Can I ask what facts or sources you’ve heard? I honestly don’t mean that as belittling, but it is my understanding that most of the scientific community believes it. I know I’m quoting wikipedia here, but “The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[22]” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus)

I can understand people arguing about whether or not a particular way will be effective in dealing with the problem, and want to make sure they’re what they’re paying for is actually working. But I do think people who insist that there isn’t a problem are the ones hiding out in caves or burying their heads.

“I am quite educated and still do not believe completely in the severity of this.”

Definition of belief:
- confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

The climate argument is susceptible to rigorous proof. Thus, I don’t care what you or anyone “believes” or doesn’t believe about climate change. I only care what the actual facts are. Use real facts to sway me not “beliefs.” I don’t respect a view point backed by nothing.

Both sides of the argument are based on theories constructed by evidence presented. So theory is no more than a belief or opinion based on evidence found (which may or may not be fact depending on the variables). So, in theory:), belief is valid in an argument. My guess is that you don’t have a problem with the word (belief) as long as it doesn’t relate to God.

I agree that nuclear power is not perfect. There are issues that need to be resolved and this will take time, as will any alternative. Alternatives to petroleum have to be explored for the primary source of energy. The “popular” alternatives (wind, solar) are a long way from being a viable as the primary source. Also no one source will likely ever be the cure-all solution. It will certainly take a combination of technologies based on application to replace a majority of petroleum and coal uses.

@csdx – I choose to believe in the theory of gravity. I do not choose to believe in the hysteria or magnitude of global warming. There are “facts” on both sides from reputable sources. We all have to use our own minds to decide which side to trust.

I never stated that I was not contributing to problems with the environment. I simply implied that I try to be responsible with my actions.

Let me back up and explain myself.

I do believe we have a negative effect on the environment. I choose not to believe in the hype and commercialism of global warming. I want what is best for myself and my family. I have compassion for others and want all species to thrive, and I’m sure I will be chastised for this, but I will ultimately do what I believe is best for me and my family. Just as most of us will. If I don’t believe in something then what is the logic in supporting it?

My choices are not based on ignorance on the subject. I will continue to educate myself, keep an open mind and make the best decisions.

Environmental issues are important to me. Clean energy, clean manufacturing, responsible development are things I support. I will not, however, crawl into a hole and sign my paycheck over to support legislation that I do not believe in. You cannot spend your way out of anything. It not about the use of my money but the abuse of it. We have also have to consider the longterm economic issues as well.

I do understand that supporting environmental issues takes money and a level of legislation. I disagree that the climate is in any way linked to a % value of the GDP.

Education is the key to any resolution. Frankly, the “the sky is falling” mentality and the eccessive spending surrounding the issue scares people off. Without the support of a large majority of the world, nothing will change. Craming it down our throats is not the way to go about it.

I will continue to voice my opinion at the appropriate times, educate myself, keep an open mind and support politicians that have like ideals as mine.

Estimate of world reserves at current useage rate is 85 years. Hmm, that’s not very long, hence the interest in fusion reactors.

You vastly underestimate the impact humans have had on ecology and climate. We have engineered large parts of this planet to suit our needs and whims. We can good or harm, clear cutting the rainforest, building entire new islands, irrigation, oil spills, genetic engineering, extincition of species, we made a goddamn hole in the ozone layer (tell those CFCs were naturally caused). Both our numbers and technology give us powerful means to shape our planet and climate.

Furthermore, even if you think that what we’re doing doesn’t affect climate that much. Stop and remember that this stuff only really occurs in with what first world countries are doing. Now recall that China and India alone each contain 3-4x the population of the US and are quickly developing. If we’re not making any difference now, do you think ten times that might start to cause a change?

Now, even if I concede the entire point and say all climate change is natural. Why should we accept that? I mean if we knew a volcano was going to explode, would it really be acceptable to just sit back and go, well sucks to be them. Should we not fund levees or offer relief to victims of natural disaster? Similarly shouldn’t we be doing something to protect ourselves and others from climate change that we can see coming.

Finally on nuclear power, I agree with you, it’s a good first step. But uranium ore is finite as well, in fact more so than even oil is. There are estimates that if we used it as our sole source of fuel, all known reserves of it would last about 20 years. So something even more long term than that needs to be done.

The fact you suggest nuclear power is the answer shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. I’m not talking about waste disposal, though it obviously is a concern with nuclear, I’m talking about uranium supplies. Basically, we (the world) can’t produce enough uranium right now and are making up for this lack of production by turning weaponized nuclear fuel from decommisioned U.S. and Russian warheads into commercial grade nuclear fuel. Basically, it is impossible, because of uranium supplies, to use nuclear power as our primary source (I am not arguing it doesn’t have a place).

Also, if we used nuclear power as our primary source we would be giving other countries another lever to use on us. That would just be “brilliant” foreign policy.

Finally, csdx’s example of waste dumping by a company is fantastic example. It works because it pushes the cost of producing X onto someone other than the producer and initial customer.

A plant dumping chemicals in a river instead of disposing of them properly is pushing part of the production cost onto the local governments surrounding the river and maybe even the federal government.

Current industry and private energy use (everything has an energy price) is pushing part of the cost to our future selves and future generations. No matter how you look at the problem or what you “believe” there is a cost and it will be paid by us and future generations in money, in reduced standards of living, or in blood.

Based on our current mindset I fear blood will be the price in the end.

Live and let die.

The only downside I can see is that all your loved ones would get cancer from the exposure?

Should we be responsible and seek out reasonable means to produce cleaner energy and products? Sure! Let’s start with an easy one….nuclear power.

Remember, you are safer in a commercial airliner than you are in a car, which is the opposite of what most people believe.

@csdx – The burden is to see preventable problems happen all the time, not to be right, which is kinda nice.

But as to the post itself, I can’t help but feel it as terribly ironic. Intentional or not, the tone comes off as rather “woe is me for knowing the Truth, it’s a terrible burden to always be right”. The standard archetype of Greek heroes often had such hubris, that is right until they met their nemesis.

If there are enough people who believe in global warming then let them “fix” it on their dime. I do not believe in the hype and would prefer to continue on with my life without the tax burdens that are trying to be forced upon me.

Live and let live.

It seems to me that there are at least two kinds of people whose goals are diametrically opposed: those who exploit the stupidity and incredulity of others, and those who try to solve others problems. The former are the robber barons, whose wealth often inspires envy and whose lack of ethics inspires scorn. The latter are admired only to the extent they succeed.

If anyone aims to be a problem solver, the priniciple of subsidiarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity)
is the best antidote to the curse of Cassandra.