There are the alarmists who think that global warming will be the death of us all, the ones who read a newspaper headline and take it to the extreme. Within this group are perhaps two subgroups – those who are deliberately being alarmist in order to garner support for their cause (i.e. a belief in global warming) and those who are inadvertently over-reacting, often caused by sensationalist media claims and not enough understanding of climate change to put things into context.
At the other end of the spectrum are the denialists. These are the people who simply refuse to accept that the climate is changing. Most of their information comes from the now defunct propaganda campaign of a few years ago, led by the major oil and power companies and aimed at discrediting the science of global warming. These people are closed minded and will only believe something if it conforms to their pre-conceived notion. They are the anti-scientists.
The there’s the huge middle ground. This covers most people, they can be divided into two distinct sub-groups – those who accept the climate is changing but have questions (believers), those who don’t necessarily accept the climate is changing but keep an open mind (skeptics).
The believers accept that the climate is changing and we’re influencing it but they want to know more – how much are we changing the climate, how much is down to natural causes, what might happen in the future etc.
The skeptics don’t necessarily accept humans are influencing the climate but they’re interested in finding out more. They’ll ask how we could be changing the climate, what evidence supports the manmade global warming theory, have other avenues been explored etc.
no matter how humans screw this climate or earth , with time (thousands of years) it will eventually balance itself . it may be possible humans might have got fossilized but life will go on and on and on.
see history how Dino got fossilized, though they dint screw climate as we did but the asteroid did screw the climate and eventually earth was flowing with life again
Based are your question I'm guessing you are one in the third school of thought. There isn't really a definition of it and there aren't many prominent figures in that train of thought that I know of. This mainly has to do with it being a very politically motivated subject. Although I know there are studies tracking global temperatures throughout history yet I would be skeptical with most of the studies because there is a lot a bias out there. The study at the bottom is a good one but as with any climate science, especially archaeological climatology, only more data and more research will give difinite results. Although whatever your train of thought I think we should all at least try to decrease the amount that humans polute because we DON'T KNOW what bad affects it can have. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/...
There is one school of thought that includes almost everyone in the world who actually studies climate. It is a myth that there is controversy among actual experts. Global warming is not "destroying the planet" but is it altering climate in ways that are costly to humans -- in dollars and in lives -- and that we have barely seen the beginning of such changes. All of the great scientists in the world are members of their nation's national academy of science, and these academies provide advice to their nations -- that is, they speak for their nations' top scientists. The worlds science academies have been very clear -- there is no argument -- that global warming presents risks to human quality of life is "indisputable". Any individual who does dispute that is out of step with the world scientific body.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/include...
There are individuals with credentials who dispute it. However, there is no single competing theory with a meaningful number of supporters. The individuals are well known because there are so few that the promoters of denials always have to go the the same guys for favorable quotes.
Richard Linzen of MIT believes global warming is real, but that at some point clouds will be a strong negative feedback and stop it. He calls his theory the Iris Effect.
Roy Spencer of UAH believed that the little warming of 30 years ago was caused by random cloud behavior -- then he switched to claiming that satellites showed there was no warming -- then he was forced to admit he didn't know how to read the satellite data and indeed there is warming -- then he went back to believing the greater warming over the past 30 years was all due to random cloud behavior. His is kinda a "that's my story and I'm sticking to it" belief.
John Christy, also at UAH, believes the warming is not due to CO2. He doesn't know what is causing it, but it must be "something else".
Henrik Svensmark at one time tried to convince people the warming was caused by solar activity. But after he was challenged by other solar scientists and was unable to prove his case, he publicly admitted that solar activity makes only a small deviations to the ongoing trend and he actually has no idea what is causing the trend.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov in Russia claims the warming is due to higher radiation from the sun (ie, a different solar effect than Svensmark claims), and that the greenhouse effect does not exits. (Note that Linzen has called people with Abdusamatov's views "nutty".) Abdusamatov has predicted an ice age beginning next year.
The scientists outside the mainstream have a mish-mash of beliefs which contradict each other as much as they contradict the mainstream. There is one mainstream view (with many differences in effects, rates and scales) and many other views held by individuals.
I have a problem with any ignoramuses who calls capitalists idiots. Those are typically Marxist creeps who pretend to be above the fray but in fact simply believe whatever they are spoonfed.
I know there are three school of thoughts when it comes to Global warming:
-Capitalist idiots who like to believe its a myth
-People who believe humans are destroying the planet by accelerating climate change.
-People who understand that accelerated climate change and global warming are natural phenomena when there's a dominant species and accepts the fact that we're going to get extinct sooner or later.
Any idea what the third school of thought is called? Or who are its prominent figures?
An example of this perspective is presented in this comedy piece:
youtube watch?v=7W33HRc1A6c
