Which horse do you want to bet your (and your children's) future on?

Question

Suppose the mainstream global warming scientists are only 90% sure to be right. That's a low number, most would put it higher.

Do you want to bet the well being of the world on a 10:1 longshot that they're wrong, and do nothing about it?

On the one side you have a very few "skeptics", largely people you've never heard of before. On the other,

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academies of all the advanced countries, the American Goephysical Union, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

And most every famous scientist you've ever heard of before this.

World and corporate leaders have decided. They know it's an uncertain world and they have to make bets. So do you.

Which horse do you want to back?

Answer 1

If betting on the corporate leaders includes worldwide Socialism, I'll bet on the Earth taking care of herself, and against the corporate leaders!

Answer 2

I found two groups that write off global warming.  One group argues that it is natural for the earth to go through climate cycles (true, but not at the rate we are witnessing) - these people tend to ignore the consequences because they assume it's natural.  The other group just thinks global warming is just made up by scientists.  Both groups are wrong, and no amount of data will change their mind.  It's as fruitless as trying to argue evolution with a creationist.  My money is on global warming.

Answer 3

Well Bob, I think we are wagering on the same Horse for different reasons. I get the idea that you want the horse to win because you like his previous record, and I want him to win because I like his number. I do conserve and teach it to my children for environmental reasons and I also don't like the politics of the countries we get oil from,but I am not too worried about the climate change. I would love to have the U.S. weaned off all foreign petroleum so we don't support those countries.  luckily for us both, the means are the same for different ends.

Peace.

Answer 4

i would love to place a large cash bet at denier downs

Answer 5

If the mainstream global warming scientists are 100% correct then the world is in no trouble at all. But if the news media were correct, we would all die in 20 years. If you actually read the IPCC reports (and not the news reports about it) the predictions are not alarming at all. Our children and grand children and great grand children are perfectly safe. Safe from global warming that is. The danger is a world war over control of the remaining oil, and the world wide economic collapse when it runs out completely if we have not developed alternatives by then.

Answer 6

There was a slim chance that the first nuclear bomb that was detonated would catch the entire atmosphere on fire as well, yet they went ahead with the test anyway! This speaks volumes about the human mind and especially the minds that are having the most effect on every ones lives! If there was even the slightest possibility of destroying the entire planet then it should never have gone that far! But they're willing to take calculated risks with billions of people lives without any input from any of them on these secret technological developments!

Answer 7

If you worry about the world more than you worry about the US, I do not think you can honestly call yourself a conservative.

The great depression and or influenza could make your nemesis seem like a fairy tale, and guess what? The rest of the world could not and probably would not help us.

Answer 8

Factoring in my children's future as well?  Then my horse's name is Solar Energy.  I think vast improvements will soon be made and I'm looking forward to it. :)

Answer 9

According to you, "you have very few "skeptics". If that is so, why are you (and Dana) so fervently trying to convert us "few".  If it is as few as you say, we won't make a difference. Stop trying to convert us. You don't need our pitifully small numbers.

Answer 10

It is comical listening to you alarmists who are betting that it might warm a degree or two.  Human influence might warm it a bit but there is a still a background natural trend that you pretend has suddenly suspended somehow in the present time.  You have no sense of time.  You see only now or next year or next 10 years.  Climate is a slower process.  In addition, your dread of warming is instructive.  You will not acknowledge any benefits to warming when in fact most five year olds could easily do it.  You insult the intelligence of everyone by your obvious bias and cherry picking of evidence, scientists, and consequences.  You could see a herd of beautiful wild mustangs and you would no doubt focus on the one with mange and fret that all the horses are dying.   There is a reason that conservatives are skeptics.  It isn't because they are naive or hard headed.  It is the way they look at the world versus the way alarmists do.  I would bet on the conservative positive pony every time.

Answer 11

You've see this guy, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwia...

edit:

The environment is not going to be fine.  The environment is already not fine.

Answer 12

If I was a betting man, I would put my money on a temperature downturn in the next 2-3 years.  Downturns of this type seem to come around about every 30 years, and last for about 30 years before the cycle returns to warming.  When this happens, global warming will cease to be the current "big thing" and the climate activists will have to decide what they will do next.  Some possibilities are:

1) Declare victory and move on to the next big thing to try and strip us of our freedoms.  This is what the Y2K alarmists did on 1 Jan 2000.

2) Slink away and become bitter old men who spend the rest of their lives carping at the actions of those who took their places in the public world.  This is what Jimmy Carter did after loosing to Ronald Reagan.

3) Just move on the the next big thing and hope that everyone forgets about their strident whining about global warming.  Liberals and others of their ilk have been doing this for as long as I can remember.

