Quote of the Day, Climategate Edition

A commenter writes in reply to this post:

"This issue has become so much like a religion that its followers operate on blind faith. There is nothing you can do to have them look at it from a different perspective let alone change their minds."

I do not worship man-made climate change - I loathe it. But as far as your assumption that I, or any of my co-believers, operate on blind faith, I humbly submit that climate change skeptics do the same. They (while bashing AGW proponents) fail to offer a single explanation for "WHERE IS THE CO2 GOING?" or "CAN YOU MODEL WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN FIFTY YEARS IF WE DON'T CURB EMISSIONS?", they just sit on their high horse and pontificate that AGW arguments are false. I asked one AGW skeptic "if the CO2 humans are producing isn't causing the global warming that occurred for 147 of the last 150 years, then what is?" and she gave me a vague "Earth's cycles," response, but upon pressing her for data...any data...she said "I leave it to the experts."

So I ask you experts; please tell me: the Texas-sized flotilla of trash in the Pacific Ocean: is it negatively affecting the environment? The near-exctinction of several thousand Ocean species due to human sushi consumption: is it negatively affecting the environment? The hole in the ozone due to human use of hair spray and refrigerant: is it negatively affecting the environment? The hunting-to-extinction of most apex predator species on Earth: is it negatively affecting the environment? The millions of gallons of wastewater that manufacturing plants and chemical plants dump directly into the rivers: is it negatively affecting the environment? The tons and tons of artificially produced hormones pumped into the water that scientists have proven turn male fish into female sterile fish: is it negatively affecting the environment? The damming of rivers, then the redistribution of that freshwater into arid regions to produce crops for human consumption, causing animal populations like salmon to face extinction, while inducing dust bowl conditions in areas that do not receive enough water: does it negatively affect the environment? The massive dumping of spilled oil into the Ocean that causes huge numbers of animal deaths (and basically destroys an entire ecosystem): does it negatively affect the environment?

Here's the thing: huge flotillas of plastic trash, dead albatross chicks, huge warehouses of dead bluefin tuna, overpopulated prey species (due to predator loss) eating people's flower gardens, polluted water (and signs warning you to not eat your catch), dead fish, dams, dust storms, dead animals covered in oil...these are all things that climate change skeptics will readily admit are caused by humans, and will also usually admit negatively affect the environment. This is because the climate change skeptics only believe something they can see with their own eyes. But because airborne pollution is invisible and they can't freaking see it, they dismiss it with a wave of their arrogant hand.

You notice there isn't a single climate change skeptic from Tianying, China, because most of the people there are too busy dying from lead poisoning. Nor do you find climate change skeptics in Norilsk, Russia, where it is difficult to see ten feet on a good day.

So no, I don't believe in global warming based on blind faith. I take forty million other examples of humans harming the environment and surmise that CO2 is most likely example 40,000,001.


_