Okay, devils advocate.?

Question

I'm sure this'll ruffle a few feathers...

Say global warming is not man-made and this really is just a cycle that's naturally occuring (which I believe but don't send me hate-mail about that). What if 50 years from now we're back to square one and everything's fine. It'll kind of make those "doomsdayer's" sound like the Y2K folks did, right? Remember all the bags of grain we were supposed to buy?

Another scenario. What if global warming does take place to the point some scientists think it will. Aren't the effects of a lower population and increased ocean life going to make all the environmentalists happier. After all they're calling for us to stop having children and stop moving to the country and stop driving our cars and stop using up all their water etc.

I wonder why their parents didn't stop at "just one." Or maybe they did and they're just mad they didn't have a brother or sister............ HHHHHmmmmmmm.......... ;-P

* I do happen to drive a "diesel guzzling SUV", it's not dangerous- I'm a very good driver without an accident....ever, and what else do I do with 4 kids, strap them on the hood? I just needed to add this, nothing against my "first responder". ;-D

3DM: I completely agree with you..... however, don't start about the homeschooling thing, unless you were just trying to show just how benign GW really is. Homeschool is the answer for our family so our children are not brainwashed by the governmental influences. I give them the whole picture, good and bad, and allow them to come to their own conclusions. I don't want to add to the brainwashing. It's very interesting to hear a child's perspective. We need to listen to them more.

Mr. Crabby Blind Guy:
"No offense, seriously-but what you "believe" is irrelevant. The current global warming--and its human origins--are proven scientific facts. Your opinion--or mine--or anyone elses, is immaterial. Facts are not established by "opinion.""
None taken. However, what you fail to see is that throughout human history popular opinions are what science was fueled by. Time and time again, what we thought was the truth and real was, over time, found to be false. Remember Columbus? Einstein?
Try again, sir, to persuade me.

"Facts not being established by opinion", as crabby blind guy pointed out, can be taken to the biblical discussion arena as well. Funny how we can deny deny deny, but the Truth remains. And always will. ;)

vladoviking: Yes, I would like to hear a response to that one please. I have heard this retort before, and I've still not had it answered....
So, anyone out there want to give it a whirl?

Answer 1

I'll take either scenario over the one that includes a globally instituted carbon tax or climate-engineering scheme. The corruption that would be created by that scenario would be much worse than anything that nature will dish out.

Theosharatos said: "Either way, my 1 1/2 year old will probably have to read about the ice caps during her home schooling because she will never be able to visit it once she gets older because it won't be ther any more."

Unless your child is going to live a thousand years before traveling the globe, she will NEVER witness a South Pole without ice. And she has a way to go until the Arctic ice caps reach the lows that have occurred during human existence.

I suspect that your daughter's home-schooling will be more harmful than global warming...

And Bob, there you go again:
Einstein's work was NOT applauded by the scientific community from "day one". Not even close. Einstein, at the time that he submitted the four great works that would make 1905 known as his annus miribalis or "extraordinary year", was still a patent clerk, not because he wanted to, but because five years after graduating he couldn't land a position at a university (and these were not the only publications, Einstein had multiple studies published between 1900 and 1905.) Three years later he finally was allowed to pursue a professorship - something you wouldn't think would be so difficult after being "applauded" from "day one."

His 1921 Nobel Prize was neither for his 1905 Special or 1915 General Relativity theories - most people won't know what it was for without looking it up. And yet Al Gore is already being considered for a Nobel Prize...

Those backward French, yes, the same ones who generate 80% of their electricity through nuclear power - as unlocked by Einstein's seminal 1905 work - reacted in this manner:

"In France, relativity was ignored or rejected by most physicists until the 1950s, despite the efforts of its major advocate, Paul Langevin."
http://blueflag.phys.yorku.ca/menary/courses/phys2040/misc/why_relativity_accepted.pdf

Bob doesn't do too well when he wanders from the Alarmists accepted talking points...

Answer 2

It's kind of hard to explain but it would be impossible for us to be back at sqaure one in 50 years time. Think of the atmosphere as a giant chemical or physical reaction in which the greenhouse gases play the most significant role. If we never produced any more greenhouse gases the reaction would still continue because of all the gases already up there. In this respect it's a bit like the sun, no fuel is being added but there's so much fuel already there that it just keeps on burning and burning and burning.

Y2K was a real problem but was blown out of all proportion (largely by the media who are also guilty of exaggerating climate change). If we'd have done nothing there would have been serious problems. Fortunately we acted and prevented all but the most insignificant of problems from occurring.

Ten years ago it was the computer experts warning us of impending problems, we took notice, acted and resolved the problem. Today it's the climate experts that are warming of impending problems, perhaps if we take notice of the experts again we can avoid some of the future problems.

The negative impacts of climate change far outweight the positive ones. The impact on the population will be a small one, it's been calculated by the World Health Organisation that climate change has already killed 4 to 5 million people, compared to the 6.5 billion on the planet this is just a drop in the ocean. If predictions are correct then up to 50 million could die this century from the effects of climate change, by which time the world population is expected to have passed the 10 billion mark.

