What are some arguments against conservation?

Answer 1

Some people want to cut down trees to provide energy for there family or to sell, which also leaves more room for young trees to grow. Some people want to save the trees and wait 5 years after the tree is dead to fall down by itself because they think the tree is still giving us oxygen. These people also fine people for cutting down trees on their own property to save it from falling on a house or other important thing. These people also like looking at trees and talking to them, thanking them for saving our earth. Some peoples jobs include cutting these trees and selling them to people in need of a cheap energy source, while the other peoples jobs is to fine them. These people also say that burning fire wood makes bad gases. Well it creates smoke but nothing else. (this may or may not be biased, but if it is it is biased to the good side)

Answer 2

Those who believe man is the primary cause of global warming:

• Flooding
• Drought in some countries
• Fires
• Extinctions--many species of wildlife will be lost forever
• Glacier melt.
• Fishing industry collapse.
• Disease from smog, auto emissions, factories pouring out waste, etc.
• Deforestation
• Food supply reduction.
• Russian Arctic, higher temps melting the permafrost releases methane
• Scientists feel temperatures will rise by another 1.4 to 5.8C in the 21st century. Thus, it will change the earth systems including ocean circulation and hydrological carbon and nutrient cycles. In other words it will disrupt the natural ecosystems that provide us with water, food, etc., and cause environmental stresses such as declining water quality, ozone depletion, urban air pollution and deforestation.
• The Arctic and the Antarctic are warming more quickly than scientists expected. Although the melting of ice will open up more expanses of ocean for ships there is a price to pay. When the ice flows melt walruses, polar bears, seals and other marine mammals that rely on this ice floe for resting and feeding will be threatened and most likely become close to extinction. The Indigenous people are already being affected by the lack of ice for hunting, fishing and gathering plants and birds, fish.
• In large parts of Eastern Europe, Russia, Central Canada and California, peak stream flows have advanced from spring to winter creating more rain rather than snow, thus reaching rivers more rapidly than before and ... floods.
• Africa; large basins of Niger, Lake Chad and Senegal have a decrease in water by 40 - 60%. Increased summer drying and a high risk of drought including Central Asia and Sahel.
• 25% of mammals and 12% of birds are closing in rapidly to extinction. 89% of these are at high risk because the food chain will change.
• CO2 levels will affect plants in many ways and diminish the protein content of wheat and rice. Because of the negative impact on plant growth the spread of pests and diseases are more at risk.
• Mid-continental areas IE: U.S. grain belt and areas of Asia and Australia will dry. Warmer temps and greater evapo-transpiration can reduce agricultural yields by a third plus. In the tropic many crops are at the max temp tolerance and farmers are unable to irrigate because of lack of water.
• Health effects on humans will be greater because of heat waves, cold snaps, floods and droughts, pollution and allergens. Increased frequency and intensity of storms, floods, cyclones will also harm be a danger to humans (eg: New Orleans.) Air quality will be changed (there are more people suffering from air quality diseases every year.)
• The cost of global weather-related disasters has increased from 1950 ($3.9 billion in US) to 1990s ($40 billion US) and rising! Today some insurance companies in high risk areas refuse to cover floods, fire, etc., insurance and have actually removed it from their policies.
• Glaciers are vast thick sheets of ice. Ice is heavy (1 ton per cubic meter), exerting enormous pressure on earth's surface. Because the glaciers are melting at faster rates than models predict scientists are compelled to conclude this is due to global warming. As the pressure is reduced and released there may be earthquakes, tsunamis (caused by undersea earthquakes) and possibly volcanic eruptions!

Those who believe varying degrees outside the current man-induced view:

This section should really be divided into three categories in all fairness. Many believe global warming MAY be happening, but it is not proven. Others do not feel it is actually fair and unbiased science.

Those who actually deny the issue claim:

• CO2 has never lead temps, it always follows temperature
• That the current troposphere temps are below 1981 levels currently.
• That just because two things coincide does not mean they are connected. If it did, the increase of wind turbines could be causing warming. The more wind systems we see, the warmer it gets the past thirty years! Are they causing global warming?
• That science shows us that levels of CO2 above 280ppm reach a saturation point and increased CO2 does not add more heat.
• That glaciers supposedly melting like the Himalayas are not melting.
• The Antarctic is not warming or losing ice overall
• the climate changes with or without us
• that man may be contributing, but we do not know yet.
• Sea level is not increasing, in fact it is decreasing
• the warming we see started thousands of years ago
• that the current warming of 11 degrees, only 0.6 is since 1850
• 1850 was the low temps of the mini ice age, not a normal temp period.
• That the IPCC has an agenda of political nature and is not unbiased
• That the average science expert of 1850 felt CO2 was at 400 ppm then (we are slightly lower today)
• The vast bulk of research money goes into looking for reasons to blame man
• That the Hockey stick graph is not reproducible
• The heat island effect is ignored by the IPCC and extreme environmentalists
• That the bulk of warming in data used by the IPCC dovetails with the closing of 3000 weather stations in Russia.
• That if we look at the temps of 1939 until now, we see cooling..
• NASA raw data shows ocean cooling, not warming. Manipulating the data is required to fake warming
• The issue is being used to keep people from dealing with real environmental issues
• The issue is being used to force people to reduce their lifestyle

Then we have a group who believes that global warming MAY be happening, but it is not from man, but predominantly natural in nature.

