Global Warming/Climate Change POLL: If you disagree with the Consensus, Why?

[K466]

Hey all, I'm working on an article about Free Market Environmentalism... as part of my research, I've come across the 2011 Pew Research Poll that said 63% of libertarians (pdf (http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf), page 84) think there is "No Solid Evidence of [Global] Warming". Additionally, 75% of "staunch conservatives" hold this position.

Meanwhile, the scientific community is of the consensus (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)that man-made global warming is a serious problem.

I assume members of this forum will reflect the Pew Poll. My question is why do you hold your position?

I'm personally on the fence and don't know how much we can trust the scientific establishment, which is well connected to governments and government funding (obviously). I do know there is no philosophical or ideological reasons for us liberty lovers to consider climate change a threat to what we believe. Free Market environmentalism deals with the issue, of course.

BTW, for those unfamiliar with free market environmentalism, see some of Austrian economist Walter Block's work, such as this excellent 13 page introduction (http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf)(pdf) or this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI).

[Travlyr]

It is a farce. The climate is in constant change and always has been. People do not have control over the climate. The people promoting the fear are the same ones who keep industrial hemp, the most Earth friendly renewable resourse known to man, illegal to grow or use.

1816 - The Year Without A Summer (http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Year1816.html)

[fisharmor]

"Consensus". Right.
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[quote]I'm personally on the fence and don't know how much we can trust the scientific establishment, which is well connected to governments and government funding (obviously).
This is pretty much my exact position. And I'm not clear on why it's not a poll option.
The problem with global climate change is that the science has changed so often and so regularly.

2+2 does not magically and suddenly equal five. Not unless five supports an incredibly unpopular political goal which requires large segments of the population to be punished for trying to better their lives.

Orbits of heavenly bodies do not magically and suddenly become rectangular. Not unless rectangular orbits support an incredibly unpopular political goal which requires large segments of the population to be punished for trying to better their lives.

If anthropogenic climate change is really happening, they need to get their stories straight. Changing it from an ice age to global warming within living memory kind of ruined their chances of convincing anybody... and made it painfully clear that there's an ulterior motive behind this farce.


I do know there is no philosophical or ideological reasons for us liberty lovers to consider climate change a threat to what we believe.
Climate change is no threat to what I believe. It happens twice a year where I live.


Free Market environmentalism deals with the issue, of course.

I think the point to be made is that it doesn't. It's not allowed to. If we allowed it to, it would. And we'd still be able to flush our own excrement out of our houses, too.

[thoughtomator]

The whole "global warming"/"climate change" movement is a political movement, not a scientific one. Its alleged "scientific" nature is grounded in caught-red-handed, out-and-out research fraud. Those pushing it are doing more harm to the cause of actual science than has been seen in the West since the Dark Ages.

[sailingaway]

the questions in the poll are wrong. the evidence is tainted by bias so you can't believe anything, but if there is impact the 'SOLUTION' would actually make it worse, by sending industry to countries where industries can operate without pollution controls. Accordingly, it is clearly driven by a political redistributive, rather than environmental, goal. Which is to say, the science isn't cut and dry, and new studies without institutional bias and politically driven desired results are necessary to convince people who think logically.

[awake]

Why? It is a predetermined judgment backed up by predetermined research. The human race has been dealing with climate change as a condition of life, it is only new that "research" is finding that a massive world wide government department be formed to deal with it. The question is not is climate change happening; it is what method is best to deal with it: the market or bureaucrat morons. History has shown the market.

[Acala]

Who ever promised you that climate WOULDN'T change? Al Gore? People who don't like change were born in the wrong universe.

Is Earth getting warmer? That depends on where you stick the thermometer. Assuming it is getting warmer by some measure, is it due to human activity? Possibly, but FAR from proven. Until global warming activists can explain how the earth warmed before humans existed, and why other unoccupied planets in this solar system are warming, then the jury is still out.

Finally, since the vast majority of global warming "science" is based on computer modeling, and since computer modeling of chaotic systems is futile, and since Earth's weather is THE paradigm chaotic system, then the vast majority of global warming "science" is exactly as valid as throwing dice. And what is left is tainted by the involvement of government.

[Liberty74]

There is no consensus. That is a LIE.

