However, considering that fossil fuels are inherently in finite supply, and thus we'd need to switch away from them eventually even if the only things they emitted were rainbows and fluffy kittens, the degree to which clean energy is demonized by the denialists is... somewhere between silly and downright dangerous. Even if everything they claimed about AGW was true (which would be a neat trick, since so much of it is contradictory). Even if coal didn't lead to significant particulate pollution. Even if we weren't going to war in the Middle East at least partly to secure access to oil. We *will run out*, and if we don't have alternatives in place and ready to take over by the time that happens, our civilization will fall into chaos whether or not AGW is real.
And, of course, a lot of denialists think pretty much in black and white terms. Either AGW is completely harmless, or it's going to end the world (thus, if they can demonstrate that it's not going to end the world, that means it's completely harmless). Either alternative fuels are urgently required, right this second, or they're completely useless. And so on. They don't really have room in their minds for "AGW will be fairly bad, and probably kill a number of people and cause significant economic damage, but it's not going to be the end of the world or anything"
Contemporary humans as we know them have been around since before the last ice age, when they were hunter/gatherers, I expect those asked whether they would like to see a warmer climate would say no, why? humans don't like change, undoubtedly they would say that would mean the mammoths, mastadon giant sloth and the other animals we hunt dissappearing, what will we eat?
Warming and change will not end the world, we are the most adaptable creatures on this Earth, we can live anywhere, any temperature, heck we even have people living in space.
Some warming would only be more productive, why should we fear it.
"So how can we know some people won't die of global warming" we don't and probably some will, and probably a lot less will die from cold, there are always winners and losers.
I totally agree with Chem Flunky one day we must wean ourselves of fossil fuels, but with real alternatives not stupid solar and wind (they will never ever be able to supply enough energy for our needs)
now is the time to develop safe and environmentally friendly nuclear, in the meantime carry-on using fossil fuels, it is not only illogical it is immoral not to do so, we have billions of people with no access to electricity, billions in poverty, deprived of healthcare and education.
Your statistics are interesting but don't seem to relate to experience.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/articl...
If you want to go for clean energy then say so. Stop hiding behind other excuses. The same goes for energy security. Don't claim that not doing what you want will cause thousands of deaths, or bigger jellyfish or smaller sheep or species extinctions.
Just say what you want and stick with the truth. Then we can have the proper debate and not get sidetracked with years of sheep measuring experiments, for instance.
Much of the resistance from sceptics is because we recognise that many people allied to the climate cause are not being honest. I agree that some want what they believe will be good for the environment but others believe that big energy companies should be put out of business, some have financial vested interests and some have political interests at stake.
Well, it would be hard to say anyone died from global warming.
Now try this: They say that we humans have ''messed up the atmosphere'' and they know exactly how it was done. So, if that is true....why don't they just want to fix the atmosphere? We can just do whatever they say needs to be done to fix the atmosphere and make it just like it was in say 1850. So why don't they want to fix it?
Update 6:
Knowing that Earth is warming takes thermometers. It's people like Madd Maxx, Ian and Jello^tm who want to talk about such side issues.
Like the claim that Earth hasn't even been warming for the last 18 years?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Or that the warming is caused by the Sun? or PDO?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
Cold temperatures kill more people than warm temperatures.
Clean energy is more expensive, and thus using it would lead to more deaths, and a lower standard of living.
If clean energy were cheaper than worrying about fossil fuels would be pointless as people would flock to the cleaner energy.
The (as you call them) "denialists" like to claim that the (as they call them) "warmers" say that global warming will be the end of the world. None of that is true. It is all political spin. I think it goes beyond spin; is outright lying.
small detail..
the sun was dimmer and there was not 7billion people
Denialists love to talk about how Earth has been warmer and has had much more carbon dioxide in the past. So, life survived? I never said that all life on Earth would be killed by global warming. Only that we shouldn't be messing around with the atmosphere by adding carbon dioxide to it. "Skeptics" don't trust computer models. So how can we know that some people won't die because of global warming?