• They point to the lower temps today then 2010 or 1998
• The lack of sea level rise (actually it has slowed for decades and now is going down)
• the lack of ice loss in Antarctic
• The glacial loss is a normal cycle
• That solar variation plays a key
• That the IPCC ignores increases in negative feedback of water vapor
• That Vostok shows this is a normal cycle
• the lack of an increase in hurricanes is proof that the models are wrong
• They point to the fact that no IPCC model or projects ever come true
• That tens of thousands of measurements of CO2 taken since 1850 show averages were around today's 390 ppm or higher.

Then we have the group who believes man is contributing but they do not see an issue with it. They contend:

• Crops need HEAT to grow. More heat means more crops. Crops also need water. If sea levels rise due to ice melting, this will increase the surface area of the oceans. Combined with higher temperatures, this results in more evaporation. More evaporation means more water vapor in the atmosphere. More water vapor means more RAIN!
• Carbon dioxide is BENEFICIAL to crops!
• "Too much heat", in and of itself, does not kill crops, UNLESS it is accompanied by too little rainfall. But under any reasonable global warming scenario, precipitation will INCREASE. The rain will not be polluted, and if it is, it won't be because of global warming. Too much water will not kill crops. It might make it harder to harvest them, but it won't kill them. But, the point is, whatever LOCALIZED negative impacts on agriculture that might manifest will be more than outweighed by the positive impacts, like a greatly expanded area that is warm enough to grow crops, and the increases in yield due to an abundance of carbon dioxide. IF global warming is really happening and IF it continues, it will likely be the best thing to happen to worldwide food production since the invention of man-made fertilizers. Worldwide food production will reach new record levels year after year after year.
• IF global warming is real, and IF it continues, then, yes, a few coastal areas may be flooded . Talking about the kind of temporary flooding that comes with heavy rainfall, then that too will occur, on a LOCALIZED basis. Neither is a big deal, especially compared to the huge economic losses that will occur if society actually makes a serious effort to stop global warming.
• It is quite possible that SOME areas will, in fact, receive less rainfall than they currently receive. But, on the other hand, other areas will receive MORE rainfall. In fact, this year, the Great Plains received a great deal more rain than normal. On average, however, it is clear that, worldwide, participation will increase. Higher temperatures -> more evaporation -> more rainfall!
• Yes, there will be fires due to drought, but there will be more fires PREVENTED by a RELIEF of drought in those areas where rainfall will increase.
• Global warming most certainly will NOT "cause the earth to become a dead planet". Even if the worst scenarios of the alarmists come true, global temperatures and CO2 levels will still be well below what they were during the age of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and plants THRIVED in that environment. Even if humans became extinct (which we won't), there will still be plenty of LIFE left on the planet.

Arguments for the Consensus:CO2 is a heat trapping gas. Put a thermometer into each of two jars. Melt dry ice in one jar (do NOT seal the lid!) and shine a heat lamp on each. The jar which had the dry ice will record a higher temperature. This is because CO2 traps heat. We can measure the amount of heat CO2 absorbs by measuring the decrease in infrared light through a glass chamber.

Independent climate models by NCAR, GFDL, WCRP, WMO, MPIM, the Met Office Hadley Center, and others all indicate sensitivity to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Recent climate change has been conclusively tied to human carbon emissions.

The null hypothesis suggests human activity has nothing to do with measured average global temperature increases. Climate scientists sought to confirm the null hypothesis, but the models they constructed forced them to reject it. In other words, the conclusion climate scientists reached was that humans are predominantly responsible for climate change, due to their liberation in excess of 30 billion (30,000,000,000) tons of heat trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) per year.

On the other side, the petroleum industry fears rejection of the null hypothesis will erode their enormous margins. These companies have been generating record multi billion dollar profits over the past decade. So they have financed FUD campaigns (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about the findings of climate scientists in the hopes of preserving their gargantuan profits. Examples of this include political contributions and donations to propaganda mills like the Heartland Institute.

I hate to pitch this as a battle between honest, hard working scientists and malevolent corporations bent on the destruction of earth, because that just sounds cartoonishly stereotypical. But if one's behavior results in environmental harm, the harm remains the same whether the behavior was intentional or simply committed out of ignorance. And willful ignorance is inexcusable.

The pro null-hypothesis rejection scientists have only their data (evidence) and models to back their argument human activity is MOSTLY responsible for measured increases.

The political entities arguing in favor of the null hypothesis impugn the credibility of the scientists by insisting they all hope to earn billions off clean energy royalties, somehow, or that they will all be able to pocket some of the proposed carbon taxes.

The Heartland Institute (largely financed by the fossil fuel industry) wants us to believe CO2 is plant food, the gas of life, and not a harmful emission.

