Better to err on the side of caution? An examinition of scare-mongering: Global warming vs. terrorism?

Question

Many people believe that the current trend of global warming is a natural cycle, albeit accelerated by mankind's use of fossil fuels, etc, and they have scientific evidence to support this. However, there is another camp that believes that mankind is the cause of this rapid (geologically speaking) warming of Earth's climate and that irreparable damage is being done to the biosphere which threatens most life on the planet. These people also cite scientific evidence in support of their hypothesis. Unfortunately this argument has become a political debate wtih many conservatives and liberals taking up arms for the first and second proposals, respectively. When the U.S. invaded Iraq to combat terrorism in 2003 it did so under what have been discovered to be false pretenses. However no one would disagree that dethroning Saddam was a bad thing. Would it not then be illogical to launch a preemptive strike on global warming? No one will die in that effort.

Answer 1

The global warming issue is again a victim of polarity in politics. One side says something first so the other side is naturally against it. That is the downfall of a two party system, everything gets polarized and is right or wrong.

Global warming and cooling has been proven to be a cyclical part of the earth's history. The other cycles that can be identified have been the results of natural events, over which there was no influence by man.

The damage being done to the earth now has less to do with gloabl warming, although that is contributing to it, and more to do with pollution. The permanent snow caps in the Alps are melting and not being replenished because pollution falls onto the snowcap as snow, but not being pure white it melts faster in the sun, instead of reflecting the rays. The cyclical warming pattern is preventing the snow from falling at the same rate it is melting.

One problem is that being a polarized issue the liberals pick out the points most likely to inspire fear to get their disciples to the cause. The conservatives counter those points with other points from the other extreme. The problem is that people gravitate to one side or the other without bothering to take the issue seriously and address the problems at all; they are concerned instead of proving which side is right. So instead or debating how to address global warming, they are debating if it exists as the other side claims it does.

Global warming has become a political football instead of a scientific challenge.

Answer 2

I would agree to take action on global warming if there were real evidence that it exists. There is so much junk science that is put off as legitimate. It is politicized because true conservatives know that there is no fact that global warming exists at all and nothing that can say for sure that humans have anything to do with it.

Global warming is used by anticapitalists to try to tear down the US. Specifically, Kyoto treaty targeted the US and did not force polluters such as China and Russia to stop what they do. It was 1 sided and thus why it was not approved.

There is not sufficient scientific data to show anything. Specifically, we have about 200-300 years of actually reported climate data. We can speculate, with some certainty, before that. Putting that aside, the earth has been around for hundreds of thousands of years. The sample is too small to get anything. The margin of error is too large to figure on anything. Too often people of all political views distort statistics. Another example is elections. They take a random sampling of Americans and say that so and so is ahead by 3 points. Then they say that the margin of error is 3.5 points. What this actually says is there is a statistical tie. Was that how it was reporteed, NO.

Another example of the false warming is the tsunami. When the water receded, a lost city was found. No one knew it was there, but they found it. How do you suppose it got there? How about the sea levels rose becase the ice caps melted.

What we can say it is likely that the Earth goes through this naturally. However, this does not exclude us from behaving differently.

My pet peeve is windows. I have sold them and know a lot. People buy cheap junk that is no efficient, where spending 5% more can yield a window that is 20% more efficient. Requiring Energy Star windows costs nothing because all good manufacturers already offer compliant windows.

What we need to do with energy is not conserve, but use it wiser. This would help the environment and gets at what I think you are asking. I disagree with your premise, but at least you put some thought into it.

Answer 3

You're right, it's become a political issue. Which means too many people have clamped down to their position and refuse to even look at contradictory facts.

It really doesn't matter if there is a natural cycle or if it is entirely caused by artificial factors. Anyone who graduated 2nd grade should be able to agree that pumping tons of pollution into the atmosphere is bad, and that we should be finding clean renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. That really should be a no-brainer.

The fact that people are rabidly arguing that nothing is wrong only says that they are in denial. We may not know how bad it is, or how bad it's going to get, or what percentage is our fault.

But since the concepts of reducing pollution and finding cleaner renewable fuels are a massive win regardless, anyone who opposes that is obviously doing so based on some other agenda, and has little if any concern for the environment or future generations.

Answer 4

Hmm, I think you're wrong about nobody dying, The few people who have most of the money need income from the sale of fossil fuels to get more money(doesn't make sense to me either) These are the very same individuals who are benefiting from the Iraq war (high oil prices and record profits). A pre-emptive strike against global warming would mean dismantling the entire world economy, as the supply of oil and gas is critical to the transporting of goods. The effect of this might be widespread violence as people discover that they might have to walk to a job pushing paper, only to find that it doesn't exist anymore, and that they might have to work hard enough to sweat every day just to support their families.

Answer 5

i be responsive to precisely what reaction you will get, so i'm going to pass forward and preempt the argument. The reaction would be: it is not rather worth staking our financial equipment on a declare. Au contraire, there is an inherent piece to this argument this is defective. Pushing in direction of eco-friendly skill creates new jobs, it stimulates new sectors of the financial equipment, and it facilitates a variety of latest classes to come back into play. human beings could desire to respond via asserting that infrastructure differences may be too costly, yet i might say there's a great style of eco-friendly skill options accessible that make the main of present day infrastructure. look into Sapphire skill, a company that has been engaged on starting to be a reusable source of oil that could additionally decrease our emissions via over 70%. i've got mentioned all this with out as quickly as relating the reality that maximum folk of scientists are on the element that worldwide climate substitute is going on as a consequence of human involvement, and that the data they have is enormous and nicely supported. it can't be fullyyt definitive, in spite of the shown fact that this is totally persuasive in that direction. for that reason on my own, we could desire to constantly err on the fringe of warning, as you're saying, yet in addition for the financial motives. do not enable human beings fool you via appearing as though the financial equipment will by surprise fall down as quickly as we attempt to shift over. there are the thank you to do it suitable.

Answer 6

The problem is that we as in USA cannot control other countries pollution problems...case in point, don't you think that bombs being sent over to one country and another are causing global pollution and thus "Global warming"...

....stopping the warfare throughout the world is a great way to help limit the pollution we are producing...and we would not have to kill each other..party bonus!

Answer 7

NEOCONS DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS BECAUSE THEY TAKE EVERY WORD THEIR HANDLERS TELL THEM AS ABSOLUTE GOSPEL TRUTH.

SO YOUR QUESTION IS A MOOT POINT BECAUSE THEY'D NEVER CONSIDER ERRING ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION ON SOMETHING THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN.