climate to say anything for certain. We can hardly predict the weather tommorrow and you expect me to believe we can predict what will happen in 50 years? Also, if the earth does continue to heat, how can anyone say for sure that will be a bad thing? Everywhere that got warmer wouldn't necessarily become a desert. Evaporation of the oceans would likely increase humidity in the air, and negate some of this predicted sea level rising. The warmth and humidity should theoretically be good for plant life around the planet, which should indirectly benefit all life. That is why deniers like myself simply believe global warming boosters are exagerating the dangers, and the evidence.

Here is a big picture. Easy oil reserves are running out(oil that comes out under pressure). Which means now the oil companies have to spend money to extract the oil out of the ground. Rather than spend money pumping it out they would rather cap the well and call it dry.....and move on to find another gushing hole.

They were swamped in oil in the 50's,60's,and 70'. Everybody was driving V8 gas guzzling machines. 6-8 miles to the gallon.

Emissions was not an issue.

Oil companies were competing against each other, tryling to get the mass market to buy their product. So prices were driven down.

Some companies suffered(as they could not maintain that low price for so long, so failed and were bought up by the others, Less competition on prices. So the price war was not so intense. Now the prices are going up. Oil companies don't want to spend money and refineries cost alot to build and maintain...and many are reaching the end of their life. So why build another if you don't have to? A billion dollars is a billion dollars.

The reduced output could be compensated for in 2 ways...a)either build more refineries or b) raise the price of the fuel. Drivers will drive less.

That worked for awhile until the wages caught up thru a "price of living index" then consumption was on the increase.

Lets raise the cost of the vehicles. Oil companies have some bearing on that as they supply basics make paint, plastics, tires, supply fueloil for generating stations burners for electricity. Car owners will drive less so the car does not wear out as fast.

Still not enough reduction> Lets have smaller more economical engines. And for those that will hang on to the older large engines, rebuilding them over and over, lets hit them with the pollution issue Global warming is caused from automobiles burning fossil fuels.

(If we had said global cooling, everybody would be burning more in an attempt to keep the planet warm.) Which means they still want cheap fuel and we would be back at square one.

Global warming means using less, which puts less strain on us supplying the public with cheap fuel.

Now I have not denied GW does not exist BUT which would you rather have GW or global cooling? And if science is anything like weather reporting, it is gonna be half right.

Either way it is a change.

Are cars the cause of it. Or the jets that criss cross the skies multiple times daily to haul music bands and football,baseball,hockey and other teams around...,or is the production of cars,appliances, and useless on time use goods the cause of it.....along with the deforestation/denuding of vast tracts of land in search of ore and oil the cause?

No one has ever said how much energy goes in to producing 1 car. From mining and refining the basic ores up to the importing and exporting of parts by train, truck, ship and plane to the final wax coating on the finished product in the showroom.

CO2? Green plants require CO2. So it is a necessary gas in the atmosphere.

No Al Gore no Liberals

I didn't invent the car, nor build them. I have no say as to what I want. That is the auto manufacturer's decision. The only other recourse is to walk(buck naked without antiperspirant or a comb thru my hair, and wipe my butt with grass and leaves(as sawmills and paper making plants would have to shut down too).

The question is: can we stop it or is it inevidible?

I am not sure what "deniers" you are addressing the question to. Are you addressing people who deny the Earth has warmed over the last half of the 20th century? Or to people who deny that we can say for certain the warming was caused by rising CO2? Or to people who deny that AGW will be catastrophic in the near term?

I am not sure if you are addressing me or not.

The last three ice ages, and then the warming periods between, do you blame them on co2 from America as well? Most likely you would.

I hope someday someone can prove me wrong. It would be nice to see someone be able to tell us what the temperature of the climate will be depending on the concentration of green house gases, and show their work to how they came to their conclusion.

But the mantra is just "It's warming", and the only proof is that ghg's are increasing, while the country is plunged into record cold and record snows. (Bet you didn't see that coming last summer)

Convince me that you aren't just taking a guess. Tell me if it will be warmer or colder this summer, and show me how you came to this conclusion. Then you will have converted me.

But where is your evidence? it's all just opinion, opinion, opinion. If you are so sure what you are saying is true, share your sources!

Hi Dan D, could you provide some evidence for your interesting opinions? Thanks.