what if they're wrong?

HipLew

Junior Member
what if they are wrong about global warmiing being man made? if it is truly natural, would it not be tragic that we are not trying to put our resources toward figuring out how to live with an unstoppable climate change rather than waste much time and energy trying to stop something that can't be stopped???

If they're wrong, it could cost much more death and destructon than if we just accept it and put our energy to be able to live with it.
 
standard cost-benefit analysis.

What if they're all wrong

versus

What if they're all right.


To me, the consequences of ignoring global warming (and being wrong) outweighs the costs of addressing it (and being wrong)


We're going to have to move to an alternative, high-efficiency energy economy anyway. Unless you want to be slaves to the saudi royals for the next 100 years.
 
Well put, cypress. What if they're wrong? So what? It's only a problem if you buy into the Gloom and Doom prophesies of an industrial lobby with a vested interest in maintaning the status quo.
 
Although climate fluctuations are normal, in the absence of a catastrophic event (e.g. the meteor that is proposed to have been responsible for the demise of the dinosaurs) it is the rate of the change occuring now that is most alarming, and which points unquestionably to a human involvement. I didn't expect to see these changes, especially of this magnitude, in my own lifetime, but they're here and accelerating.

The cost of doing nothing will be far greater in human terms than the cost of taking steps to slow the process, if it isn't already too late.

It is also unrealistic to suggest that we simply "sit back and enjoy it". We're not going to enjoy this. This is not going to mean simply an across the board increase in temperature of a couple of degrees, equally around the world. Air temperature change will be accompanied by changes in ocean temperature, which in turn will decrease ocean salinity, for instance. All organisms that have evolved in the current status depend on that microenvironment to live. Plankton that thrive in the microenvironment feed a wide variety of small fish, for example. Those fish comprise the diet of larger fish, and on and on. If the salinity is changed, most of that vegetation, and everything that depends on it to live, will not survive. New organisms will not spring up immediately to replace them; that will take far longer than we have to live.

Another change occasioned by alterations in northern ocean (Atlantic in this case) salinity, and temperature, will be the Gulf Stream, which crosses the Atlantic from southwest to northeast, warming Europe and providing the climate and humidity that the crops in that region depend on. The (still) colder and less salty water from melting polar ice will divert the flow of the Gulf Stream from its present course, in effect stranding the continent from its warming influence. Warmer global temperatures are not expected to compensate for that. So Europe is likely face some very difficult problems in feeding its population. Similarly, the estimates of water levels world wide are estimated to rise alarmingly; estimates vary but all but the lowest will undoubtedly flood coastal areas, making many large urban centers uninhabitable.

Changes already appear to be taking place in arid and desert regions; you'd think that with more water available there would be more rainfall, and that may occur in localized areas, but there's an increase in the desertification of a large arid region in central China, and here where I live we're beginning to face some serious water crises as well. A number of predictions have been made about increased storm activity and severity. I don't understand enough about that to make any sort of statement other than to report that.

The consequences of climate change go far beyond those above. This is just a small sample. There are some things that we can do. Many involve simply being more conscious of conservation of our resources. Many involve alternative, renewable energy sources. Many involve taking a good hard look at the way that we live and trying to be more responsible to our habitat so that we can can leave a habitable planet behind for those who will follow us.
 
what if they are wrong about global warmiing being man made? if it is truly natural, would it not be tragic that we are not trying to put our resources toward figuring out how to live with an unstoppable climate change rather than waste much time and energy trying to stop something that can't be stopped???

If they're wrong, it could cost much more death and destructon than if we just accept it and put our energy to be able to live with it.
No, it would not be tragic. Attempting to effect the world less negatively can never be considered "tragic".
 
yes hiplew, i have often thought this should be a two prong approach....

one, trying to reduce the useage of fossil fuel energy, or cleaner energy....

two, start developing and analizing and planning a better future with the warmer conditions at hand or in the near future....if you know disease and infestation of bugs in our crops will increase then plan for it...find a way to stop it from affecting them, if you know potable water will likely be an issue, then build more desalinization water facilities, if you know sea levels will rise then start moving the city inland with new development, little by little, or build dikes in smaller areas, start moving coastal US1 highway inland.....

we need to look at both imo!

care
 
Hip .. I dont believe there is a negative cost with moving in the direction of clean less pollutant renewable energy sources. The long term benefits include an exciting opportunity for the Generation coming up ...
Its also a matter of National Security..and the benefit is obvious...we become less dependant on others...
The long term benefits and future oportunities are enormous... radical new and efficient means of transportation,. home and business heaitng ..., clean green renewable products... all these things create new industries with new opportunities... the sky is the limit for the youth entering a new job market... I wish I was young again...
Its a gamble worth taking... if Global Warming is the fault of human behavior .. we then have an opportunity to change it..., if it isnt our fault.... we are still better off moving into the direction of efficiency and cleanliness...
 
standard cost-benefit analysis.