Answer 13

In my opinion, we should let our children deal with the problems because every generation has some sort of c**p to put up with.  Because if it isnt "global warming" threatening them, it will just be something else.  So why destroy our quality of life?

And im convinced our efforts will be in vain anyways.  If america stops using fossil fuels, it wont stop the developing nations, and we cant deny their right to use them for their advancement like we did.  So either way,  Nothing will ever fix your percieved problem, if you use your logic.  

Now with my logic, this pattern will be over with soon, and it will not continue on a linear path.  Because in reality, nature doesnt work like that.  When things happen in the past, they tend to happen again in the future.  All of your charts, bob, show that a large spike up in temps results in an equal spike down.  This is explained by the many feedback effects on earth.

And I bet if one were to do some research, you would find that the funding for all of those organizations/acadamies you list has skyrocketed since the beginning of the global warming scares.  Without it, where would they be getting their funding from?

Im with dr jello on this one too, what are you trying to achieve on this site?  I bet the people on yahoo answers represents less than .1% of the population of america.  If you really wanted to get some type of message out, you wouldnt waste your time and electricity here.

Im against pollution.  Direct pollution that is.  I cant be responsible for the gas my car emits, but you dont see me throwing trash in a river, or burning garbage/letting chemicals leach into my soil.

Answer 14

I don't understand your position Bob.  Do you really believe that you have to accept global warming before you can start to correct the problem?

Is global warming like alcoholism?  Is there is 12 step program you need to follow?

It shouldn't matter if global warming is man made or not.  It should be everyone's goal to reduce all pollution as much as possible, including ghg's.

Corporations are already doing this on their own.  There's profit in being green, as this is what the market demands.

Why are believers so obsessed with making others believers?  Is it because this is the only way to justify more gvmt intrusion into other people's lives?  Do you believe that people have too much freedom?

The environment is going to be fine.  I'm more concerned that people like you will take away our children's freedoms, and that would be shameful.

Answer 15

I would be tempted to place a large bet on AGW theory being correct.  The only problem would be that bookies are very astute people and I suspect the odds I would get would be very poor.  I suspect also that a lot of deniers would suddenly become more rigorous in their assessment if they were forced to lay a large amount of money one way or the other.  It is amazing how the prospect of wasting money sharpens the critical thought processes.

Answer 16

blah blah blah blah are u 4 real! all that for a bet ,.? kidding arnt you. and you are a tc. spare me !

Answer 17

Let's see which side has credibility regarding one paper, which the chief scientist of the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Science Program released last Summer:

Skeptics' representation:

http://www.junkscience.com/nov07.html

Says astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing a new study: “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz: “Anthropogenic [man-made] global warming bites the dust.” Another scientist said the study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the United Nations and former Vice President Al Gore.

(So to respond to a climate scientist they offer a guy who looks through telescopes and "another scientist".)

Dr. Schartz's actual conclusion after his paper:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSu...

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

Skeptics' representation:

“Effectively, this [new study] means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of [about] 1 kelvin by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee in August.  Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore , was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

(So now the astronomer is offered as an economist?)

Dr. Schwartz's take on the economic implications:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost...

Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars." He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against n**i Germany and Japan.

"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

Time and again the propaganda artists misrepresent the science and the opinions of scientists and offer each wacky calim of their as "proof" that global warming doesn't exist... no, it does exist, but it's not man-made... no, that it exists and is man-made, but won't be all that bad... no, that that it exists and is man-made, is bad, but will cost too much to address (and we can't possible be bothered with being responsible for our actions if it costs something).  Their stories change literally from day to day.

I want to be our future on the skeptics, but even the scientists offered by the skeptics as their best evidence say that's a poor bet.

Answer 18

This issue has been too politicized to the point that it has become a religion.  It becomes a matter of if you don't believe in global warming you are a greedy conservative puppy hater and if you do you are a birkenstock wearing tree hugger liberal.  

Is anyone else tired of this?

Well I don't fall exactly into the categories above.  I am a Prius driving solar powered, Seventh Generation product loving maniac who is tired of listening to the global warming doctrine!

Does anyone actually look at the data before they spout that the earth is heating up and we are responsible?  This is starting to sound again like religious doctrine, when people were labeled as heretics for saying the earth was round or that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa.  

The earth has been heating and cooling on its own well before we arrived.  The earth temperature has been much hotter than it is now on average in times when we were not even around.  Global Warming.....it is all in how you want to look at it.  Approximately 17-18,000 years ago the last majore ice age occurred and we have been in a process of warming since then or also called and interglacial period.

