If you believed AGW had a 10% chance of being true would you act in an environmental responsible manner?

Question

I liken this to eating a dish that has a 10% chance of being deathly poisonous. Would you really risk your life & possibly those of your fellow quests by continuing to eat this dish? Or would you simply switch to a more known quantity that is definitely healthy?

As a side not I already know that the way we are influencing the climate has a 100% deadly poisonous effect. This question is more for those people who think it is still some sort of debate, game, and or statistical possibility.

Answer 1

such fear to win people over

Answer 2

You ask this as if people have a lot of control here.

Most of us have to work to eat. Jobs require transportation to and from. Homes require energy to live in them.

There are not a lot of options. Eat the dish or starve. The known quantity with the healthy option doesn't exist.

Quote me a windmill in exchange of a coal fired generator plant. 100 kW versus 1000MW. 1 large transmission line versus transmission lines littering the landscape. Something that works all the time versus something that works only when the wind blows not to strong not to weak.

Consider that 100 years ago we heated homes with coal and used train oil to light them. Poverty, war, and disease was endemic. Are we not living greener now than then?

You want alternatives? Support the space program. Support R&D so that there are options.

Freezing in the dark like many of us did a month or so ago for an hour is not an option.

Answer 3

If I believed that AGW had a Zero percent chance of being true, I would still choose to live in an environmentally responsible manner. The idea that global warming is the only environmental issue that we have to contend with is an oversimplification of a very complex web of local and global issues. I blame the media, and people who are so closed minded that they take one look at global warming and turn their backs on environmentalism entirely.

Answer 4

AGW has a 0% chance of being true. Nevertheless, I try to be environmentally responsible. Turns out my family's carbon footprint is about 1.7 tons of carbon per year. Not bad, eh?

But Corn growers are NOT taking food out of the mouths of the poor.

http://www.hanskaco.com/index.aspx?ascxi...

Dramatically rising international corn prices have led to expensive tortillas.

http://www.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did...

Who is profiting from these speculatory price rises? With all the noise the Media is making trying to blame U.S. farmers, maybe we should look at the owners of the media and their financial buddies. As usual, the real cause of financial strain can be traced to our 'overlords' in the financial district. They think they own us. And so long as we do nothing to disabuse them of the notion, they're RIGHT.

Answer 5

"If you believed AGW had a 10% chance of being true would you act in an environmental responsible manner?"

What you have to understand is that we don't entirely understand how climate works on our planet.  Until we do, we have no idea how our actions might effect things.  You should never act irrationally out of fear.  Look at what is happening because of ethanol.  If their was ever an irrational actions based on fear, this was a perfect example.  Ethanol from corn is a horrible idea, yet people pushed it because it was environmentally responsible.  People are now starving around the world because we have offset a whopping three percent of all fossil fuels used by auto's in America.  Was it worth it?  Was it the right action?  Would it have been better to wait until we totally understand what is happening before we made rash decisions that hurt people?

"I liken this to eating a dish that has a 10% chance of being deathly poisonous. Would you really risk your life & possibly those of your fellow quests by continuing to eat this dish? Or would you simply switch to a more known quantity that is definitely healthy?"

I wouldn't want to risk their life, but I wouldn't switch to another food in which I had no idea of the poisonous content.  That is what you are proposing.  What if the new unknown food has a 50% of being deadly?  That's right.  You would have been better off staying with the fish that was only 10% dangerous.

"As a side not I already know that the way we are influencing the climate has a 100% deadly poisonous effect."

That's surprising, considering that their is still so much debate in the science community.  If you know so much, why are you not working directly with some of the top scientist around the world?  The bottom line is that you believe you know what is true and what it not, regardless of whatever information is out their.  That makes you a fanatic or zealot in my book.  Keep and open mind.  I am not saying that man is or is not the cause of our planet warming.  All I am saying is that you should not take sides based on propaganda and that's all it is at this point.  The science ISN'T in yet, regardless of what you believe.

Answer 6

Sure why not I like Fugu and folks go out and eat.

The issue here is risk and benefit and the old unintended  consequences,

IF we do not have all the facts and the data is subject to interpolation what if all these plans end up causing a bigger problem than we have now.   We have people starving food riots, and unrest from ethanol.   Reduce ing pollution and greater energy efficiency  are great goals.  However the carbon foot print  worries me.   There always been those who have stated the planet cannot sustain an increasing number of humans.   With what we exhale labeled as a pollutant at some point  population control will be justified in the name of climate change.

I am not willing to take that risk.

Answer 7

Your argument doesn't hold water, because your presumption that the food has a 10% chance of being deathly poisonous is based on "pseudo-science" that is unreproducable, unpredictable, unproven, and simply theorized by a consensus of politically motivated individuals with an opportunity for significant financial gains if people believe them.

You also state the "we are influencing the climate" as though it is a fact, whereas not a single human being has ever been able to cool the tropics to make life more comfortable, irrigate the deserts to make them able to sustain crops, and warm the frozen tundra so that areas of land and resources previously unreachable could used for productive purposes.  It simply cannot be done, or believe me, industrialists would be DOING IT and profiting from it beyond their wildest dreams.

When you drive on the roadway, there is a 50% probability that EACH vehicle coming in the opposite direction will cross that 1/16" painted boundary line and slam into your vehicle, killing you or giving you life-threatening injuries in an instant... and yet you continue to drive without demanding an 8' solid concrete barrier between you and the opposing traffic.

50%?  Absolutely.  They can stay in their lane, or they can drift across to hit you.  50/50.  And that's per each driver.  But yet, you have blind faith that it won't happen.

There is a common sense boundary between imagined danger and actual danger, and you and the other people who have bought into the totally unproven, totally unreproduceable, completely imagined fantasy that mankind can "control nature, and next, the solar system, and then onto the universe", clearly do not believe such boundaries exist.

Don't you realize, if we could actually affect climate in the least bit, we'd already be doing it -- intentionally!

The simple reality is, nature is bigger than us.  And really, we're quite irrelevant in the greater scheme of things.  Bacteria and viruses... they rule this planet, and THEY actually do control the climate (and have been proven to, with reproducable results -- see the Oceanic Genome project, which was stunned to discover that oceanic bacteria in the Pacific actually regulate and control all airborne and seaborne pollutants... and they could reproduce their results in the laboratory!).

There is nothing wrong with living a more healthier lifestyle, closing down the world cities and migrating people out to the countryside on 1+ acres each, with local economies and community providers serving most of their needs.  

But that's not going to happen any time soon.  Too many AGW supporters LIVE in those mega-pollutant-generating cities, and they're not about to demand that they change their own lifestyle... even if it conflicts with the hoax they are trying to convince others with.

Answer 8

Good point

Why do we take the chance with possibilities

and argue about being wise with our Bio resources

When all that is required

is mostly a change of behavior

.

Which benefits our Environment ,

And this is our home in the first place

Many Eco problems and changes in local climatic conditions Do result directly from our actions .

We argue about whether or not we cause Global warming,

We should be arguing about The environmental destructions  

caused by man especially in the last 100 years.Because THAT we can do something about.

Miss devi when we cut all the trees in a place ,and what once was a cool forest ,then becomes a desert with out water ,Man has certainly changed the local climate ,and this has happened in many places and rivers have dried up

check out what has happened in Northern China ,and many places in Africa .

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

there is no way we can shove that under the carpet

Irrespective of global Warming

People go to extremes  to avoid any responsibility ,

And be absolved from any kind of guilt

So that they can continue to be Pigs in Paradise.

http://byderule.multiply.com/journal/ite...

Note

Polar bear meat and Fish in the Arctic sea contain lethal levels of mercury,the water has concentrated amounts because it was locked in the melting ice ,

This contamination comes originally from the air ,And it originates from Human activity .,not from Nature

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/glo...

Answer 9

Your premise is faulty.  It's not an either/or situation.  Just because you don't subscribe to the dogma (and that's what it is) of so called "global warming" doesn't mean that you don't support a clean environment.

I'm betting most "believers" have never been in a forest, or fished in streams.  The neighborhood park is the closest many "believers" get to nature.

[Edit] My God man, most everyone lives just an hour away from a national park or forest.  Clearly you have no idea about the wild of nature.  Your views are shaped not by what you see, but by what others tell you.

Get out and live in nature for awhile.  It will change your life and the way you view "global warming" forever.

Answer 10

Your comparison is unequal to the situation we are facing today.  If you want to make an AGW / poisonous food comparison, it would have to go more like this.  

The situation is that you have to eat or you will starve.  You have one type of fish in front of you that has a 10% chance of being poisonous.  There is also another type of fish in the room.  It might be poisonous or it might not and even if it is, you do not know how poisonous it might be.  There could be a 100% chance that it is poisonous.  If you knew more about fish, you might be able to identify if the other fish was poisonous but at this point, you do not know enough about fish.  Which food would you eat.  Remember, you have to eat one because you will starve if you don't.  I think anyone in their right mind would eat the fish that has only a 10% chance of being poisonous.  You would be taking a much bigger risk eating the other food.

The reason I restated your hypothetical situation, is that this is closer to the situation we are in today.  Because of the way our societies are built, we must have a constant and plentiful energy source or countless people will die.  As other people have pointed out, fossil fuels at the present are generally the best overall way to accomplish our energy needs.  Other forms might be better for the environment, but they are too expensive, dangerous, costly or impractical to implement or it would have happened by now.  I say let the free market work.  Offer governmental incentives and tax breaks to companies that develop viable alternate energy sources.  Keep in mind that it will happen, but it takes time.  People don't want to do things, which could hurt the environment, but they are left with little choice at the present.  If a viable energy source is developed, you won't need to talk people into switching to it.  They will do it on their own because it is cheaper, therefore making their life easier.  You cannot deny that money is the best motivator.  The most powerful instinct in humans is survival, so anything that makes survival easier, will motivate people.  Trying to force something on people, when they see it as hampering their ability to survive, will only build a wall of resistance.  It is basic human psychology.  We can pass all the environmental laws we want in an effort to discourage things that hurt the environment, but it is hardly the best way to go about it.  Remember, rash actions are rarely the best actions.  Stay calm.  Do not let the fear over AGW overwhelm you.  Make rational decisions that are the right decisions.