# Global Warming Deniers--So what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301 "2012-04-19T18:05:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/1 "2012-04-19T18:05:33Z")
Alright, here’s my problem. I don’t understand global warming deniers. I get some of their arguments against global warming being man-made, _but so what_? Pumping chemicals into the atmosphere is either going to turn the earth into Mars while giving everyone cancer, OR it’s just going to give everyone cancer. No one doubts that shit in the air is bad for you; look at what Los Angeles used to be like. Or deforestation. Either it’s going to significantly impact world temperatures and oxygen levels, or algae in the ocean handles most of that and we’re gonna be fine. Either way, it’s still ruining beautiful environments, biodiversity, and driving plants that could have medical uses to extinction. The thing about global warming is, if it IS manmade, it’s a side effect of other activities, all of which are terribly harmful in their own way, with or without global warming. So can we all agree to disagree about the minor detail of whether global warming is man-made and do our best stop pumping cancer-causing shit into the air? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/2 "2012-04-19T18:47:19Z")
Actually the point of true alarmists like Lovelock is that we could become like Venus, Mars would actually welcome warming if we could inhabit it. BTW, deforestation and several other factors you mentioned are included on the reasons why many researchers report that the most likely temperature that we will get from a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 3 degrees Celsius. My “so what” on deniers is that we are reaching the levels where it is clear that they are not listening to reason, they are not getting respect among scientific organizations that track the issue, and that leads many developed nations to relegate climate change deniers into the same column as creationists. But that “so what” is tempered by the only realm where they have any weight: the political one, and unfortunately it is in the USA where they are doing the most harm. It is no coincidence that climate change deniers are joining forces with creationists in the USA as the National Center for Science Education reports almost daily. > **[Home | National Center for Science Education](https://ncse.ngo/)** ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/3 "2012-04-19T19:00:08Z")
[In other words…](http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cartoon-from-trenberth-ams-paper.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/4 "2012-04-19T19:02:40Z")
Well, clearly it matters whether anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere are causing global climate change, as opposed to involving only “ordinary” pollution. Climate change caused by anthropogenic global warming is likely to have various specific and serious consequences for ecosystems worldwide that can be effectively prevented only within a fairly limited timeframe. “Ordinary” pollution, on the other hand, may be bad for us and other critters, but it’s perceived as more reversible and controllable. So I can see why a global-warming denier would think that “mere” pollution is not such a big deal, or not as time-critical, as climate change. ---
**Author:** ![Michael63129](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3da27b/32.png) [@Michael63129](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael63129)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/5 "2012-04-19T19:11:11Z")
Last I saw, CO2 and methane aren’t considered to be carcinogens; most of the efforts to “clean the air” have focused on the nastier stuff like coal emissions (excluding GHGs). This of course is also one of the arguments used by deniers (in addition to them not really being GHGs/having little effect) as a reason not to control them (also that CO2 is good for plants, which may be true but only in isolation, not considering the effects of changing temperature and rainfall, plus they tend to be less nutritious). ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/6 "2012-04-19T19:23:07Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > [In other words…](http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cartoon-from-trenberth-ams-paper.jpg) Yeah, pretty much. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/7 "2012-04-19T19:31:51Z")
I’m not sure what point you’re making. The issues of air pollution and global warming are almost totally unrelated. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Other than that, it is essentially totally harmless, and not a pollutant by any definition. Current atmospheric levels of CO2 are about 400 ppm, up 150 ppm since the pre-Industrial era. Your _own breath_ contains approximately 40,000 ppm CO2. Indoor CO2 levels frequently rise to several thousand ppm. It certainly does not cause cancer. Global warming deniers see little reason to limit CO2 emissions if global warming is not a problem, since there is essentially no point to such a limitation other than curbing global warming. Ordinary pollutants, that cause cancer or whatever, are already highly regulated, and not really an issue in the global warming debate. So what is your point exactly? You want less conventional pollution? Sure, whatever, I’m okay with that. But that has very little to do with the warming debate. ---