Second, global warming and cooling cycles are directly caused by the sun and its sun spots or lack thereof. Humans cannot possible cause warming. CO2 does not cause warming either. There is zero evidence, just propaganda science by the anti-human collectivists who rely on free money to keep their agenda and job afloat. It's a fact that CO2 is a by product of warming. And when coolings and ice ages happen, CO2 in the atmosphere falls.

Also, CO2 is not a pollutant and only represents 0.054% of the molecules in the atmosphere. We humans are only responsible for 2% of 1/20th of 1%. So yes, we should all pay higher taxes in Gore's cap and trade scheme that will become a $16 trillion industry to control the masses, create mass poverty and hence more welfare programs. How convenient uh? Get real people. Use your brain. This idea that man is the root cause of warming as Biden claims is a fraud and out right lie.

All of these computer models predicting X Y Z warming since the 80s and 90s have been wrong. The hockey stick that they relied on has been a proven fraud.

[GrahamUK]

There is no consensus. That is a LIE.

Second, global warming and cooling cycles are directly caused by the sun and its sun spots or lack thereof. Humans cannot possible cause warming. CO2 does not cause warming either. There is zero evidence, just propaganda science by the anti-human collectivists who rely on free money to keep their agenda and job afloat. It's a fact that CO2 is a by product of warming. And when coolings and ice ages happen, CO2 in the atmosphere falls.

Also, CO2 is not a pollutant and only represents 0.054% of the molecules in the atmosphere. We humans are only responsible for 2% of 1/20th of 1%. So yes, we should all pay higher taxes in Gore's cap and trade scheme that will become a $16 trillion industry to control the masses, create mass poverty and hence more welfare programs. How convenient uh? Get real people. Use your brain. This idea that man is the root cause of warming as Biden claims is a fraud and out right lie.

All of these computer models predicting X Y Z warming since the 80s and 90s have been wrong. The hockey stick that they relied on has been a proven fraud.

THIS ^^^

And THIS....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaTJJCPYhlk

[heavenlyboy34]

[QUOTE=thoughtomator;4349221]The whole "global warming"/"climate change" movement is a political movement, not a scientific one. Its alleged "scientific" nature is grounded in caught-red-handed, out-and-out research fraud. Those pushing it are doing more harm to the cause of actual science than has been seen in the West since the Dark Ages.[/QUOTE
this^^

[The Free Hornet]

Meanwhile, the scientific community is of the consensus (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)that man-made global warming is a serious problem.

I don't see the consensus regarding it as a "serious problem":


In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

Assuming I accept the above, where is the consensus on policy recommendations? If there is a cost to CO2, what objective US scientist would want to freeze and rollback US CO2 outputs but not freeze and rollback other countries CO2 production? Is African CO2 less harmful than American CO2? [That is a rhetorical question and should elicit a mild chuckle, not an answer.]

There is only one climate policy climate scientists will ever have consensus on: Should climate scientists continue to get paid? That is the exact question asked in the IPCC reports but you have to read between the lines to see it.

PS: I will not answer the poll. I am 100% convinced climate questions are used as proxies for political opinions. So I am not "not sure" but do not see a proper entry in your choices. Also, any warming question should include the time scales since the Earth is cooler than it has been historically:

1387

[musicmax]

If man could control the climate the azaleas would have been in bloom during the Masters.

[K466]

Thanks for the responses so far.

I'll make one note on "consensus"... it's said to be 97%, not 100%, of course; but the article I linked to seems quite credible, while the Oregon petition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition) doesn't seem so credible, since a majority of the signatures are not from people who actually study and specialize in climate science.


This is pretty much my exact position. And I'm not clear on why it's not a poll option.


Climate change is no threat to what I believe. It happens twice a year where I live.


I think the point to be made is that it doesn't. It's not allowed to. If we allowed it to, it would. And we'd still be able to flush our own excrement out of our houses, too.

1. I think "Not Sure" and "one the fence" would be the same choice, right?

2. Of course, climate change in this context is not a reference to the seasons, but long term climate changes.

3. Actually, the Free Market deals with the issue via property rights, that is, you can't dump your garbage on someone else's property, whether that garbage is stuff you pour out onto their land, water, or air. That takes care of all the important pollution problems the environmentalists claim to be worried about.

