Republicans: What's the Worst that Could Happen if Global Warming is Wrong? What if it's Right?

Question

What's the worst that could happen, the Earth and our environment would be cleaner? We would break our dependence on foreign oil and all oil for that matter? Corporations would actually have to accept responsibility for their actions and upgrade to more environmentally friendly standards and regulations? We would develop new technologies, which through research and development would create jobs, the manufacturing of those new products would create jobs, the installation of those new products would create jobs and the maintenance of those new products would create jobs? Even IF Global Warming is wrong, there are far more advantages to becoming more environmentally friendly than there are disadvantages, don't you think? Why are so many of you against protecting the environment? The environment belongs to us ALL, not just the rich corporations.

Scientists agree: Humans causing global warming
Using their strongest language to date, the world's leading climate scientists are reporting today that they are basically certain that burning gasoline, coal and other fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere -- and the effects are likely to last for centuries.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/302204_warming02.html
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. We’re already seeing changes. Glaciers are melting, plants and animals are being forced from their habitat, and the number of severe storms and droughts is increasing.
http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Answer 1

It's a good question, and I don't understand that either. The Republicans fight it tooth and nail - but NOT for any rational reason.

They oppose it because we support it. Environmental responsibility, that is.

That's it.

That's all.

Oh - I forgot. Let's not forget their noses being up Big Oil's butt.

Answer 2

what's the desirable answer? My husband is adamant that GW is merely finished hype, my sister-in-regulation is notably for Al Gore. Our holiday journeys lead to chaos with the two considered one of them in heated arguments. i myself can see the two facets. first of all, i think GW might have been offered to the common public in a distinctive way. As you carry forth gloom and doom, maximum folk do not opt for to take heed to it. They worry that their comfortable existence style will replace and that they are desirable. maximum will develop into shielding and little would be achieved. sure, there are discrepancies interior the Al Gore movie that Dr. Spencer highlighted. They tried very annoying to get their factor for the time of especially circumstances making 'it look good' for the argument of GW. that's their attitude. on the different hand, that's been an insignificant a hundred years that our society has progressed from the business revolution. there has been out of the effortless improvements in transportation, scientific scientific care, leisure activites, and existence. we've got here alongside way in a short quantity of time. i think it is taken under consideration one of the desirable time to be alive in this Earth. we are peaking! people have this lack of information that they might consume and abuse our environment devoid of important effects. we are wasteful, unappreciative of our organic worldwide. Materialism and capitalism have gained out as a concern. Our greatest difficulty is the end results of modernization - a healthful, exponential develop in inhabitants (greater energy, decreased mortality). for each new existence carbon would be utilized for warmth, nutrients, and capability. all and sundry people upload to the load on our environment. and that i will inform you presently with fact that neclear capability isn't the respond. If GW seems to be authentic it won't remember if we are resonspible so what's the factor of arguement. the priority of GW could, a minimum of, make us responsive to our responsibilty to look after our planet. adult adult males merely have this unfavourable mentally, i assume they think of apparently efficient and hard. Being a tree-hugger is a good element. i could quite hug a tree quite then a nuclear capability rod laced with uranium.

Answer 3

What's the worst that could happen? Large energy intensive economies such as our own would be ground to a halt as we are FORCED, at tremendous expense (I'm talking Trillions here), to reduce our CO2 emissions.

Also, Scientists do not universally agree on man made global warming (notice I said "Man Made").

Like I mentioned before, just because Al Gore says "The Debate is over" and scientists are in concensus, doesn't mean that is the case. Many climate scientists do not agree. I've linked to a very prominent exception. Dr. William Gray, one of the world's leading experts on hurricanes said “We’ll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realize how foolish it was..." There are many more like him.

Does that mean Republicans oppose finding alternative sources of energy and pushing for energy security? Of course not. I support drilling in ANWR and off our coasts for additional oil, building nuclear power plants, investing in solar, wind and biofuels, expanding efforts at conservation, etc. Not all Republicans are united on each of these, but I think most support them. We should pursue all methods of guaranteeing our energy security and independence while trying to reduce pollution (real pollution, not CO2).

