# Global warming is good - stop opposing it **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 23, 2012, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833 "2012-05-23T14:28:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**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:** [May 24, 2012, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833/21 "2012-05-24T13:47:08Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Looking more at your cite it states: > You’ve got to be kidding, the dominant forcing is by humans? they claim is ‘what the science says’ Humans is at best a small but persistant nudging force, no way a dominate force. Seasonal climate variation far outweigh human induced variation, night and day variation far outweight human induced variation. Your cite is discredited as far as I’m concerned. Ever since the 70’s the evidence shows that natural forces are no longer the dominant force. > **[Sun & climate: moving in opposite directions](https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)** > > \In the last 35 years of global warming, the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. Sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.\ And here is a tip: Skeptical science links to the science itself, as far as I can see you only demonstrate unwillingness to check the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833/22 "2012-05-24T14:00:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > And suppose it did happen in the past? The question is, what would the effects of it be _now_, with 7 billion people in the world? > > Even if we assume there’s, say, only a 20% chance that the AGW alarmists are right, have you heard of the concept of _insurance?_ The problem with that theory, is that if the alarmists are correct, the type of insurance you really need to correct the problem is WAY more costly than anyone wants to really face. Better gas mileage in cars, lower polluting energy plants, etc. will be a drop in the bucket to counteract the impact of the doubled population. The biggest contributor of greenhouse gases is the production of all of the food needed to feed all of the people on the planet. Mass genocide is really the only sure form to reduce the increase greenhouse gases that the doubling of the population has created in an appreciable way. The current policies that are being proposed are lip service to the problem if the climate scientists are truly correct. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833/23 "2012-05-24T14:02:50Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > My point is that we don’t know with a lot of confidence that this sort of climate change that has occurred in the last 70 years, hasn’t regularly occurred over the last 2,000 years at different points. The ice core and tree ring studies can’t provide that level of accuracy. Again a LOT of assumptions. I’m not saying it isn’t happening, I’m just not convinced that it hasn’t happened in the past for whatever reasons. > > And we definitely shouldn’t be making public policy decisions based upon this level of study. 70-100 years of accurate readings is miniscule sample of the current age of the earth to make such claims. Number 1 in the skeptical science list of myths. > **[Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says](https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php)** > > Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science... The quick reply was there for years already: > [@](#): > > Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. As for the “70-100 years” point it is really ridiculous as it is the same argument used by creationists when they deny evolution, they point at “no one has observed macro-evolution in the previous centuries”, therefore it is not happening. What is clear to me is that there is really a lot of unfounded assumptions behind the idea that we should dismiss paleoclimate evidence. ---
**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:** [May 24, 2012, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833/24 "2012-05-24T14:05:29Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > The problem with that theory, is that if the alarmists are correct, the type of insurance you really need to correct the problem is WAY more costly than anyone wants to really face. Better gas mileage in cars, lower polluting energy plants, etc. will be a drop in the bucket to counteract the impact of the doubled population. What is important is to know what is your definition of an alarmist, clearly it is not the IPCC. I have to say here that recent discussions have show me that many are not even aware of what is the difference and apply terms like “Alarmist” to conservative outfits (on the matter of predictions) like the IPCC. > [@Omar\_Little](#): > > The biggest contributor of greenhouse gases is the production of all of the food needed to feed all of the people on the planet. Mass genocide is really the only sure form to reduce the increase greenhouse gases that the doubling of the population has created in an appreciable way. > > The current policies that are being proposed are lip service to the problem if the climate scientists are truly correct. Remember, policy positions are the result of what is possible in an environment where a good number of politicians even deny that there is a problem to begin with. ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2012, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833/25 "2012-05-24T14:17:05Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I don’t accept that necessarily either. We already know that ‘solutions’ to stop GW will hurt the poorest people, people who will not be able to afford fuel to better themselves. We know nothing of the kind. _Someone who has money at stake as claimed that solutions will hurt the poor_, sure. In other news, mafia bosses routinely plead innocent. At least one study has shown, for example, that investment in specific green technologies has returned more cash than it cost, once one factors in long-term benefits including sale of the valuable tech itself. Perhaps that will be the case here. Since the alternative is wide-scale destruction and massive reinvestment in rebuilding, it seems _certain_ that green tech will cost less (quick – how much to rebuild every coastal city on Earth?), but I’m only using logic, not actual cost estimating. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming-is-good-stop-opposing-it/622833.md?page=1)