**Author:** ![purplehorseshoe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/purplehorseshoe/32/2996_2.png) [@purplehorseshoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/purplehorseshoe)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/8 "2012-04-19T19:34:20Z")
> [@Michael63129](#): > > … also that CO2 is good for plants, which may be true but only in isolation, not considering the effects of changing temperature and rainfall, plus they tend to be less nutritious). Wait, what? 😕 How does CO 2 make plants less nutritious? Or am I mis-reading? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/9 "2012-04-19T19:37:39Z")
> [@HoboStew](#): > > [In other words…](http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/cartoon-from-trenberth-ams-paper.jpg) Oh, come on. The problem is that not everyone agrees that a world without cheap energy is a “better world”. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/10 "2012-04-19T19:39:31Z")
I don’t deny global warming in the sense that Earth is warming at least partially due to man-made reasons. However I want a transition to cleaner energy in a more gradual process so there will be no economic disruption-Kyoto is clearly not working. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/11 "2012-04-19T19:40:00Z")
> [@purplehorseshoe](#): > > Wait, what? 😕 How does CO 2 make plants less nutritious? Or am I mis-reading? Various studies have shown that, in addition to the well-known positive effect of CO2 on plant growth, it also causes them to store lower overall levels of other nutrients. Research is still ongoing, but the gist seems to be, if the plants have access to more CO2, they need less other stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/12 "2012-04-19T20:47:39Z")
Alright, fine–so CO2 and methane don’t cause cancer. Pumping them into the air is STILL bad, for any number of reasons: 1. They’re accompanied by other chemicals that DO cause cancer. 2. They are most likely harmful to the environment in SOME way, even if it’s not due to global warming but due to some strange interaction with plants we don’t understand yet, or anything of that sort. And deforestation? Does anyone doubt that’s bad? Even if we could live in a world where the only plants are crops and the only animals live in farms, would anyone dispute the fact that that is a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/13 "2012-04-19T21:12:40Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Alright, fine–so CO2 and methane don’t cause cancer. Pumping them into the air is STILL bad, for any number of reasons: > > 1. They’re accompanied by other chemicals that DO cause cancer. > 2. They are most likely harmful to the environment in SOME way, even if it’s not due to global warming but due to some strange interaction with plants we don’t understand yet, or anything of that sort. > > And deforestation? Does anyone doubt that’s bad? Even if we could live in a world where the only plants are crops and the only animals live in farms, would anyone dispute the fact that that is a bad thing? 1. If you are concerned about the health effects of air pollution, let’s talk about that. There are ways to reduce the emission of cancer-causing pollutants without reducing CO2 emissions. If you are not worried about reducing CO2 emissions, you actually have more flexibility in reducing other kinds of emissions. As I said, these are _separate problems_. 2. Good luck getting anywhere with that argument. CO2 is a natural part of Earth’s climate. CO2 levels have been higher than this in the past, and they will be higher than this in the future. It is ludicrous to suggest we will “damage” the environment with CO2 emissions. At worst, we’ll return it to the same situation it was in millions of years ago. All we’re doing is releasing CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere, and was then captured in plants and animals that died and got turned into fossil fuels (hence the term “fossil”). Unlike nuclear waste, heavy metals, or chlorofluorocarbons or something, CO2 is a natural part of the environment already. If you are going to discount the potential for global warming, it is an incredible stretch to call CO2 emissions harmful to the environment. Note that I am not a global warming denier, and I fully support rational measures to limit CO2 emissions (such as a global carbon tax). But attempting to build support for such limitations using arguments other than global warming is futile. ---
**Author:** ![Randvek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a6a055/32.png) [@Randvek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Randvek)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/14 "2012-04-19T21:15:51Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > But attempting to build support for such limitations using arguments other than global warming is futile. Because those have worked so well. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/15 "2012-04-19T21:19:28Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > 1. If you are concerned about the health effects of air pollution, let’s talk about that. There are ways to reduce the emission of cancer-causing pollutants without reducing CO2 emissions. If you are not worried about reducing CO2 emissions, you actually have more flexibility in reducing other kinds of emissions. As I said, these are _separate problems_. > > 2. Good luck getting anywhere with that argument. CO2 is a natural part of Earth’s climate. CO2 levels have been higher than this in the past, and they will be higher than this in the future. It is ludicrous to suggest we will “damage” the environment with CO2 emissions. At worst, we’ll return it to the same situation it was in millions of years ago. All we’re doing is releasing CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere, and was then captured in plants and animals that died and got turned into fossil fuels (hence the term “fossil”). Unlike nuclear waste, heavy metals, or chlorofluorocarbons or something, CO2 is a natural part of the environment already. > > If you are going to discount the potential for global warming, it is an incredible stretch to call CO2 emissions harmful to the environment. > > Note that I am not a global warming denier, and I fully support rational measures to limit CO2 emissions (such as a global carbon tax). But attempting to build support for such limitations using arguments other than global warming is futile. Several nits there, the main one I have is that it is not quite accurate to claim that CO2 is not a pollutant. > **[Is CO2 a pollutant?](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm)** > > \While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on... > [@](#): > > While there are direct ways in which CO2 is a pollutant (acidification of the ocean), its primary impact is its greenhouse warming effect. While the greenhouse effect is a natural occurence, too much warming has severe negative impacts on agriculture, health and environment. > > We commonly think of pollutants as contaminants that make the environment dirty or impure. A vivid example is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of industrial activity. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on health and the environment. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occuring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant? > > A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or discomfort to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/16 "2012-04-19T21:19:49Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > At worst, we’ll return it to the same situation it was in millions of years ago. But with an ecology adapted to the present day, _not_ to the environment of tens of millions of years ago. _That_ argument could be used to say that the plants and animals of a region will take no harm by being inundated by a dam because the region was underwater millions of years ago. It doesn’t work. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/17 "2012-04-19T21:20:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Qin** : > > However I want a transition to cleaner energy in a more gradual process so there will be no economic disruption-Kyoto is clearly not working. I want the transition to be as quick as possible, so we can minimize the economic disruption. Climate change is a lot more disruptive to economies than changing over power plants would be. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/18 "2012-04-19T21:27:54Z")
> [@Randvek](#): > > Because those have worked so well. :rolleyes: Whether they’ve worked well or not, is not the point. If you’ve failed to convince people using the strongest argument you can make, switching to arguments that are orders of magnitude weaker (at best) is not going to succeed either. ---
**Author:** ![Absolute](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b2d939/32.png) [@Absolute](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Absolute)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/19 "2012-04-19T21:39:27Z")
Perhaps I was unclear. If you are willing to accept global warming, sure you can call CO2 a pollutant if you define the term very broadly. If you do not think that humanity’s CO2 emissions will produce significant global warming, there is much less basis to call it a pollutant. The OP seems to be trying to make other arguments for reducing CO2 emissions, besides global warming, but the point is that there are very few other arguments to be made. And personally, I find the idea of emphasizing the environmental damage even from global warming to be missing the point. Many people bemoan the loss of endangered species of toad in the Amazon rainforest, or worry about whether a dam will inundate the last refuge of the great northwest horned salamander. Others don’t really care. Good luck telling some town in China that they have to pay 3 times more for electricity because you are worried their carbon emissions will cause more trees to die along your favorite hiking path in Yosemite. The real point that people should be making on global warming, that all of humanity can recognize and identify with, is that _global warming will cost humanity more money than it would cost to prevent it_. ---
**Author:** ![HoboStew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f17d59/32.png) [@HoboStew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HoboStew)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301/20 "2012-04-19T22:55:46Z")
> [@Absolute](#): > > Oh, come on. The problem is that not everyone agrees that a world without cheap energy is a “better world”. Who doesn’t want cheap energy? Every progressive energy project I see is searching for energy that is less polluting (or not at all) AND cheaper. Cheaper, that is, to the end user. They will require significant $$$ of R&D. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-deniers-so-what/619301.md?page=2)