Isn't it foolhardy to gamble with the future of a planet?

Question

At MIT, they have a joint program called "The Wheel," or the "Greenhouse Gamble." It's an attempt to better convey the uncertainty in climate change prediction. Check the link below. Read the text. Spin the wheel. How did the planet fare?

Also, some very informative links on this site to investigate.

http://mit.edu/globalchange/www/wheel.degC.html

Answer 1

Nah, nothing is certain but death and taxes.  Why worry about it? ;)

Answer 2

but what you're fighting is other folks certanty that the real problem is that someone -- the government, ???  -- are just wasting money.

it's really hard to get someone who knows he's right to agree that he's wrong.

<<"It ain't what people don't know that's so dangerous - it's what people know that just ain't so." William Penn Adair Rogers (1879-1935).>>

oh my, and i thought this was Reagan.

http://f.students.umkc.edu/fkfc8/Citatio...

http://www.kqed.org/pgmArchive/RD19

FORUM.  <<We speak with neurologist Robert Burton about his latest book, "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not"

Host: Michael Krasny

Guests:

Robert Burton, author and retired former chief of the Department of Neurology at UCSF's Mt. Zion Hospital.>>

from above, <<Bacteria rule the world, they are the singular most dominant species, and they are 100% responsible for the climate>>

well, it certainly seems that they are responsible for the majority of the intelectual level around here this morning.

Answer 3

I don't know that I'd call it "foolhardy", since that seems to imply that people have access to enough information to make a rational decision, and that they're simply not sensible enough to make the right decision.  I don't beleive that the information has been well communicated (we tolerate the distribution of way too much misimformation).  It's also not clear that people have the opportunity to make a rational decision on the subject.  Fear of climate change itself, or of the financial burdens that can occur from the effects and from the mitigation effrots, can create a state of cognitive dissonance in which the fearful person must adopt a belief that supports their actions.  For example, they might believe that global warming is a hoax or conspiracy in order to justify their damaging lifestyle.

Since they are unable to process information rationally and they are unable to see the mechanism that puts them in this state, it's probably more charitable to consider these people as having a mental disability.  They're not necessarily stupid or morally corrupt, they're just trapped by a normal human reaction to this sort of threat and the anxiety that it can create.

Availability of appropriate coping and adaptation counselling for people stuck in denial should be part of any national plan to address the issue.

Answer 4

And I bet you'd hug the world if you could.

Yes, I agree with Jello.  "Global Warming" is terribly political and terribly economical.  It's good for business if you make the right light bulbs, the right filters, the right cleaners, and the right 'green' products.

It's a sham.  The earth warms and cools on it's own.  Where the glaciers are receding in Greenland, they're revealing farms where the Vikings farmed.  Do you think they had big refineries and plants and SUV's?  Hardly.

The climate is cyclical and natural.

Answer 5

It really doesn't get much more foolhardy than gambling on the very future of our species just so we can continue to live an inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessarily primitive (continuing to rely on old technologies) lifestyle.

There is absolutely no reason not to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  The 'skeptics' continually complain that it will cost too much, but studies have shown that it will cost a fraction of our GDP.  In essence, addressing global warming will simply slow our economic growth in the short-term while ensuring its safety in the long term.

Really it's just like buying fire insurance when you live in the middle of the forest.  It's quite likely that eventually your home will be in danger from a forest fire, so you spend a bit of money in the short-term to insure yourself from a crippling financial loss in the long-term.

The 'skeptics' would have us buy a home in the middle of a dry forest without buying any insurance whilst they run around playing with matches.  It's not just foolhardy to listen to them, it's downright stupid.

Answer 6

Of course it is incredibly foolish to gamble on global warming, especially when the consequences are so well understood. By releasing tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, we are changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and are conducting an uncontrolled experiment on planet Earth.

Answer 7

yes it is!!! and so far every answer i have seen to GW is a HUGE gamble..

lets all abide by the Kyoto treaty... of course this treaty doesn't have any limits for developing developing countries.. we will GAMBLE that they will impose their own limits in the future...

lets use a carbon trade off plan.. and GAMBLE that corporations and companies won't just buy their way out of carbon expenses.. and will instead make real changes...

______________________________________...

people that have problems with man made global warming theories are NOT opposed to reducing emissions... no problem with it at all..

we simply don't believe in changing from a condition we KNOW the results of to one we haven't researched and no nothing about.. knee jerk reactions almost always  invoke the rule of unintended consequences in the WORST way.

_________________________________

if you are unsure what i mean study mans history when we try to FIX nature... we had a rat problem in Hawaii so we imported ferrets to eat the rats.. now we have a HUGE problem with the ferrets pushing lots of birds to the point of extinction...

we had a problem with bugs eating crops so we used DDT to kill the bugs.. brown pelicans were almost killed off because of the effects...

i could go on and on and on... but the bottom line is every time we try a knee jerk fix to an ecological problem we have created a bigger issue...  some of us look at the global warming "FIXES" and think to ourselves.. how many times we going to do this dance?!?!?!?

Answer 8

Here is an article that hits the nail on the head,

The current mantra coming from the alarmists is a religion, not evidenciary science.

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER | Posted Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:30 PM PT

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands.

Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation.

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over.

Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming — infinitely more untested, complex and speculative — is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class — social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies — arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

A New 'Ism'

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism.

Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but — even better — in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.)

And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment — carbon chastity — they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative?

First, more research — untainted and reliable — to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not?

Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?

© 2008 Washington Post Writers Group

Answer 9

Sure.

Which is why most every major world leader is trying to do something about global warming.  On 20-1-2009 that will be true of the US also.

Answer 10

It certainly is, but there are a lot of people doing it.

Answer 11

Sure, but we do it all the time by different means. Ever ridden in a car, or flew on a plane. The list is endless and has greater odds of occurrence. Would that mean your gambling with your future?

Answer 12

Just for the record, Charles Krauthammer is a doctor of medicine, Psychiatry, and he is one of the few people that if he says something I disagree with, I assume I must be mistaken.  He knows politics extremely well and is as sharp as a tack.  

Why would you insist on gambling away your children's futures in a political movement that has proven to be extremely detrimental, and that political movement is socialism.  Whether or not you are a socialist, jumping on the global warming bandwagon primarily promotes big government insinuating itself into places where it will do no good and certainly do grave harm if we do what many politicans suggest. What we owe our children is to provide them a world where they are free and prosperous.  Your gamble is one that I really hope enough people come to their senses and avoid.  Once they see the asssociated costs, perhaps they will

Answer 13

"No one is stopping you from going green if that's what you believe is the right thing to do."

Not always true, now is it? Society, culture, laws, and infrastructure are designed to have us life lifestyles that are not in balance. Which means that only the most rugged off grid people, or the most wealthy can afford to life a balanced lifestyle. The rest of us are forced into the paradigm of conspicuous consumption and materialism.

"Global Warming is terribly political and terribly economical. It's good for business if you make the right light bulbs, the right filters, the right cleaners, and the right 'green' products."

And how is denying it any less economical for the people who make things that have proven time and time again to be harmful to the public health, to waste energy, and to pollute the environment in other ways than carbon dioxide? There is money to be made in the green movement, but it it a paupers pittance when compared to the amount of money at stake in keeping the status quo.

"Whether or not you are a socialist, jumping on the global warming bandwagon primarily promotes big government insinuating itself into places where it will do no good and certainly do grave harm if we do what many politicians suggest."

Again, not always. While some that are concerned about global warming believe in big federal intervention to stop it, just as many feel that the government is not the answer. For instance, the federal government gives huge subsidies from our taxes to the automotive, air travel, corporate agriculture, and fossil fuel industries. If you don't like socialism, than you should be opposing these subsidies with the same fervor that the global warming activists are. And then, when these damaging industries fall apart because they were never cost effective, and newer more efficient options take their place, everyone is happy.

Answer 14

Absolutely, did you see the environment matrix, where it basically reminds us that it is in our advantage to take the necessary precautions rather than risk it.

Lets face it, any one can deny something's happening, but they still wouldn't want the reality to occur.

Answer 15

It is always foolish to gamble if the odds are stacked in favor of the house or your opponent.  Since no one can predict the future, and climate model INPUT is TERRIBLY inaccurate to begin with, I'd wager everything on "< 1 degree" (it's the only choice to cover a DROP in global temperature over the next 90+ years)....and I'd be the next contestant on the Price is Right.

Answer 16

No one is stopping you from going green if that's what you believe is the right thing to do.

Global warming is a sham, it isn't happening.  Man cannot cause any change to the climate.  Therefore I won't join you, and I won't oppose you.  

I expect you to extend the same courtesy to me.

Global warming is a political cause.  This is why people think so-called "global warming" will end the day we elect a different president.

[Edit] Look at Bob's answer.  He thinks the solution will come on the day the next president takes office.  And liberals tend to be the believers on this issue.

Believe what ever you choose, and give me the freedom to choose as I think best.  Don't force your dogma on others unless you feel that it's right to have others force their beliefs on you.

[Edit] "Jello again: The current administration has been behind the curve on this issue, to the eventual frustration of both major political parties. All remaining candidates have expressed plans to do substantially more than has happened here in the last 8 years"

Exactly - "Global warming" is a political issue, not a scientific one.  Even the best climatologist cannot say if "global warming" causes more or fewer hurricanes, or if "global warming" has halted for a number of years or if it's still very active.

Taking action without knowing whay the results are could cause more harm than no action at all.  You may be willing to risk harming the environment, but I care what man does.

You cannot say that the climate today is any different than the climate 25 years ago.  Remember "global warming" is only about a 0.5 degree increase over the last 100 years.

We have plenty of time to act.  We need to know more before we do anything for the sake of doing something.

Answer 17

If we truly knew what the risks were?  We don't know  for sure what the future climate will be or what we can do if anything to control it.   Right now it looks like we are willing to give up our freedom for something that we are assuming may happen.  I would prefer the American people make their own choices and accept the responsibility for their decision.  I will bet on a free people over any other group.

Answer 18

Part of the aim of the global warming push is to get as many countries on board the Kyoto Protocal as possible.

I believe too many countries, notably in Europe, were too hasty in doing so, and now are beginning to regret their decision after seeing the activity taking place over carbon credits and having to spread their money around.  

The two largest contributers to pollution on Earth at the moment are China and India.  Both have refused to join Kyoto.  Until they do, it is a huge waste of money and effort.  So far the EU has sent sixty billion dollars to China.  But really...for what?

It's indeed foolhardy to gamble with the future of a planet, of course.  But so far nobody has shown that we're gambling.  I believe that Kyoto will fall apart soon due to it's own flaws, and that global warming will never start.  There is not even a hint that we are gambling with the welfare of our planet.

Answer 19

We're not.

The planet doesn't even know we exist.  We're actually incredibly irrelevant to the natural cycles of the earth.

Bacteria rule the world, they are the singular most dominant species, and they are 100% responsible for the climate, taking care of it just as they have been successfully doing for over 200 million years.