Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seems to me that these days, the environmental movement in general toes the line of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in terms of a scientific consensus pointing to dangerous anthropogenic climate change due mainly to greenhouse gas emissions. It also seems to me that climate change is the number one or at least number two issue of the environmental movement these days. All this was less the case as recently as the 1990s, let alone the 1980s and beforehand.
My question is: In this day and age, are there environmental groups that think green in terms of the other issues (e.g. endangered species, noxious air/water/soil pollution) but that are skeptical that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous for the planet? In other words, are there environmental groups that value issues such as endangered species or the Pacific garbage bowl but that agree more with the Heartland Institute when it comes to climate change (i.e. that it's mainly natural, has always occurred in Earth's history, and that it's not more dangerous than in the geological past)?
Let me expand my question: Are there environmental groups that hardly even mention climate change or global warming and that focus exclusively on any one of the other environmental issues?
While not entirely fulfilling the criteria I'm looking for, I find that the Nature Conservancy and the Jane Goodall Institute don't seem to mention climate change or focus on that as a cause of wildlife species being endangered as much as, for example, the World Wildlife Fund, the Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife.
I certainly can't vouch for all environmental groups but I read alot of natural science books and keep up with a number of conservation and/or environmental orgs and they all agree 100% that man has changed the earth in dramatic ways. There is no longer any debate other than what to do about it.
Interesting that you mention WWF, Nature Conservancy, and Audubon, they are huge, well-known "non-profit" orgs who are surely putting fundraising first, so it behooves them to not alienate potential donors. Audubon especially has a rather wealthy member base, many of whom would be Republicans who care about birds but hate Al Gore for instance. Surely Audubon researchers are more concerned with man-made climate change than Audubon marketers.
I certainly can't vouch for all environmental groups but I read alot of natural science books and keep up with a number of conservation and/or environmental orgs and they all agree 100% that man has changed the earth in dramatic ways. There is no longer any debate other than what to do about it.
They all agree because they're following what in my mind is the corrupted and politicized science of the IPCC. They rely way too much on models which don't entirely make sense, and they leave out way too many natural factors which have always been at play in terms of the climate. Also, it's not so much "there is no longer any debate" as it is that the environmental movement has suppressed the other side of the debate - and has accused it of not practicing real science in the manner of the Inquisition hunting down Jews and Muslims in Spain. Plus, the 97% consensus is bogus.
I was asking this series of questions because I'm ardently pro-environment in most respects but I disagree with the mainstream environmental movement with regard to climate change. And I'm very sure I'm by no means alone either. For example, look at Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. Also, at least in 2014 and 2015, according to a Gallup survey, slightly more Americans believed in rainforest loss and biodiversity loss than in climate change as an environmental issue of great importance, with markedly more Americans placing value on actual pollution as a major environmental issue. Finally, the book "Landscapes and Cycles" downplays man-made climate change as a threat to the Sierra Nevada, its snowpack, and its ecosystems and wildlife, if not being entirely skeptical of man-made climate change. Well worth taking a look at all these!!!
They all agree because they're following what in my mind is the corrupted and politicized science of the IPCC. They rely way too much on models which don't entirely make sense, and they leave out way too many natural factors which have always been at play in terms of the climate. Also, it's not so much "there is no longer any debate" as it is that the environmental movement has suppressed the other side of the debate - and has accused it of not practicing real science in the manner of the Inquisition hunting down Jews and Muslims in Spain. Plus, the 97% consensus is bogus.
I was asking this series of questions because I'm ardently pro-environment in most respects but I disagree with the mainstream environmental movement with regard to climate change. And I'm very sure I'm by no means alone either. For example, look at Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace. Also, at least in 2014 and 2015, according to a Gallup survey, slightly more Americans believed in rainforest loss and biodiversity loss than in climate change as an environmental issue of great importance, with markedly more Americans placing value on actual pollution as a major environmental issue. Finally, the book "Landscapes and Cycles" downplays man-made climate change as a threat to the Sierra Nevada, its snowpack, and its ecosystems and wildlife, if not being entirely skeptical of man-made climate change. Well worth taking a look at all these!!!
You're clearly cherry-picking to achieve an agenda, perhaps for a term paper or thesis.
The world will be much better off if it: burns less fossil fuels, destroys less natural habitat, eats less meat, works for sustainability rather than profitability, procreates fewer humans, protects vulnerable areas from potential severe climate events, conserves more flora and fauna.