What if they're all wrong

versus

What if they're all right.


To me, the consequences of ignoring global warming (and being wrong) outweighs the costs of addressing it (and being wrong)


We're going to have to move to an alternative, high-efficiency energy economy anyway. Unless you want to be slaves to the saudi royals for the next 100 years.

if you go back and R-E-A-D instead of skim, you'll see that i wasn't saying to ignore global warming, but to find ways to reduce its impact to us and find ways to live with it.

my point was that if they are wrong that global warming is man made and can be stopped, then we should be using our resources to find ways to make it work for us (NOT ignore it), instead ofWASTING reousrces trying to stop something that can't be stopped. Trying to sto[ it instead of figuring out how to use it to our advantage may be much more deadly that trying to stop the unstoppable.

Get it now?
 
you ignore the possibility that they are right.

the rate of change is pretty frightening. On a personal level. Here in Maine today, I was out shopping in shirtsleeves and it was nearly 60 F. The ten hottest years on record have occured in the last 15.

my money is on the fact that global warming IS manmade...and even if I am wrong, doing things to personally limit my carbon footprint can do no harm.
 
the point is that the left has made NO suggestion of trying to apply resources to cope with golbal warming. the only thing you hear from them ist that we have to stop it. well, even if we stopped all co2 output immediately, there won't be any reversal of the alleged man made warming for decades, and it they are wrong, stoppin all co2 output will do NOTHINg to stop it.

not to savy the cons aer doing any better; they do not advocate appling resources to minimize the impact of flobal warming, they don't want to do anything at all.

I'm saying that it's obivous the world will not do anything major to decrease co2 output (we may slow down the groth rate, but actual reduction has about a snowbsalls chance in hell of occurring). it's not going to happen (unles someone miraculously discovers a completely non polluting low cost energy source so easy to use, it will easily replace co2 emitting sources), so what we need to do is apply resources to minimize its impact on us.
 
It's a false choice. It can be a win-win, no matter what the causes of global warming.

There are a lot of very good reasons to pursue green initiatives, regardless of their overall effect on global warming. Energy independence, at this point, is considered by many to be a national security issue. Part of getting ourselves off of MidEast oil is developing renewable sources of energy, which in turn can boost our domestic economy.

This is true of other environmentally-friendly policy. It's a myth that these kinds of measures have to come at the expense of the economy...
 
We could make a ton of cash by creating a new more environmentally friendly power source and manufacturing it here. We could recenter and refocus our economy...

There is so much we could do to reflect responsibility toward this planet that you have in my religion as well as directly stated in Genesis as "Dominion" which in part gives responsibility toward that other life on the planet.

All of this we could do while benefitting ourselves greatly financially. Instead we argue whether or not Global Warming is caused by humans as if that is the only consideration in taking that responsibility on ourselves. We can do both search for less invasive technology and power, and prepare for climate change all of which could financially benefit us....
 
standard cost-benefit analysis.

What if they're all wrong

versus

What if they're all right.


To me, the consequences of ignoring global warming (and being wrong) outweighs the costs of addressing it (and being wrong)


We're going to have to move to an alternative, high-efficiency energy economy anyway. Unless you want to be slaves to the saudi royals for the next 100 years.
Well put. I agree that global warming is occuring, but I am not that convinced it is man-made or certain to what level we can control it. Simply because we can not control the "all" does not mean we should not control that which is within our power to control. Doing this will not make the situation worse. "Two birds with one stone" considering that alternatives loosen the ties (energy dependence) that drag us into the Middle East conflicts.
 
Doing something about global warming will cut into profit margins, and we all know who runs our gummit....
 
They are poised to go that direction only if Battles 2X4 is used on them.
Regardless, I don't think it would honestly negatively effect their profits. What the goal is now, I personally believe, is to use up this resource before working the other side. This "maximizes" resources and leaves no drop of oil unused.

Working the other side now would simply leave unused all that oil that would no longer be needed and they see this as wasteful...
 
Back
Top