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas. Actually, by the combination of volume and effect, that is true. Water vapor, however, depends on other factors, and readily precipitates from the atmosphere under ideal conditions, forming rain or snow. CO2 does NOT readily rain out of the atmosphere but lingers for centuries, and its concentration affects the concentration of other heat trapping gases.

Other planets are warming, therefore it is impossible earth could be warming as a result of human activity. While some are and others are not (and some we haven't taken sufficient measurement to be able to distinguish long term trends), the logic of this argument is obviously flawed.

CO2 was higher a billion years ago. This is true, though in addition the sun was cooler then. Although the sun has grown gradually hotter over the course of the past billion years, that change has not been significant enough in recent centuries to account for measured changes in earth's temperature.

Rebuttal of Arguments against the Consensus:

• CO2 levels both lead and follow temperature changes. Although solar insolation (Milankovitch Cycles) cause temperature rises after the coldest part of an ice age, subsequent CO2 increases drive further temperature increase in a feedback loop. The Azolla Event is an example where falling CO2 levels caused subsequent global cooling.
• That the current troposphere temps are currently below 1981 levels only indicates one part of the atmosphere (the upper atmosphere) may be cooler, not that global surface temperature has declined.
• Post hoc ergo proctor hoc is a logical fallacy, but does not apply to the connection between rising CO2 and temperature, because we can measure the heat trapping property of CO2 in the lab.
• The claim that science shows us that levels of CO2 above 280ppm reach a saturation point and increased CO2 does not add more heat is based on a faulty climate model. Venus is the hottest planet, not Mercury, thanks to its runaway greenhouse effect from very high CO2.
• That some Himalayas glaciers are not melting very fast distracts from the fact virtually all other glaciers on earth are rapidly shedding mass.
• The Antarctic IS losing ice overall, despite current growth in ice extent (surface area). Antarctic ice VOLUME is decreasing, overall.
• That climate changes with or without us in no way eliminates our responsibility for climate change caused BY us.
• The scientific consensus that man is contributing was established by the 1980s. Subsequent research has set the statistical confidence level of that change to above 95%.
• Sea level is increasing. There was a temporary decline, but in fact it continues increasing at a rate faster than most scientists had predicted.
• That warming started thousands of years ago has nothing to do with the human acceleration of current warming.
• The current warming of 11 degrees (since the end of the last ice age), mostly occurred more than ten thousand years ago. Though only 1 degree C has occurred since 1850 so far, scientists predict a minimum of 1.5 degrees more before the end of this century.
• 1850 was the low temps of the mini ice age, not a normal temp period, which has virtually nothing to do with modern climate change. In 1850 human mining of fossil fuel was an insignificant fraction of what it is today.
• The claim that the IPCC has an agenda of political nature and is not unbiased is unsupportable. In general climate scientists have no financial investment in the outcome of their research. Tenured professors receive the same salary regardless of their findings, and federal grant funds do not finance their salaries. Contrast this with political campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry.
• That the average science expert of 1850 felt CO2 was at 400 ppm is based on steam engine era technology, and urban measurements made during the heyday of the popularity of dirty coal for heating and cooking. We improved the accuracy of measurements in the 1950s to the point we could measure SEASONAL variation in overall atmospheric CO2 concentrations. We were unable to do that prior to 1950.
• The contention that the vast bulk of research money goes into looking for reasons to blame man is blatantly false. NSF grants are awarded on the basis of the soundness of proposed research methodology, NOT upon the expected outcome. In fact, most research money has actually been spent in search of ways to AVOID blaming man, because fossil fuel is such a cheap and potent resource. It would be a tremendous boon if we knew we could continue using it without significant environmental harm.
• The claim the Hockey stick graph is not reproducible is false, with further explanation below.
• The heat island effect is ignored by the IPCC and extreme environmentalists is inaccurate. Who cares what extreme environmentalists claim? The IPCC is aware of the urban heat island effect. Robert Muller, in a study funded in part by the Koch Brothers, examined temperature data records from EAU and others, and after subtracting urban measurements STILL reproduced the "hockey stick" temperature graph.
• The claim that if we look at the temps of 1939 until now we see cooling is false, despite the fact 1939 was an anomalously warm year in the United States and therefore not a suitable starting point.
• The claim NASA raw data shows ocean cooling, not warming, is inaccurate. Manipulating the data is NOT required to fake warming, but is done to account for satellite drift, where temperature measurements were made later and later each afternoon as ocean surface temperature receded. Recent satellite measurements are in concordance with the data sets adjusted for satellite drift.
• The global warming issue is the biggest environmental concern facing our species today.
• The claim the issue is being used to force people to reduce their lifestyle is silly, as though switching from a gas guzzling Humvee to a comfortable and fuel efficient hybrid somehow equated to a reduced lifestyle. How are clean, energy efficient LED bulbs (cheaper in the long run) a lifestyle reduction from dangerous, energy-sapping hot incandescent bulbs?

Rebuttal of Arguments for the Consensus:These are largely just a rehash of the arguments against the scientific consensus.

Answer 3

OUR ENTIRE EXISTANCE DEPENDS ON THE AIR WE BREATH, THE WATER WE DRINK, AND OUR ABILITY TO COMPREHEND THIS IN ITS SIMPLICITY!