Now let me respond with a question. Let's say man made global warming is fact. It's coming if we continue our ways. To prevent it will cost trillions. Is it worth it? I mean if we are spending trillions to prevent it, wouldn't those trillions be better spent on things like making sure poor countries have clean water, advanced farming techniques, information technology, good sanitation and medical care? Seems to me a whole lot more people would benefit in the long run, and also as those nations become more prosperous, each would be able to deal with the effects of global warming easier.

Answer 4

I'll tell you what the disadvantages are:
1) By agreeing with this theory, we are putting our freedoms, and our rights, at risk. We are playing into big-government (socialist) Politicians' hands, by giving them power to make such unconstitutional laws as banning incandescent lightbulbs. I KNOW this seems small, but it's just a short step from lightbulbs, to outlawing safe cars (because safe equals heavy, and heavy equals low gas mileage), and then perhaps to the banning of fossil fuels. Alternative fuels are extremely expensive, and the poor of this country cannot afford hybrid cars and solar-, or wind-energy-powered homes. Which leads into:
2) Because of our paranoia that we are destroying the earth, rich countries are trying to force African nations into using wind and solar energy. We are keeping them from their cheap and readily accessable oil and coal, and by so doing, we are keeping them in poverty. A poor African person cannot afford to have a solar panel, and so, if they can't use coal or oil, they can't afford electricity. They can't afford to become a developed nation.
That's what's unethical about this whole thing. WE used coal and oil to become industrialized. We have no right to keep them in the dark by forcing them away from their coal.
I believe in being wise stewards of the environment, and I do not agree with people who chop down hundreds of acres of trees so that one-child families can live in enormous homes, but I disagree with "protecting" the environment. This earth is so complex, and so stable that it has harbored life for hundreds of thousands of years. I seriously doubt that anything we can do will change that.
We should NOT spend trillions of dollars (because that's what it will cost us) on something that we don't even know is going to happen.

Answer 5

I suppose the /worst/ that could happen if it was really, realy, wrong would be an ice age.

More practically, trillions of dollars of resources could be squandered in trying to 'prevent' something that wasn't going to happen. Consequence of the missuse of recources could include economic collapse, human tragedies such as mass stravation, or the ascendency of oppressive regimes 'needed' to enforce draconian global environmental standards (that could include things as repugnant as forced sterilization to control population growth).

The worst thing that could happen if global warming turned out to be correct, would be that the earth would be a little warmer, some beachfront propperty would be submerged, and people would have to adjust thier aproach to agriculture to match the new environment. If that adjustment was not handled well, it could lead to human tragedies such as mass starvation, etc...


The most amusing thing, though, is that global warming did turn out to be a crock, but the world had thrown itself into 'preventing' it, it's leaders could claim success - and insist that thier dictatorial power over every aspect of human existance that might damage the environment must be maintained indefinitely. While, if we /don't/ try to 'stop' global warming, and it turns out to be based on valid models, we'll know for sure in 50 or a hundred years or so.

Answer 6

The worst thing that could happen if global warming turns out to be a farce is that all the efforts will have been in vain, all the tax increases will have been for nothing, all the regulations will have accomplished nothing, all the international treaties will have been for nothing, all the problems we have ignored in order to tilt at windmills will continue to get worse, all the poverty caused by leftist international policies will continue to hurt people. If global warming proves to be right, than man will adapt, we always do.

Answer 7

The answer is the same no matter which is the case. The climate is changing as it has thousands of times before and will in the future. There is nothing really that mankind can do about it.

Answer 8

The problem is that you interpret not supporting the "man-made" aspect of global warming to mean anti-environment. Secondly it shouldn't be a political issue, milked for all its worth for GAIN and ONLY for GAIN.

Answer 9

Republicans are not against protecting the envirornment, we just think that Mr Global Warming himself (Gore) is a fraud along with his idea, and the fact that he's making millions with this crazed notion is absurd. There is no proof behind his crazy claims, and most scientists agree.

Answer 10

It is a lost cause. It has become a partisan issue now, and is not even about the environment now. It is about "I have to be right and you have to be wrong because your a Liberal/Conservative"