I am a Climate Change (human caused) agnostic.

[AverageJoe90]

251. I was one of those who Recced; lemme explain why.

If you want my motivations for doing so, here's a couple comments I made:

I personally, after months and months of research, have come to the conclusion that certain human activities are contributing to, and/or even causing, at least a very significant portion, if not the majority, of today's climate change; over 90% of scientists agree on this, as far as I know.

However, though, I also disagree with the "Climate Cassandras" out there. Here's just a few reasons why:

1.)The worst-case scenarios(in the case of temperature, 6-7*C by 2100 under BAU, if most or all feedbacks play out to their worst possible extent) are possible, but not at all inevitable.

2.)Human extinction is technically not possible because of climate change alone, contrary to the views of some. Obviously, we can't predict what else will happen 10, 100, or even 1,000 years from now. But given that out ancestors have in fact, survived a few disasters about as bad, and in certain cases, far more acute, than even the worst case of AGW could be; the eruption of Toba, a supervolcano about as powerful as Yellowstone, 72k years ago, took the human population from some millions, down to about 100,000 or so people.(The planet dodged a major bullet overall, though: current scientific evidence says that Toba, suprisingly enough, actually didn't cause any major extinctions. Research indicates that we may not be so fortunate if Yellowstone blows, though. Only time will tell), I just can't give any credence to this particular theory.

3.)There do seem to be a few on here who seem to be of the opinion that it's too late to do anything about climate change. The vast majority of scientific research I've seen seems to indicate otherwise. One article I often link to is a Skeptical Science post concerning a well-known Pacala & Sokolow piece on climate "wedges". It's from 2004, so it's a bit old, but there's plenty of decent information. Here, see for yourself:

And to be perfectly honest, I don't doubt that there are some crises that may indeed be inevitable, such as water conflicts in the Middle East, most of Africa, and other places.

Also, in case you're wondering, I recced this thread, not just because he was respectful in posting his opinion, even though I disagree with his views on AGW, but also because he does recognize that pollution is a major issue(I've also recced some threads by some of E & E's "Cassandras" even though I definitely disagree with them on some things). And to be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that you don't necessarily always need to mention AGW to have a candid talk about environmental pollution; look at the strip-mining of the Appalachians for example. Even some who may be skeptical of AGW will have to agree that has been terribly harmful in many ways. Hell, a similar argument can be made for fracking, too.

I do believe that AGW is real, and that it's an urgent problem that should be dealt with. But I'll also give a little credit to those people who may be skeptical about AGW, but are willing to admit that pollution, period, is a problem that should continued to be addressed & tackled. It gives me some hope that maybe one day, they'll come around to accepting AGW, too.

It may sound strange, I know, but it's the straight truth. (underlines not in the original comments, but added for emphasis)

EDIT: Unfortunately, I admit that I accidentally overlooked his "AGW is a scam" comment. And when I did find it, I decided to unrec the thread.