Shouldn't we take actions to stop global warming even if it turns out to be false?

Question

You can never be too safe. Suppose global warming does turn out to be true...what will the future generations think of us? All it takes is very simple changes. Whay can't we all promote global awareness? Why must we remain so skeptical of the whole thing?

Answer 1

Just a plug for Marc G's answer:

"It depends on the costs associated with "taking action."

All things have a cost, and not just direct economic costs. In a world of limited financial resources, prioritizing becomes important. Do we spend trillions of dollars on solutions that may or may not slow global warming? Or are these trillions of dollars better spent fighting malaria, AIDS, cancer, etc? Or are these trillions of dollars better spent trying to mitigate the impact of climate change rather than preventing it?

If we spend trillions of dollars on something false, how many people will die from readily and easily preventable causes that wouldn't have had we prioritized differently?

Someone gets the short end of the stick."

I'll just add that by focusing on carbon reduction, we also decrease the priority to solve KNOWN environmental problems with VERY REAL consequences. There's nothing stopping any one of us from doing what we can as individuals. Through our consumption/purchases we also control companies that do the most environmental damage. There are politicians and bureaucrats just waiting for your "blessings" to take your money. If you think that the government/bureaucratic solution will be "simple", then I'd say you have not been around a long time. "Simple" and "inexpensive" are not in their vocabulary.

Answer 2

suppose for just a second or three... that the global warming that is supposedly happening in the last 20 years, (cause according to the same scientists, we were running headlong into an iceage during the late 70's early 80's) is actually a natural fluctuation of radiant heat from the sun.... what exactly do you plan to do about it? This is a living ecosystem that we are in.. and its NOT a closed one. Anything from anywhere can change your snug little world in a moments notice. Dont beleive me? Ask the Dinosaurs. What we do in it makes little difference in the long run. All things balance out in the end. If that balancing requires a mass extinction, as has happend MANY times before, there is nothing TO be done about it. This planet will renew itself, and another speicies will like cream, rise to the top and continue on...

Answer 3

The harmful smoke that innumerable companies blow into the air contribute to this rising issue, but here's the thing: we all need to work in a concerted effort to increase awareness, as individual protests and efforts to stop this unfortunate event (true or not) don't produce too many world-changing results.

Many companies that are responsible for the smoke being placed into the air will either deny that what they dispense is harmful, or will make false statements. They have a fear that if they change their methods, profits will potentially decrease. When you're a businessman or woman focused on making riches, environmental protection isn't at the front of your mind.

There will never be a world where each human understands how dangerous global warming can be. It's times like these that define the men and women who deny that we are placing ourselves in a hazardous situation.

Answer 4

This sounds like the environmentalist equivalent of Pascal's wager, meaning that one should become Christian even if Christianity is false, just in case it turns out to be true. This is not a knock on Christianity, and the analogy is not absolute, but the gist is there.

As a simple matter of economics, the limiting factor in any problem is the resources available. That is, if we focus on one problem, we do so at the expensive of leaving others unresolved. If we focus on a problem that turns out to be false, then we are worse off than if efforts on real problems are ignored.

I'm not saying that we should ignore the concern about climate change in general. There are some low-cost things that we can do as a society to address this issue. These also in general have benefits that go beyond dealing with the climate change issue, such as cleaner air to breathe and independence from a finite fuel supply. However, if we take actions that are rather expensive, I would prefer harder evidence before implementing them.

Answer 5

We live in a world now where we take benefits of scientific innovations increasingly. The threat of global warming is indicated by scientists from extensive studies. We may not keep faith in UFOs and extra terrestrial beings as of now. But global warming is a phenomenon that we can't afford to take lightly. This we owe to our children and the future generations.

Answer 6

Yes, we should still take acts to stop global warming because so much of what we can do to stop global warming is good for us even if global warming turns out to be false. Clean air and clean water are no-brainers.

Answer 7

The sad truth is that stopping global warming will completely muck up the Earth just the same.

The Earth cyclically heats and cools over geological time. We can reduce the impact mankind has on the cycle, but even killing every man, woman and child would not stop it from occurring. Earth science is simply much larger than humanity.

Answer 8

that's an outstanding start up. I keep in mind in the early 80's whilst international cooling grew to become into the fashion and employing Fluorocarbons n hairspray grew to become into the huge deal and grew to become into ingesting away the ozone inflicting the warmth of earth the get away. So I ran around with cans of VO5 Hairspray employing it continuously, doing my small section to wrestle the alleged international Warming. :D

Answer 9

I have a theory that if all people who have the possibility of ever having a headache just stop breathing then they won't ever get a headache again. And it has a 100% Chance of working. Global alarmist want you to do any thing even if it might not work? This seems like a lot of wasted energy for little or no gain. When you become even 70% sure your right maybe people will listen to your proposal. By your question everyone can see even you have doubts about the data you are looking at.

Danni

Answer 10

It depends on the costs associated with "taking action."

All things have a cost, and not just direct economic costs. In a world of limited financial resources, prioritizing becomes important. Do we spend trillions of dollars on solutions that may or may not slow global warming? Or are these trillions of dollars better spent fighting malaria, AIDS, cancer, etc? Or are these trillions of dollars better spent trying to mitigate the impact of climate change rather than preventing it?

If we spend trillions of dollars on something false, how many people will die from readily and easily preventable causes that wouldn't ahve had we prioritized differently?

Someone gets the short end of the stick.