During this time the temperature is constantly in flux going in cycles of hot and cold as well as periods where C02 built up in the atmosphere in high quantities without our help.  

I believe that we are polluting our air and our water and have put hazardous chemicals in ourselves and in our environment and that something needs to be done.  I do not believe that we are causing global warming.  This issue is clouding our judgement and isn't helping us prepare for a world either warmer or colder.  In reality I think that we would survive much longer in a warmer environment rather than a cooler one.

If we were about ready to step into a major cooling phase we would be hard pressed to be able to grow enough food to sustain the population of the planet.  Does anyone remember the French Revolution and the "Little Ice Age".  We are clouding the issues and are not preparing ways to survive in major deserts or in a shorter growing season, both of which happen in during earth's cooling periods.

For many of you, I am probably considered crazy, but I like to look at the data that comes out and ask questions.  When statements come out like "This is the 5th warmest year this century" and it is 2006 doesn't that mean it is also one of the coldest years this century?  Does anyone notice that global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have been going down since then.  Do you know where some of the temperature gauges are placed?  Airports, and some right outside on sun heated pavement slab?  Does anyone pay attention?  Every time something comes out about all the freak snow storms in the middle east they can call it anomalous and say that it is all part of global warming or now they term it "Climate Change" as they need to get back on the bandwagon to keep the money flowing in.

Should we stop fighting about what temperature it is going to be tomorrow and start researching ways to survive, whichever way the temperature ends up.  Personally, I think it is going to be a roller coaster and I am excited to see how the politicians will spin it the next time they find something new to predict doomsday.  I am curious when they are all going to switch sides and predict the next ice age as they did in the 1970's.  

Please, do some research, look at the data and don't listen to me or anyone else like a lemming.

Answer 19

I'm either going to bet on Seabiscuit, Secretariat, or Soon To Be Glue.  Not sure which yet!

Oh, you're talking about figurative horses.  Well seeing as how Lindzen - probably the most intelligent skeptic - won't bet against warming unless he's given 50:1 odds, I'm thinking that's not a smart bet.

Considering that the vast majority of scientific experts are saying that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 80% by 2050 in order to avoid the worst consequences, and a smart person always prepares for the worst case scenario, I'll be placing my bet on Consensus.

Answer 20

Man did not kill off the dinosaurs and man is not going to kill off future kids, but mother Nature might kill off everyone again like the great flood or Mega volcano,or earth quakes,,or a falling star hits earth, but don`t blame man for what Mother Nature is doing now or in the future. If you need to blame someone, blame the scientist who invented all the good stuff you use

Answer 21

Unfortunately way to many people think it is chic to say that it is not really happening.  It is mostly from the right wing.  These people are the ones that for generations have used the planet as their own trash can with no regard for anyone other than themselves and their pocketbook.

Answer 22

Even if I accept your premise that it is happening the next question is why. Then the next question is "Is it good or bad". Then the next question is can we do anything about it/how much does it cost to do something about it.

If its happening, we know why, know the effects and decide they are bad, and decide the cost of avoiding the effects is worth it then I would support the cause.

Not sure we have answered all the questions yet.

Answer 23

I don't think betting against the scientist would be wise.  It is far safer for Americans to take steps to curb global warming by conservation, development of new technologies to produce and conserve energy, and use policies and incentives to encourage ecosystem health than to keep relying on foreign fuel sources, encouraging the use of fossil fuels, and gutting environmental protection.

Which path is the best for America in the long run?  Which Americans are the true patriots?  Those who obstruct progress or those who embrace it?  Embrace science.  It will make American and the world better.

I have read the IPCC reports (starting in 1989 with the draft of the science behind global warming - Working Group I).  The IPCC reports show that the potential impacts of AGW will cost our children (and us in our old age) far more to cope than it would to take modest steps now.  Remember, humans are the least susceptible species to change on the planet, but many of the ecosystems we depend on are susceptible.  If the ecosystems change rapidly, the systems we rely on to provide our food, water, shelter can be greatly affected.  Everything gets more difficult and more expensive.  Plants and animals may die (indication of a sick ecosystem), but human populations will survive if they have the cash.  It is not the next great mass extinction that will wipe out the human race, but the natural system will take time to come back into equilibrium.  It will take a lot of cash and brainpower to keep adverse effects at bay and the world will become unstable.  We are currently afraid of religious extremist with nuclear weapons.  What about people facing food and water shortages?  What would they do to survive?

Don't put your head in the sand and deny the problem.  Don't take a long-shoot bet.  Meet the challenges like a true American.

Answer 24

Less talk and a lot more action....walk the walk...it all starts with YOU...