Believers & Skeptics - And the winner is .....?

Question

Sometimes I feel like Machester United versus Liverpool...

Regardless of which side is every single one of us, can we say, in truth, that we understand that we are all in this together?

Do we realize that we will all pay the consequences if a wrong course of action is taken (which ever that would be)?

I'd love to hear your opinion WITHOUT stating which is, according to you, the right course of action

If your answer is:

- YES I understand it, then how would you try to merge us all to work together with single common purpose ?

- NO, then thank you for your feedback.

Please not comments that would obviously state on which side are you. Also Intolerance, disrespect, offenses and sarcasms will not be really answering the question at all.

thank you

Answer 1

And that sentiment is exactly why I bother to even answer the Global warming freaks of nature. You are right, we are all in this together, but the real question is....what kind of future are we all shooting for ?

Worse case if that Global warming is real....well lets assume it is for a second....Then what is the oppositions motives ? to make the human species extinct ? Can anyone be so lazy that if the human race was actually in danger that they wouldn't stand up and do what is necessary to save it ? You see, the arguement loses all plausibility and common sense.

On the other hand, there have been many many examples of people who think like Stalin. Stalin had a vision of a bright and better future for Russia. He loved his motherland and wanted to make it better....but in the end, he never actually accomplished his dream before he died, and in the end nearly 60million of his people died trying to build this "future Russia". The burden was on the backs of the current population for what ? a better life for future generations ? Where's the logic or common sense ? Kill people today for a  better tomorrow for those that live ? Don't be fooled. It was all about power, it was showing off to the world what he as a leader could do.

And this, is the typical thoughts of socialisms and liberals here in America today. OH WHOA IS US,....there's a crisis....whatever the crisis is.......so big government tries to capitalize on it and promise to make your little lives better....all you have to do is sign on the dotted line...give up more of your money through fee's and taxes... maybe give up some of your freedoms, your rights, your liberties.

So in the view of history, which is more likely ? That the human race is headed for extinction and 1/2 the people just do'nt seem to care ? or that its just another ploy, like many in the past of Governments or certain parties of Government trying to take control....trying to get their fingers in your pie ?

After all, if the science was solid that GW was real, then why all the lying spokemen ? why all the campaigns and commercials to make people feel bad for the polar bear and other subjects when the statistics prove it also to be a lie ? There is no consensus...there is no provable science....and no one for or against GW has existed with enough data from the past to make any claims as to what is happening on the planet....they can only comment on what they've seen in their own life time. And that isn't enough in my humble opinion to start mandating change that effects people's lives, That isn't enough to raise the price of energy and food...especially for the poor. That's not enough proof for me to cause everyone's cost of living to rise, or limit their freedoms, or tell them what products they can't buy. And certainly not enough to convince me that this is anything but a hyped up money making opportunity for the few that can capitalize on it. Capitalism isn't a bad thing, its part of the free market in America, but profiteering off the misfortunate ? the poor ? Creating chaos through new laws, mandates and whacko enviromentalism gone amuk ?

If you can so easily ruin people's lives for a cause you can't prove, then that to me seems to be the same beginning steps of the n**i.

Answer 2

Yes, we are all in this together, but it can be such a sweet ride if we didn't worry about stuff we have no control over, like climate.  The earth has been evolving for millenia.  Tree rings, ice cores, & soil layers are a testament to its results.  The earth will balance itself in its own way & we are merely along for the ride.  All we can do is hang on & do the best we can to let nature take its course.

Answer 3

This is a global warming question, yes? Hmm...the best way to unite everyone is to basically put the answer right in their face. Everything form the war on violence, the oil problem, the horrible weather, and the health issues are all because we have failed as a race to find alternatives to problems we caused. That and as the world is becoming more eco-conscious, people can unite in another way. If we all make an effort to be more eco-friendly then companies will take notice, meaning they'll make an effort to please people and their needs. Also, because the demand for eco-things will grow, so will jobs and money. That and we may become wealthier in health as well. Because of all the new efforts to advance efficiently, we could live longer, which everyone wants, and safer. I don't know if this hel[ped, but gave it a shot.

Answer 4

I do believe we are all in this together, but I can't see the two sides working together towards a common goal.  Even in politics the people in the same party have different ideas.  It is a wonderful idea that everyone could get along enough to work together, for the benefit of mankind what ever that might be, but we are all humans and I think we are all like kids in the sand box fighting over the toys and throwing sand at each other, except as kids our parents can step in and rescue us, as adults, who is going to do that?

