What Anthropomorphicgenic Global Warming (AGW) Skeptics Really Think

Over at the Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan posed a question for AGW skeptics.

Later, Sullivan posted the reply of one of his AGW skeptics readers to the question.

I think Sullivan's reader's reply is characteristic of the thinking of AGW skeptics and quite revealing, actually.

What it seems to me that Sullivan's reader is really saying is not that he or she questions whether global warming is man-made, but simply that it doesn’t matter one way or another. I find it a bit odd that this person would recognize that global warming is occurring, accept it as part of the evolutionary process, and then pretend that humans have no discernible part in this phenomenon by our actions. What? Are we not participants in this evolutionary process? Furthermore, are we incapable of knowing or figuring out what causes climate change? Most importantly, are we not, as rational, intelligent beings, in the exclusive position to be able to respond to this process, either to speed it up or slow it down, based on what we do know?

Of course, advancing a policy position with regard to the environment requires making a conscious decision as to whether this global warming phenomenon, which Sullivan's reader acknowledges to be happening, is something that is a net plus for our world, a net minus for it, or simply unimportant enough to even worry about. What is Sullivan's reader’s policy position? Well, I think it’s instructive that there is none, since he or she essentially believes that it’s pointless to fight against evolution.

It strikes me as somewhat of an apocalyptic approach that basically discounts the human capacity either to damage our environment on the one hand, or to mold and shape our physical environment for the better on the other. And that just strikes me as absurd. For this reason, I think AGW skeptics are lazy cynics. They are cynics about the human capacity to impact such daunting things as global climate change; and they are lazy because they don’t even want to try.

Global Warming a Farce? Take 2 ...

A few days ago, the head-in-the-sand, anti-global warming Rightwingosphere jumped on some changes in a NASA report re-calculating the hottest years on record in the U.S. after rectifying a slight error in the statistical tool used to determine annual temperatures as wholesale evidence that the global warming phenomenon is pure fantasy. [NOTE: As much as conservatives would like to think that the U.S. constitutes the entire world, the phenomenon of global warming is precisely that: a measure of the world's temperatures, with the world constituting more than the U.S.]

[ASIDE: Well, we New Orleanians, basing our thoughts purely on our personal, lived experiences with the heat over the past 2-3 weeks, might disagree with the notion that global warming is a fraud. Honestly, I don't think I've ever felt this hot in New Orleans before. But, anyway, since my "feelings" don't count in a scientific debate, that's neither here nor there ... ]

Nevertheless, I'd advise conservatives to be a bit circumspect in their dismissive reactions and take a look at this little cautionary rejoinder from Bradford Plummer over at The New Republic's blog, "The Plank." And here's another piece of sanity on the subject, just for good measure.

Take it for what you will.