What happens if…?

Question

A) Global warming SKEPTICS get their way, we do nothing and it turns out they were wrong?

B) Global warming THEORISTS get their way, we take action and it turns out they were wrong?

Which would be the worse of the two possible outcomes?

Answer 1

First of all, science (or rather, those who practice) should be independent of policy. In its purest sense, it is simply an observable truth of the physical condition of our world. There is no "stake" in any given outcome.

Second, what exactly is either the theorists' or the skeptics' "way"? Is it the global warming part or the higher concentration of CO2 part? They really have to be treated separately. Personally, I don't have a problem with decreasing CO2 production as it pertains to the combustion of fossil fuels. It only makes sound sense from both an economic and security POV. However, the motivation is from the limited resource aspect of it. It also makes sense from an environmental degradation POV, whether its the tolls exacted by mining or drilling practices, or the decrease in urban air "breathability".

Where I depart from "theorists" is the policy and institution that goes beyond fuel conservation and delves into extreme environmental engineering or bureaucratic "redistribution" solutions. The former can lead to an actual creation of a large scale problem when one might not potentially exist (with the added detriment of significant financial burden) and the second almost always leads to corrupt practices which end up favoring the wealthy or unethical and does not guarantee any ACTUAL benefit to the environment.

If we are only looking at the warming aspect, then I say we have to "ride it out". I simply don't agree that we should become "climate engineers". I do believe that we should try to decrease our negative impact on the environment and then be patient while letting the Earth find its own way back to a "natural" equilibrium state.

As far as a direct answer to your question, the worst of the two possible outcomes is annihilation of the human race...that is, from the human race perspective. Either A or B could easily produce that outcome.

Answer 2

Obviously if we go by the skeptics and get it wrong and do nothing.
But, I'm reading a book that tells of all the things (scientific) by 2012 (solar activity, Yellowstone eruption) that could go wrong, so now I'm not as concerned about Global Warming. But, since these disasters are end-of-the-world (as we know it) based and there are a lot of chance occurrences involved in humankind existing in the first place, I'm still more than willing to 'inconvenience' myself in practicing different habits to conserve the amt of destruction we cause. I'm from Texas. I know what dry and ugly is and I want no part in helping destroy what we still have left that is appealing.

Answer 3

Dear Trevor,
This global warming debate is not about selecting the best possible bet on the eventual global warming outcome. This is all about the rights and freedoms of the individual vs. the power of the central government. Any right thinking conservative would rather see the end of civilization that forfeit their right to drive a large powerful vehicle. "Live Free or Die" as they say in New Hampshire. And any proper thinking liberal would love to use the excuse of global warming to force everybody to ride a bicycle and eat granola.

Science is not likely to have much influence in this debate.

Answer 4

simplifying the possibilities only makes skeptics angrier and theorists stauncher. emotions fly in the face of fact.

of course it's better to be prepared: this is why auto insurance is mandated, life insurance is wise, and homeowners insurance is recommended. we should look at action to help curb global warming and habitat loss AS insurance. its beneficiaries are not us, but our descendants.

smokers denied the health risks of tobacco for decades. it took decades more to protect the rest of us. climate change skeptics are putting up a similar argument, with denial of responsibility and unwillingness to change as the results.

which outcome is better? put out that cigarette...

Answer 5

Skeptics are not hell bent on polluting the world. We would like to reduce pollution and conserve energy because it makes sense to do so and it reduces our expenses. Humanity will convert to more efficient and less toxic methods of generating power as soon as the technology becomes available and feasible. What concerns me is the idea of government inefficiency and decisions based on lobbyist influence, trying to manage and dictate the lives of the people through increased taxes and restrictions. For the record, I don't believe CO2 drives climate. There are many other factors that have a much greater influence and the current warming is not unusual in terms of climate history.

Answer 6

skeptics- the hottest temperatures known to mankind and possible the extinction of the human race (global warming continues, hole in atmosphere is larger, sun penitrates earth, we die from extreame heat.)


theorists- we "save the world" close the hole in the atmosphere and the world cools off and spirals into another ice age...


inevitably...we will die eventually.
its just when, and how.

Answer 7

A would be worse..

since if you follow the suggestions to stop pollution and wastefullness its only going to make the planet better and more livable anyhow.. you cannot deny landfills are too big and that pollution from traffic is contributing to asthema in kids - and air pollution overall is contributing to the increase in childhood cancers (and probably adults too)

all things we should do to prevent GW are things we should have been doing all along..

Answer 8

The time line available if skeptics are wrong allows plenty of time for remedial action.
If theorists are wrong then everything recommended makes immediate impact on every day living standards for everyone and reduces them.

Answer 9

I don't know why there is political debate over whether or not we should have enough common sense to take care of the earth anyway. Science + politics seems to equal a bunch of elitist a**holes vs. a bunch of goons, with a fair amount of idiocy on both sides of the equation.

Answer 10

Heh I was going to ask a similar question today - I'll probably ask it anyway. That's eerie.

A) Catastrophic climate change. In short, the human race is screwed (not to mention virtually every other species on the planet).

B) It will cause some economic strain. On the other hand, we'll also be well-prepared for when our oil supplies run out, so we'll avoid some of the economic collapse associated with that problem.

A is just a teenie bit worse.