What are the consequences of ignoring the warnings about global warming?

Question

There are still many skeptics of the global warming issue.
What are the consequences if:
1. The skeptics are right and we take action to prevent/reverse global warming?
2. The skeptics are wrong and we do nothing to prevent it?

Answer 1

Great question.

The cost of jumping in to remedy it, if the situation does not require such measures, will be entirely economic.

The cost of failing to remedy it, if the situation does indeed call for action, will be catastrophic.

So, to err on the side of caution, I'd rather assume the doomsayers are correct, and take preventative measures.

The main drive behind keeping us from taking preventative measures seems to be mega-dollar industries that don't want to be forced to shell out money to abate the problem, to the tune of a few cents a unit. I ignore them as greedy fools.

Answer 2

It's all very well not believing in global warming but does this mean the skeptics take a back seat and are not green in any way? Global warming covers such a wide area and with an overpopulated world we still need to do our bit whether you believe in it or not. I for one would hate to live in a smoke filled Beijing but think it's ok because I don't believe in global warming. Thankfully I do believe in it and do whatever I can. Issues like water shortages all come into the global warming catergory and there is less rain and more demand for it because of the selfish world we live in. So are the skeptics the ones who have everything and not really experiencing it yet?

Answer 3

I think we are all going to find out, and soon.

I saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' after reading and hearing about both sides of the debate for years (I'm 42.) The movie startled me. I had thought I knew pretty well what it would have to say, but the information presented and the import for the future was far more grave than I had previously understood.

I couldn't shake the thought that the movie was made to try and engage the public, and de-politicize the science. It was made to appeal to the average American, to get us involved. It was scary, but it couldn't be too scary, or it would be labelled as pure sensationalism (it was anyway, by many) and no one would take it seriously. So, what didn't it tell us?

I started reading more on my own, and made a point of researching some of the points the movie made, such as the melting of Greenland, and the poles, and the impact on the Gulf Stream. There are now so many people studying this from so many places and so many different aspects, releasing their progress notes regularly, that it's hard to keep up.

The long and short of it is, with my admittedly less than perfect comprehension, I think we're all screwed. Everything I've read indicates the melting is happening far faster than anyone anticipated. If you've seen the movie, or read anything about this issue, that means the infusion of all that cold, cold water into the oceans is accelerating. Aside from the obvious impacts to humans from so much land being lost, that also means the cycle to complete this warming trend is almost at an end.

One of the worse-case scenarios I've seen indicates a world survival rate of somewhere around 200,000,000 people (less than the population of the USA), only in areas still warm enough to permit food production, and this within the next 25 years.

I do wonder, if we stopped being so preoccupied with war and religious hatred, and just threw everything we had at trying to get the climate regulated, if we couldn't stop this thing. It seems we have the technology to at least give it a good fight. There have been a lot of people taking this very seriously for a long time, and they have been trying to find ways to stop it. But, then I wake up and realize I was dreaming.

It would take a unity of thought and purpose the world has never had, and a putting aside of the innate selfishness that leads so many of us to try and refute this science by any means possible--by bringing the twin forces of political and media spin to bear to confuse as many as possible, even when the consequences are potentially so devastating and final.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, in my too long-winded fashion, it may be that the outcome of both of your scenarios is likely to be exactly the same. It's far too unlikely that the world can come together to make such huge changes happen in time. It may happen that we will get scared enough to try, but given the resistance among our leaders to make the enormous commitment required, it will probably be too little, too late.

Answer 4

This is a complex issue.

It would appear that the climate is warming up and it is undeniable that man kind is putting a lot of carbon dioxide into the environment. I still don't believe there is any concrete evidence although it does look likely that the two are linked.

However if there is a connection, we are a small country. So even if we reduced our greenhouse gas emmissions to zero overnight it would have little or no effect on the rate of global warming. Countries like China are going through a period of massive groth and with that comes increasing pollution. If we were going to stand any chance of changing anything it would have to be on a global scale, not just everyone in the UK taking to their bicycles and buying energy efficinet light bulbs. However i suspect, along with many scientists, that this is going to happne now regardless of what we do.

Just for information, it is not unknown for the earth to warm up all by itself. This is just what happened during the Jurassic period about 150 million years ago when 4/5 of the earths surface was covered in water and there were no polar ice caps at all.

Answer 5

I think we are doing something in spite of our beliefs or disbeliefs concerning the issue. We are working hard to rid ourselves of dependence on oil for political reasons and in doing so we are inadvertently helping protect the world from global warming if it is in fact a real threat.

Eventually, alternatives will allow us to walk away from oil as a fuel completely. Scientists in various countries have already shown that vehicles can be run with vegetable oil, and the dirtier the better. That's right, restaurants are using pure vegetable oil to fry your french fries and then, rather than paying to have it picked up and discarded, are giving it away for use in the gas tanks of vehicles which use vegetable oil as fuel. How efficient are those vegetable oil vehicles. Well, they currently get 100 MPG. Vehicles which use hydrogen as a totally clean fuel are currently in operation too.

Also, sunlight, wind, water currents, etc., are effective in supplying power for industrial purposes. All of these things are actually taking place right now. Heard about it in a documentary program shown on cable TV. I think the show was on the Discovery Channel.

It's just a matter of getting the infrastructure created for some of the items. For some electric powered vehicles, we don't need to create an infrastructure because it already exists. As they pointed out on the show, all we need is an extension cord. Plug one end to the vehicle and the other end to a wall socket in your home. In the initial stages, fuel oil would be used as a backup, but eventually with technological advances, it would no longer be needed at all.

So, whether global warming is real or not, we should be rid of the threat pretty soon. And believe it or not, significantly because of politics. Who would have guessed.

Answer 6

These questions are bewildering. There's only one nation on earth who thinks global warming is debatable.
The rest of the world is busy trying to cut down on emissions- while it might not slow down global warming too much, it will make a world of difference in the long run. We know that earth undergoes cycles of warming and cooling, but what will happen when a cycle of warming is affected by emissions from our industries?

Answer 7

Most likely, they are very bad. Scientists predict synergistic effects that will accelerate warming, other weather problems and species extinction.

Have you heard yet about the 1% solution? This is the Cheney/Bush favorite saying and operating principle. If there is just a 1% chance of terrorism, attack preemptive

It's sobering to think that they oppose measures to forestall global warming, where the odds of it's occurrence are so much greater.

Amazon review of "The One Percent Doctrine" by David Suskind

Answer 8

We need to be concerned about global warming, yes the earth has a natural global warming or else the earth would be cold. The fossil fuel usage is not helping with our environment (i don't say that i don't drive) we need to find a new way for fuel usage!

Answer 9

Absolutely nothing, there are far more important and immediate things to worry about. If you place an ice cube in a glass of water, it will displace its own weight in water. So, when the ice cube melts the water level will be the same as it was before it melted. Therefore, using the same principle, melting ice caps will not raise sea levels. I will make a pre-emptive strike, only a small proporton of glaciers are settled on rock surfaces.

Answer 10

Nothing.
Global Warming has been going on since the Ice Age.
People who blame man for the warming either have an agenda, or are making money from people who believe it.
(Or politicians using it to get votes and money.