Answer 5

Yes

Answer 6

Yes. I think what we should do is let the scientists do what they do best...research and gather evidence and disprove or support theories. Science has reached a point where it is almost impossible to explain their research to people without scientific backgrounds (have you ever tried to understand quantum physics?). In order to do so, things get oversimplified and as a result, many reject the theories. We would merge and be able to work together better without oversimplifications, white lies, misunderstandings, and hoaxes.

Answer 7

No

Answer 8

Yes, I think that the best way to unite people would be this: Put the best unbiased minds in the world (including economists and scientists) together and have them work on like a Manhattan Project of global warming.  The best thing would be where both sides agree before hand to go along with whatever consensus they come up with.  (I mean, they would be the experts, so who are you or I to say that they're wrong).  The thing is, I'm willing to admit I'm wrong and change my view if a group like this was created (and was unbiased-like not have the people picked out of think tanks) and went against my view.

I actually don't think this is unreasonable.  I mean, both sides have to admit that there must be some possibility that they are wrong; so if we put the smartest people to work to find out which is most likely to be right-deciding which decision (taking action against climate change or not doing anything) would include the least amount of risk of bad consequences, you would think that we could all be united.

Answer 9

Wow, this is hard.  I am not sure how to answer without letting you know which side I am on.

I believe unity would be ideal, since you are absolutely right - this is the whole Earth we are talking about and we are all in it together.  However, it might be unrealistic.

The best actions, in my opinion, are those that would be beneficial with or without the threat of climate change.  For example, developing alternative fuels in the U.S. could help end our dependence on foreign oil.

Answer 10

There is nothing I can do to prevent global warming (assuming it's even taking place) so why worry?

Answer 11

Both side of this debate have their wild over the top groups, one is the top contributor here? but there also sane voices on both sides.

To address the question 'And the winner is .....?' the answer would be know one.

If deniers are right, we are being conned by the greatest conspiracies in history for trillions in taxes and either nothing is going to happen or it will happen and we can't stop.

If believers are right, we are well on the way to AGW by the end of this century given the speed politicians move at when big issues are involved like unpopular taxes (that would lose them votes)

(sorry slight disrespect to follow, but only to politicians)

either way we (Machester United versus Liverpool) if you prefer, are boned and the umpire (politicians) win, although it should be said that if both sides lose to much then the game itself fails and even the umpire is unemployed.

It occurs to me that some 'umpires' might have noticed this and might actually be interested in making sure the 'game' continues, because they also rely on the 'game'.

Answer 12

Shame you got so many answers that went against your quite reasonable conditions... still, you also got some thoughtful answers as well!

Yes, I agree.

Now, how to work together?

1) Accept that there will always be some disagreement

2) Respect each others right to have different opinions and to treat each with other with respect and politeness

3) Sort through the dross, through away the irrelevant arguments (e.g. anything to do with Al Gore) and find out what the important fundamental issues are (e.g. CO2 levels, negative impact upon the economy)

4) Try to find commonalities of purpose even if causes differ (e.g. Reducing oil consumption can:

a. Reduce CO2 levels

b. Reduce dependence upon unfriendly nations

c. Save individuals money

Whatever the reason, we can agree on at least one solution)

5) Identify issues that are core to one side, irrelevant to the other (e.g. if the cost and reliability of energy remained the same from coal or wind, would you use wind? - Proponents would find this a core issue and skeptics wouldn't care)

6) Identify issues that can be "traded": e.g. "OK, we'll agree to mandatory minimum fuel efficienies in all new cars if you agree to allow drilling in the Everglades".

7) Be willing to give way when the risks associated with a choice far outweigh the benefit (e.g. the risk that 'the economy will collapse yet we would only see a .01% decrease in GW if we did X thing' or '80% of species will die out unless you put a sweater on')

8) Educate each other - politely - on our respective concerns such that the other side understands why we are worried

9) Continue research at all levels into both causes and solutions

10) Only state things as fact when known with a high confidence, avoid lies and deliberate misleading statements tyhat only serve to heighten confusion and lessen understanding.

P.S. Would it be Man U or Liverpool.."?

Answer 13

Yes, but with some reservations.

We have to define sets (not just one) of actions that we should do whether or not we will be able to stop global warming, whether or not we will be able to change the rate of climate change, whether or not we may be running out of fossil fuels.

We may not all agree, on every matter. But if a given action is not demonstrably harmful and may be of benefit on most of these scenarios, we can start to prioritize.

But. unlike the doctrinal way of life, we need not all agree on every last detail. As time goes on we may see things more the same, or not. We do not get bogged down with minutia.

Answer 14

YES - Can't be done.

Answer 15

No, the economy is more important because real or not, you can't handle a problem like Gobal Warming when the economy is wrecked. With a better economy we can afford alternatives life styles because as of now, our oil based infrastructure cannot be changed on this path.  

Economy is everything.