[K466]

Assuming I accept the above, where is the consensus on policy recommendations?

Obviously no consensus on that. They admit it's up for debate, which is why we have to push our ideas.

Also, sorry about the poll, but it doesn't seem like I can edit it.

[emazur]

Initially I was a believer - it was easy to sucker me in b/c I had heard about the greenhouse effect when I was young and it is a fact that humans can do huge damage to the environment. I'm enjoy the outdoors and want to protect the environment so I was already inclined to believe in global warming when it was presented to me - the Al Gore charts that directly correlated rising CO2 charts w/ rising temperatures clinched it for me. Later I found out that CO2 levels climed AFTER the temperatures rised and I saw that for many, global warming is a political movement. This is a really good site that exposes the political side of global warming:
http://green-agenda.com/

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,


"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment



"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

As I understand it, there was global warming but it's been flat for the last decade. Could it have been caused by man? Possibly, but it could have been natural as well. If it was natural, I wonder if the global warming fanatics would still demand capping CO2 emissions. All the so-called solutions I've seen for global warming have been horrendous and unrealistic. The Stossel episodes on global warming, particularly with that CATO guy, have been excellent about demonstrating this. I would classify myself as an open minded skeptic on the issue of global warming.

TLDR: Could be real, but I don't think so, and even if it was, there are no good solutions.

[PaulConventionWV]

Hey all, I'm working on an article about Free Market Environmentalism... as part of my research, I've come across the 2011 Pew Research Poll that said 63% of libertarians (pdf (http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/Beyond-Red-vs-Blue-The-Political-Typology.pdf), page 84) think there is "No Solid Evidence of [Global] Warming". Additionally, 75% of "staunch conservatives" hold this position.

Meanwhile, the scientific community is of the consensus (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full)that man-made global warming is a serious problem.

I assume members of this forum will reflect the Pew Poll. My question is why do you hold your position?

I'm personally on the fence and don't know how much we can trust the scientific establishment, which is well connected to governments and government funding (obviously). I do know there is no philosophical or ideological reasons for us liberty lovers to consider climate change a threat to what we believe. Free Market environmentalism deals with the issue, of course.

BTW, for those unfamiliar with free market environmentalism, see some of Austrian economist Walter Block's work, such as this excellent 13 page introduction (http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf)(pdf) or this interview (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI).

The whole controversy over climate change was started for the purpose of introducing more government regulations. People keep mentioning this "consensus", but I have yet to see any evidence that there is, indeed, a consensus. Government officials claim it, liberal activists claim it, and the IPCC claims it. Outside of that, no studies have been conducted to test this idea.

[John F Kennedy III]

Define "consensus".

[bolil]

I think that, if humans are indeed responsible for global warming, we have been terribly remiss in our efforts to accelerate the problem. Look people, I live in the north... and it is cold. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to enjoy the tropical climate of Florida in Montana. Is it fair that Floridians can go outside in a tee shirt any day of the year, yet I am forced to put on a coat to do the same six months out of the year? Nay! Tis not fair! TIS NOT JUSTICE!

[The Free Hornet]

Obviously no consensus on that. They admit it's up for debate, which is why we have to push our ideas.

Also, sorry about the poll, but it doesn't seem like I can edit it.

Thanks. I wish more people understood that there is no policy consensus and it is unlikely there ever would be.

[dannno]

It depends how longterm you're talking.

If you're talking about the last 10 years, there has been cooling.

If you're talking about the last 100 or 200 years, there has been warming.

If you're talking about the last 10,000 years, I'm not really sure.

[Simple]

I've been studying Earth Science for the last couple of years and despite all the alarmist claims, I've yet to see anything close to proof of anthropocentric global warming. I have seen several periods where global temperatures decrease while CO2 increased so if there is any proof, it is that carbon dioxide does not cause warming. There is the old hockey stick graph that compares northern hemisphere heliospheric temperature estimates to carbon dioxide, but even Michael Mann's study doesn't even hold water if you look at both hemispheres and/or use unfiltered carbon measurements.

[JK/SEA]

Is the fact that Earth, having a molten core, play into any global warming findings?

[The_Ruffneck]

total hoax designed to bring in a global carbon tax to fund the UN

[Origanalist]

None of the above. Climate changes, always has, always will.

