What would you do if a new report stated global warming and climate change is NOT WHAT IS CURRENTLY BELIEVED?

Question

Assume a new report by someone like the IPCC was released in three months' time. The report states they have found new major contributers to Global Warming and Climate Change and the other 'suspected' contributers are totally wrong.

The report states that the world is not warming as fast as previously thought and the potential consequences of climate change are less dramatic than we've seen so far, not radically different but perhaps 10 to 20% less serious.

You have invested a lot of time in research, maybe it is your job too. After you got over the shock, what would you do?
Would it prompt you to start acting in a different way?
Detailed plans/actions would be great too.

Answer 1

Interesting. A new report by the IPCC will be published in three months time, it's the third and final instalment of the most recent assessment report (Assessment Report 4, Working Group 3, Mitigation of Climate Change).

In it the report will state there are changes in our understanding of climate change and that certain aspects are not as dramatic as previously thought, conversely it will state that some aspects are more dramatic. The overall conclusion is that climate change is more serious than we previously thought and that global warming is accellerating.

Such changes are normal and are to be expected, climate is dynamic and constantly evolving. There have been many reports into global warming and climate change, there are differeces in almost all of them but the underlying message is the same - namely that we're largely repsonsible for climate change and we should be taking steps to mitigate the effects sooner rather than later.

Scientists are continually furthering their understanding of GW and CC through new research, improved technology and scientific advances. Not only does this mean that we make progress but that our previous findings need to be regularly revised.

It's going to be an interesting time when the next report is published. I suspect some elements of the media are going to be jumping up and down portending doom and gloom and the imminent demise of humanity, many sleptics will also be jumping up and down claiming the revisions prove global warming doesn't exist.

One of the problems with the IPCC reports that are publicly available is that key aspects have been watered down, largely at the behest of the Bush Administration, in order to make them more acceptable and play down the seriousness of climate change.

Answer 2

Well, it is a confusing environment out there. There are more than a dozen think tanks whose scientists are on the payroll of the oil companies, generating scores of bogus white papers and studies that support allowing big oil to continue along it's merry way, big coal too, for that matter. The most recent IPCC report was authored by more than 600 scientists from around the globe and peer-reviewed by 2,500 more. The chances that they could be off by more than 3 or 4 percent are practically non-existent. That report is about as definitive as science can be. Global warming is real, we're causing it, and we can do something about it.

But saying for a moment your scenario unfolded, I don't think that excuses us from doing what is right for the environment. All you have to do is study the content of the emissions from a coal-energy plant, and you KNOW that it cannot be good for people, plans, animals, weather or anything else for that matter. Our local utility is proposing another coal-burning energy plant. If they build it, the emissions of radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere (yes, burning coal releases invisibile radioactive waste into the air) would be greater every year than the total release of Three Mile Island. But it is invisible, and it is coal not nuclear, so we don't pay attention. Well, it is time to start paying attention.

We can argue and get differing scientific views that say the impact is really huge or really small and as long as there is an impact the degree doesn't really matter. There are clean and ethical alternatives. We need to practice becoming clean and ethical.

Answer 3

It would prompt me to look further for independent corroboration that the report is true. There is so much in the way of revenue, reputation and work invested in environmental issues that I no longer trust everything I am told. We have a company in the UK that sells electricity allegedely generated from wind-farms into businesses. The guy that runs it is now a millionnaire because everyone likes to be seen to be green. On the face of it this is a "good thing" but, when you dig a little deeper it turns out that only 25% of the energy he sells comes from renewable resources. I do not deny that there are problems, I do not deny that we need to act - but I do not trust politicians, businessmen or sometimes even academics to give a balanced and unbiased view when their own careers are at stake. We are all in danger of making knee-jerk reactions (I remember in the 70s everyone was worried about the next ice age because we had a few cold winters in a row) without proper balanced consideration. ........and I get very upset when someone like Sting or Madonna tells me to save the planet by half-filling my kettle, before they jet off to their private hide-aways in the sun for a wee holiday !

Answer 4

How is 10 to 20% less serious, still not serious?

The only thing that is important is that it is getting warmer and we are the cause of it.

If you are in a boat on a river, heading for the falls. What does it matter if you are 10 feet or 100 feet away from the falls? If you do nothing, you will go over eventually. An argument over how fast you are approaching the falls, or exactly how far they are away, is of less importance that the falls are there.

Answer 5

Everytime you turn on the news, there's a new and conflicting report about global warming. What I think lots of the academics who study this forget, is that we're dealing with a little over 100 years worth of weather data on the planet, that's been around for millions of years. I don't put much stock into the global warming alarmists. I agree we need to conserve our natural resources, and we need to find alternate sources of fuels. I agree that we need to watch our fossil fuels emissions and become kinder to our planet. But I disagree that human beings can destroy the planet to the level that some of the alarmists would have us believe.

Answer 6

lots of people may change their names ,


I would still stick by my views that humanity has changed local climates by changing their parts of the world from forests to deserts

And that accumulative this has an effect on the whole
because there has been so much of it .

Never went to much into the technical sides of the green house effect and global warming
Trevor would have a hard time ,but i think he is right anyway.

and refreshing new battles that may develop ,
in the Environment
Maybe new taxes to look fore ward too .

or different greenings
confusion would become rampant
as if there is not enough already

Answer 7

It wont do much for the die hard global warming determined who insist on having some potential manmade disaster theory ever present in their mind so it contains something to worry about.

Answer 8

That kind of thing happens all the time in science. The scientists who can adapt are famous in the future and the ones who can't are forgotten.

Answer 9

They come out with bogus reports like that all the time.

The best thing to do is look at the actual facts.

(Solar is the bright thing to do.)

Answer 10

Actually it wouldn't suprise me in the least. I have my doubts on some of those subjects anyway. I would probably keep on truckin.