If someone convinced you that global warming is really no threat; would you be relieved, or disappointed?

Question

Advocates of carbon credits, global taxes, and a radically reduced standard of living; appear to avoid public debate with the scientific community by claiming the matter is already settled. Americans are divided 50 / 50 on this issue. I find that believers have no interest in hearing from thousands of scientists who think otherwise. Why is that? Is it because this isn't about climate change at all? I think it is more about social and economic change. Here's a great link. What do you think? http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud

Answer 1

I already know that global warming is no threat - Global warming prevention is a threat.

When the greens retreat from their ivory tower and move onto another made-up threat I will feel vindicated.  

Answer 2

Depends.  If I was your average gun-hating anti-freedom liberal I'd be disapointed because my people's fear tactic to gain power failed.  If I was Al Gore I'd be worried about my finances.  I myself however would simply say, "I told you so."

Answer 3

It wouldn't change my feelings about reducing emissions.  As I've said many times, global warming is only one of many reasons to change our ways, and I'm not even sure it's the most compelling.  When we get a high-pollution advisory here in Phoenix advising everyone to stay inside and avoid outdoor activities, that's just as alarming to me as hearing that the polar ice caps are melting.  We should take care of our planet whether it's warming or not.  It's the only one we have.

By the way, your link to a well-known radical right-wing political site means nothing.  If you want to talk science, where is your link to the scientific proof?  [silence, except for crickets chirping]  Yeah, that's what I thought.

[edit]

I take it from the thumbs-down reply below that someone thinks unbreathable air isn't a problem.  There's no reasoning with people like that.

Answer 4

I would not expect a single "one" to be able to convince me that the threat is gone, when so many (with much computer power) suppose that there *is* a threat

I think the link really does say

"Since recent polls indicate that about 50% of Americans remain unconvinced that global warming is a serious issue" but gives no more specifics.  

Answer 5

I only know that this summer the peak temparature was 5 Degree C more than last 10 years summer ,

This winter was harsh from last 30 years winter .

I think Global warming started with burning Fossil fuel that adds 4.5 billion tonnes of CO2 to atmosphere every year and Human being is doing this .

Start Planting trees they will absorb this CO2 to bring down harsh climate .

Answer 6

I don't think I'd be either. I never felt any danger from global warming, and have no vested interest in it getting either warmer or cooler, or staying pretty much the same.  

Answer 7

"Americans are split 50/50?"  I doubt the numbrs--but given tehe state of our educational system, its possible.

And irrelevant.  Scientific facts are NOT setttled by opinion polls. They are decided based on evidence. and the evidence is in. man made global warming is a proven fact. There is no "debate." One is either aware of the facts or ignorant--period.

As for a "hypothetical" finding that global warming isn't a threat--relieved. Millions of people are going to die before this is over in a few decades--that wold have lived if the "skeptics" and corrupt politicians had not delayed action for years. Their blood is going to be on the hands of the so-called "deniers."

A lot of Americans are honestly confused because of the lies of the deniers. The deniers have no excuse--if they had put half the time and effort they spend concocting their lies  into learning the facts, they'd know better. Willful ignorance isn't an excuse.

Answer 8

Relieved.

I'd still keep working to get my county off its addiction to foreign oil though, because in the long term that is bad for our economy and security.

Answer 9

I really hope I get the opportunity to see.  Of course they would have to convince more than me, as I am not a full time climate scientist, and since I have not seen a single review paper in the last 10 years offer any proof against it, I doubt I will get that opportunity.  Nice thought though, and I really really wish I could hope for that eventuality.

Answer 10

I'm amazed how people say man made GW is a proven fact. How exactly do you prove that? There are so many complex variables to global temperatures it's ridiculous to act like anyone knows anything for sure.

How can we trust these "scientists" (who by the way are profiting hugely from the GW movement) when they can't even predict climate trends a year away. No one expected temperatures to fall in 2007, but they did. But somehow they KNOW 40 years from now everything is basically going be h**l.

Answer 11

What do I think? I think your link is to a guy that has no understanding of science, who uses misleading headlines to grab attention. Mr. Weather Channel founder (another non-scientist who was ousted from the Weather Channel because he almost ran it into bankruptcy) did NOT sue Al Gore as the headline indicates.

As for the "thousands of scientists who think otherwise", please provide the names of real, practicing climate scientists (that would be people who actually study the climate and publish their research in credible peer reviewed journals) who think "otherwise" (whatever that means).

And as far as your other straw man argument is concerned, the science is convincing for the reality of anthropogenic global warming, but just because I understand and accept the science does NOT mean I am an "advocate" for "radically reduced standard of living".  The reality of AGW is a scientific question, how we respond to it is a political question. You really should try to keep scientific evidence and your own political ideology seperate.  

Answer 12

I don't believe it's a threat now and I know it's not caused by humans or animals, so I don't need convincing.  I've read profusely on both sides of the argument and understand the real reason why it is such an issue.

I'd be relieved that the truth would finally be out there for all to see, but I think that's already the case.  If you look at recent polls, only about 30% still believe in AGW.  There's still a lot of money pushing the hoax, but thankfully the truth always wins in the end.

The real relief would be that we no longer focus so much of our time and effort (and untold trillions) towards this hoax, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

As long as the masses are so easily convinced of such disaster scenarios and as long as the media is so willing to continue to create and propagate them, we will never get relief.

Once the AGW hoax is tossed out like the Flat Earth Theory and other such nonsense, they'll come up with another one.  Mark my words.

Answer 13

If you think that the public is divided 50/50 you are giving those who deny that global warming is happening far too much credit for fooling the public.

Inside the scientific community global warming is much like evolution, there's just so much evidence for it that it's almost inconceivable that it isn't happening (and we don't just have one piece of evidence but many independent pieces of evidence that would need to be knocked down).

As for whether global warming isn't a threat, it'd be nice if it weren't but that's not how reality works (it doesn't care about us).

Some people called Greens have hijacked the global warming problem and are trying to use it to meet their primitivism agenda but they aren't likely to win in the long term (since the rest of the population is not going to accept a lowered standard of living) although I do recognise that the Greens are partly responsible for creating global some warming denialists (possibly including you).

Answer 14

If I found out for sure there would be no harm from man made CO2, I think it would hit me like that Bigfoot story that turned out to be a fraud.  My reaction would be "Dah".

Answer 15

I think everyone would be relieved (save people who blindly blame liberals and link politically bias websites to "prove" their point).

These links (from the peer-reviewed scientific literature) go into detail about the changes that have either already happened, or probably will happen in the near future:

Some consequences of climate change:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008...

Review paper on human caused changes to the earth--includes a section on how CO2 from burning fossil fuels alters the global carbon biogeochemical cycle:

http://magmo.typepad.com/VitousekHumanDo...

Answer 16

It is all about making money for certain people ie, Al Gore.  Never forget that people will push anything if they can make money off from it i.e. purchasing climate credits  WHAT A SCAM!!!!  

Answer 17

I'd probably be disappointed.  Because then another scare or "problem" would be cooked up by socialist politicians and grant-seeking scientists to sell their ideas to a gullible public.  Then I'd have to figure what's real, what's bunk and what not to give money to.  But then again, it didn't take long to figure out global warming.  

Answer 18

Never believed in it, never will.

Answer 19

The proponents of AGW have long since convinced me that it's false.

They demand of us sacrifices they won't undertake themselves.  They don't walk their talk.

Answer 20

I agree. From the research I've done, I'm convinced that if it is happening there's no way possible it's anthropogenic (caused by humans)- I make the urban heat island effect the exception and would point out the fact that it's presented erroneously as evidence for anthropogenic global warming. If it is happening at all, it's impossible to control and it's happening at such a negligibly slow rate, that the best course of action would be to learn to adapt to it. But I don't think it's been clearly proven to be happening. I agree with the president of the Czech Republic who said recently that the anthropogenic global warming scare is really just an excuse to supplant western governments with communist ones. There is a staggeringly good deal of ignored evidence that this is so, and it's really pretty ironic, considering that communist countries have often done far more damage to the environment than capitalistic ones have. Look at Chernobyl. Look at the fact that Siberia is home to the most polluted city on earth, and the most polluted river on earth, thanks to the horrible inefficiencies of communism. Look at the fact that in certain parts of the people's republic of china, you can't even see the sun or the sky, due to the pollution, and pure oxygen is sold as a luxury in oxygen bars, so people have some relief from the ravages of pollution. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the localized pollution in cities like L.A. go away, but not because I think they're causing global warming; rather, because of the negative effect it has on the health of the people who live there.

Answer 21

I am in sincere doubt that the number of scientists in your camp is nearly as large as you claim. At least, if they are they are hiding their views from the rest of the scientific community.

But your side claims everyone who disagrees with any aspect as a sceptic? Oh, then perhaps there are that many.

I do not see anyone setting out to  convince anyone that your views are sound.  The arguments do appear to be too badly mangled to convince anyone of anything.