It's no reason to grant power to those that would control you.

[InTradePro]

Climate change is real and by change I mean more change then normal over the last 300 years. However it is positive, there is nothing to do or correct. Claims of a tax required or any other government interferance is corruption.

[awake]

Nearly all union members believe in coercive unionism. That's a consensus too. Special interest laws that brought about minimum wage laws, feather bedding and violent assault on non-union members were the goal. We need to get over the concept that some how scientists are above shilling for government power like any one else...If what they say is true time will confirm thier findings; if they are wrong then they will be shown as incorrect [which is currently happening].

Power whores always grab for "God" or "science", some times both. The former and or latter is always on their side when it comes to justifying violent actions against others. Who are you to argue with either, which is why they use both - God says so, science says so.

[Noob]

Well as for those global warming nut cases that believe One-Child Policy's, and want force sterilizations of women rather the woman know they are being sterilize or not just should do the world a favor and end their own sorry, pathetic, miserable lives and reduce the population size that way.

[marcirvine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html

This article describes how 49 NASA scientists are speaking out about NASA propoganda regarding global warming. Much of the global warming scare has come from NASA. Digging into the research, you will find that many of the same NASA scientists which use global warming scare mongering also attend the world earth summit meetings where they have develeped agenda 21 for the UN. Agenda 21 is the UNs plan to control all nations in the name of environmental conservatism. the UN already owns 12% of the worlds land, inlcuding portions of the US, esp in Oregon and Washington, and they are actively seeking more land. Just after the G-20 meeting this summer there will be another earth summit meeting. I believe after this meeting, we will be seeing Obama start to turn up the heat on some of his 'sustainable living' executive orders. All of this stuff ties together and is evil.

[marcirvine]

It is a farce. The climate is in constant change and always has been. People do not have control over the climate. The people promoting the fear are the same ones who keep industrial hemp, the most Earth friendly renewable resourse known to man, illegal to grow or use.

1816 - The Year Without A Summer (http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen/Year1816.html)

Meanwhile, Travlyr hits the bullseye.

[K466]

The whole controversy over climate change was started for the purpose of introducing more government regulations. People keep mentioning this "consensus", but I have yet to see any evidence that there is, indeed, a consensus. Government officials claim it, liberal activists claim it, and the IPCC claims it. Outside of that, no studies have been conducted to test this idea.

See the article I linked in original post. What more evidence do we need? The consensus could be wrong but I don't see any way to deny it.


Define "consensus".

It's typically defined as general agreement.


I think that, if humans are indeed responsible for global warming, we have been terribly remiss in our efforts to accelerate the problem. Look people, I live in the north... and it is cold. There is no reason why I shouldn't be able to enjoy the tropical climate of Florida in Montana. Is it fair that Floridians can go outside in a tee shirt any day of the year, yet I am forced to put on a coat to do the same six months out of the year? Nay! Tis not fair! TIS NOT JUSTICE!

The question of whether warming would help is interesting. Certainly there would be benefits as well as costs. If Montana gets Florida's weather, what does Florida get, 90 degree winters? As long as we are responsible, most climate change should be from natural causes, which we can't control. For that we have no choice but to adapt.


total hoax designed to bring in a global carbon tax to fund the UN

This is an example of the opinion which I used to hold- but find it hard to defend now. Of course, some want to use it as a trojan horse to advance their statist BS, but that doesn't mean we get to dismiss the science on that alone. Perhaps there are other legitimate reasons to question the scientific understanding we have, I agree.


Nearly all union members believe in coercive unionism. That's a consensus too. Special interest laws that brought about minimum wage laws, feather bedding and violent assault on non-union members were the goal. We need to get over the concept that some how scientists are above shilling for government power like any one else...If what they say is true time will confirm thier findings; if they are wrong then they will be shown as incorrect [which is currently happening].


Excellent point- I often think of the other consensuses which are prevalent today- many of which are totally wrong. One difference I see, though, is that union members, special interests, etc. aren't even pretending to be scientific. The scientists are supposed to be. Does their connections with government corrupt their work (very likely to some degree), and if so, how much? That's the million dollar question. Just because their is some level of corruption doesn't mean we can dismiss everything and walk away.