Answer 3

Well, with your first scenario, maybe it will make some people look stupid, but where's the downside of making strides toward a cleaner planet and reduced dependency on fossil fuels?

As for the second, I can totally understand where you're coming from there and the fears that a lot of people have because there are a few environmentalists (usually the louder ones) who want to see population control and eradication of cars among other things. But most people who are concerned about the environment aren't asking people to stop having children or stop driving cars. Better solutions to these things are new technologies. For example, large SUVs such as you drive will soon be made in hybrid form.

I hope that one day we will be able to have a better earth without giving up the things we need and enjoy in life. We just need to remember that the way to do this is not through taxes and regulations, but through education and inspiration. We need to get back some of that inventive spirit and that sense of togetherness that has always gotten us through tough situations.

Answer 4

My feathers are just fine, thanks.

Your comparison to Y2K is an excellent one, though not for your reasons.

Y2K was a very real problem. It took many programmers many thousands of hours to fix the computer programs that indeed, would have crashed.

The only thing was that they either didn't feel they had gotten all the bugs or were reluctant to be what they though was overconfident in December 1999.

Global warming is every bit as real as Y2K was, and the same thing is true. If we don't make a major effort to reduce it, we will have a disaster.

Your comparisons to Columbus and Einstein are not so good. Scientists didn't think Columbus would fall off the edge of the Earth. Nobody worth the title of scientist thought the World was flat since Eratosthenes measured its' diameter a few hundred years BC. They accepted the scientific data. It was ignorant "skeptics" who didn't accept science that thought the world was flat. It was the "common sense" viewpoint at the time.

And Einsteins work was applauded by the scientific community from day one. Because the data was on his side. The data contradicts the skeptics of today, which is why 99+% of scientists think they're wrong.

This is not about "logical" arguments. It's science and it's about the data. The bottom line, from a guy who understands data:

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Good websites for more info and data:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

It is completely natural for the earth and the climate to go through various cycles of warm and cool. The difference between past cycles and what we're experiencing now is that there is proof that technology we've created is contributing to a faster cycle. So even though the varying temperatures may be natural, the speed at which they're occurring is not. This is preventing nature from "keeping up the pace" thus the melting of various ice structures across the globe (north pole, mt. kilimanjaro, etc)

Here's my question for those who don't believe or accept the facts of our situation. If it is indeed a natural cycle, wouldn't we all (nature, wildlife, humans) be better off to let it happen at its natural pace instead of contributing to an unbalanced cycle through our over-use of technology and conveniences?

We know we can live in the climate we currently have and we know we can live in the climate of 10-15 years ago. We DON'T know we can live in climate that may exist in 20-50 years. So why not work to preserve what we already know works instead of taking a chance on possibly causing the end of numerous species and maybe even ourselves?

Answer 6

There is another scenario that you left out, what if global cooling occurs? That is what science also predicts, most science is based on theory. And while some theories do a very good job at explaining observed phenomena, they are all wrong. It is just a matter of how wrong are they. When Einstein began attempting to modify his own theory, by adding an expansive term to compensate on the expanding universe, the entire scientific community came un-glued, and Einstein died thinking that his modifications were the greatest mistake of his career.

Answer 7

What you are failing to understand is that global warming is just another reason( as =^_^= pointed out), on top of a mountain of reasons to begin finding new less polluting energy sources. Even if global warming is fake (which it isn't) the same steps must be taken now to prevent catastrophe in the future due to other reasons.

here are 7 more reasons (there are many more):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues_mercury
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain
http://www.usenvy.com/saudi.html

Any event (besides a microbe) that takes out a substantial part of human life, will also take out many other species on earth. So no, the environmentalists will not be happy.

we are currently undergoing a mass extinction event as we speak:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction_event

Answer 8

Funny thing is 50 years ago the same parties saying we were heating up the earth were saying we were cooling down the earth. History repeats itself. That said the earth does cool down and heat up in cycles. We are still coming out of an ice age. We are also strangely doing the same thing as Mars. The ice is melting on Mars because the sun is flaring out more.

Answer 9

It's pretty obvious that global warming has been in effect for many years now, especially after watching Al Gore's documentary. Whether people want to believe it or not, our polar ice caps are melting and many animals will become extinct probably in our lifetime. Even though the government might actually have control of our weather and certain drastic natural disasters as seen on discovery.

The things you mentioned above is just what things are coming too. Our ice caps will still be melting away but we will continue to have children and yes I have 5 kids myself so I too drive a car compatible for everyone until I can afford a hybrid or to run it off of vegetable oil.

Either way, my 1 1/2 year old will probably have to read about the ice caps during her home schooling because she will never be able to visit it once she gets older because it won't be ther any more.

Jennifer

Answer 10

In the mid 1970's the big outcry was against global cooling and the new ice age that was about to descend on us because of all the pollution that we were putting out and they referenced the same gases that are today blamed for global warming. Yes, the Earth goes through cycles. And yes, pollution is bad for us.