Scientist are 99% Global Warming is real and is man made - Is this good enough?

Question

or just a lazy way of saying that this is good enough?

No one would ride in an airplane if it had a 99% chance of landing safely. At that rate, there would be hundreds of plane crashes every day.

Shouldn't we demand better? Shouldn't we demand that we know with absolute certainty global warming was real before we take action? After all, if we aren't sure that global warming is real, we could take actions that don't help or even end up causing more harm than good.

Shouldn't we demand that climatologist first be able to forecast the climate 1 month, then 6 months, then 1 year, 2 years then 5 years out first?

Why should we submit to lazy science that leaves so much room for uncertainty?

Answer 1

400 scientists just recently wrote a letter denying the fact that man has anything to do with global warming. The weather is in fact cyclical. But of course theres millions of dollars to be made perpetuating the global warming myth.

Answer 2

Well, in science 99% is often pretty much as good as it is going to get. Do you believe in the big bang theory or evolution or even relativity, these are all probably less than 99% certain. Where did this number come from though? I would be surprised if they are truly 99% sure we were causing it. I mean 99% is pretty high and there are too many factors and humans aren't smart enough to ever be %100 positive.

The cause and effect relationship has seemed to contain a fair amount of guess work, while the correlation of climate and amount of greenhouse gases in the air has been well verified. This just means that in the past we know that they both go up at the same time, but we aren't sure our carbon emissions are the cause and warm climate is the effect. However, I guess there is some complicate work out there that shows there is strong evidence for that now too.

In any case, what is wrong with taking action? Even if our carbon isn't causing global warming, why not reduce emissions anyway. It isn't like all the pollution that we are putting up there is good for us or helping us. There is no reason that we shouldn't have cleaner technology and stricter emission standards. We really have the ability to do it quite easily, just not enough of the right people fighting for it.

So, while it is a completely ridiculous statement to say that man is not causing global warming, I will always keep a skeptics mind myself and say that we often think we have more of an impact than we really do. I will, however, always remain firm in the camp of "even if we are not causing it, we should reduce carbon emissions and clean up the environment anyway!" Of course, if you enjoy the dirty air then that's a different subject altogether. :)

Hope this helps! :)

Answer 3

Hello:

Before I answer I would like to address the question. By throwing in charged words like lazy you bring things into your argument that have no place in a ration discussion. In addition you didn't even write out a full sentence...or at least a grammatically correct sentence...

If you are not clear...then I cannot be 100% sure of what you are really asking...perhaps other words are left out. Isn't it presumptuous that I am even answering this?

The answer is...a little...but that is how life works. It is an uncertain place and what you do (look up the definition of science sometime) is you come up with the best answer at the time using all the information you can get...then (here is the important part) YOU HAVE TO KEEP LOOKING AT THE WORLD AND THE EVIDENCE IN IT...BECAUSE CHANCES ARE WE'RE NEVER 100% RIGHT.

If this were purely an issue of global warming I think that an important enough issue to warrant serious change in how we life, however also tied up in this will be a cleaner environment, all of the other applications for the technology that is developed, all of this change will cost money...but will also create jobs.

As for your rational..."Shouldn't we demand that we know with absolute certainty global warming was real before we take action? After all, if we aren't sure that global warming is real, we could take actions that don't help or even end up causing more harm than good."...Even if an action's only benefit is to reduce the emissions of pollutants into the air (which often go right along up with the carbon dioxide) we would still be able to breath easier...which I also think is a good enough reason in and of itself.

As for the first three answers to this question...this is the kinda stuff that really worries me about my country and the world. You're right President Bush totally has the best interests of the people at his heart and not the wealthiest portion of our population.

I hope this helps.

Rev Phil

PS We cannot know even with 50% accuracy that God exists, but I do not hear you attacking this irrational idea that has a huge impact on our lives

Answer 4

It is not possible to be 100% about anything, so if 99% is not good enough for you then what would be? 99.1%? 99. 3%? What happens if we wait 12 months for science to say that global warming is 99.4% a reality, surely by then it is even harder to halt the process and even more damage has been done? Can we take this chance?
There is a cool video on youtube called "Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" watch that and tell me that you think the guy does not have a really valid point.

Answer 5

Well Mr. Jello, lets say that one of your loved ones had cancer, and their doctors told them that they had a 99% chence of eliminating their cancer only if they were treated with Chemotherapy within the next 48 hours. Also that the decision was up to do whether or not they would receive the treatment. Would you approve the treatment or tell them to wait until they are 100% sure?

Also, worldemp... while it's true tha fossil fuels has aided in nearly all of our current advancements and standards of living they are still and always be dangerous. Try resarching causes of wars in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, and if that information doesn't float your boat then try staying in a cealed room for a few hours while your car is running.

Answer 6

"Scientist are 99% Global Warming is real and is man made". Is this considered a 99% *chance* or *risk*? I would think of it as a HUGE risk!

If you knew there was a 99% risk that terrorists where about to strike somewhere, do you think we should take action or would you hope for that single percentage to be true?

Answer 7

Another consideration is that the effects of Global Warming are ridiculously overstated in the popular press.

I have been reading the IPCC reports (the reports that share the Nobel prize with Al Gore)

One striking thing that I have noticed is that the frightenig predictions that we hear in the popular press are ridiculously exaggerated when you compare the reports in the popular press with the actual scientific reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

You do not suppose that the people in the popular press have been making up some stuff, because they do not think that what is in the actual scientific material is frightening enough do you?

They wouldn't do that , would they?

Answer 8

99% of which scientists? That is the question. What is the sample size that came up with that number? Did someone poll 100 scientists? 1000? One million?
Or was it scientists are 99% sure that global warming is real? Then again you'd have to ask which scientists, and in addition to that what criteria did they use to come up with a "99% sure"? How was it quantified?
I could probably find a few crazy scientists that think the world is flat. If I hand-pick my samples and keep a sufficiently small sample size I can announce that 99% of scientists believe the world is flat. Manipulate the data like Gore and his cronies do and you can come up with any conclusion you want.

Answer 9

there is a 99 in 100 chance the earth could be permanently damaged by us and you think that because there is a 1 in a hundred chance nothing will happen or that it will happen anyway you think we should all stop and let it happen. I bet when they test drugs if 99 in 100 cancer patients survived it would go ahead or if 99 in 100 doctors said you were sick would you listen.

Answer 10

Think about is this way : you have 100 scientists, 99 say global warming exists and is man made. What do you think is the most reliable way of looking at it.