Quote Originally Posted by purple gelatinous cube o' Doom View Post
Because there will always be nutjobs out there on both sides of the equation. Just 30 years ago people were freaking out saying that the next ice age was upon us. These very same people are currently the ones with the doomsday predictions of global warming.
Exactly, which is why those particular groups are not generally worth concerning yourself with. The fact that they exist however does not mean that there is no strong evidence for the human-made climate change and that this may account for why many people are including themselves in this camp. E.g. the very large majority of climatologists and environmental scientists (who are not a group of people known for their wild flights or overdramatic fancy).
Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas. My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no.
Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).

The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact.
Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.

Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.

Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.
Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.

Now, with the aforementioned book I'm reading (Cool It), the author states that global warming is indeed happening. For the purpose of reading the book, I am looking at things from that perspective while I read it. Why am I doing this? Because it makes all the suggestions and data in the book work.
But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.
It also goes to prove that if this guy can amass this information, and see things for what they really are, and what we should be spending billions less on, to do more good, why can't the leaders of the world realize these things too.
Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.

As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).

There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)