To still debate this is like arranging chairs on the Titanic. Your angle sounds like a useless delay towards doing nothing which has been the US Republican take all along -- politicized non-action and protection of corporate interests.
Put it this way: I think of the environmental issues minus climate change as taking place in a world in which the weather is still dominated by, and will always be dominated by, the myriad of natural forces that still exist - in the earth, on the earth, and beyond the earth - and in which the burning of greenhouse gases by mankind is indeed there but is, believe it or not, minimal in comparison to the natural forces behind changes in climate. Even some other man-made forces - like the urban heat island, land-use changes, and irrigation - outstrip GHG emissions.
I don't hold that position in order to buy time to save the earth from catastrophic man-made "climate change"; I hold that position because I have a great knowledge of geological and other earthly processes from prehistory and from more recent times. I know enough to say, for example, that the Great Barrier Reef was able to withstand previous eras of global warming, as in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods (which were not just regional phenomena mainly in Europe). Or that there was so much more CO2 in most previous geological ages, and plant and animal life did more than alright. Or that there is a point at which CO2 doesn't have as much warming effect as at lower levels - it's really not such a simple correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures. Or that cold temperatures have been much more detrimental to life than warm temperatures.
So, in previous ages, before modern humans even arose, was there massive and noxious air/water/soil pollution? Only from volcanic eruptions, certainly not from any industrial processes. Was there biodiversity loss, rainforest loss, etc.? In large part, only during the ages of extinction - not as much during other geological eras. Was there abrupt climate change - be it global warming or global cooling - all the time? ABSOLUTELY!!!! Constantly! And this is at the heart of what makes man-made climate change, to me, much less of an environmental issue than the other issues.
You're clearly cherry-picking to achieve an agenda, perhaps for a term paper or thesis.
The world will be much better off if it: burns less fossil fuels, destroys less natural habitat, eats less meat, works for sustainability rather than profitability, procreates fewer humans, protects vulnerable areas from potential severe climate events, conserves more flora and fauna.
To still debate this is like arranging chairs on the Titanic. Your angle sounds like a useless delay towards doing nothing which has been the US Republican take all along -- politicized non-action and protection of corporate interests.
The only way to achieve everything on you list is to do the emboldened. Humans are a pernicious infection on Mother Earth.
Put it this way: I think of the environmental issues minus climate change as taking place in a world in which the weather is still dominated by, and will always be dominated by, the myriad of natural forces that still exist - in the earth, on the earth, and beyond the earth - and in which the burning of greenhouse gases by mankind is indeed there but is, believe it or not, minimal in comparison to the natural forces behind changes in climate. Even some other man-made forces - like the urban heat island, land-use changes, and irrigation - outstrip GHG emissions.
I don't hold that position in order to buy time to save the earth from catastrophic man-made "climate change"; I hold that position because I have a great knowledge of geological and other earthly processes from prehistory and from more recent times. I know enough to say, for example, that the Great Barrier Reef was able to withstand previous eras of global warming, as in the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods (which were not just regional phenomena mainly in Europe). Or that there was so much more CO2 in most previous geological ages, and plant and animal life did more than alright. Or that there is a point at which CO2 doesn't have as much warming effect as at lower levels - it's really not such a simple correlation between CO2 and atmospheric temperatures. Or that cold temperatures have been much more detrimental to life than warm temperatures.
So, in previous ages, before modern humans even arose, was there massive and noxious air/water/soil pollution? Only from volcanic eruptions, certainly not from any industrial processes. Was there biodiversity loss, rainforest loss, etc.? In large part, only during the ages of extinction - not as much during other geological eras. Was there abrupt climate change - be it global warming or global cooling - all the time? ABSOLUTELY!!!! Constantly! And this is at the heart of what makes man-made climate change, to me, much less of an environmental issue than the other issues.
I guess I lump all manner of human disruption into one box. Going to your Great Barrier Reef example, if it thrived during earlier warming periods, but continues to die especially in the last 50 years during mankind's heavy population explosion (and including any kind of pollution and hands-on damage), man is still to blame for the loss, no?
Yes, the earth has had it's ebbs and flows of temperature (and other natural disruptions) but in the last 140 years or so mankind has increasingly put inordinate pressure on the natural order. Burning eons of fossil fuels in a very short time period is probably leading the charge but cow farts, deforestation and other things don't help either. And politicians should not ignore the problem(s) thinking "this too shall pass." We've got to protect our current little era. If we don't do better, by 2100, half the world could be uninhabitable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
