Who is the biggest “alarmist”?

Question

Person A who says that global warming could melt the polar ice caps and raise sea levels; or

Person B who says that reducing mankind’s dependence on fossil fuels would be too costly and could lead to a worldwide depression?

Answer 1

Person 'A'.

Person 'B' doesn't exist.  Even oil corporations are searching for alternitive fuel sources as they change into energy corporations.

Answer 2

A says could B says would. so i think Bs statement is stronger and more alarmist.

Answer 3

Both of them.

Answer 4

There's no question about it.  

Person A has 1000's of scientists who've studied this issue aggressively for 30 years (and casually for 70+ years before that) and generated a mountain of evidence (the melting ice caps and rising sea levels are observable phenomena, not simply "guesses" from computer models).  There is +90% confidence among the worlds most respected climate scientists that human activities are the dominant factor causing this.

Person B has a handful of economist (how reliable are their computer models?) and the typical blow-hards on talk-radio who say it would be too costly.  Whereas, there are numerous economist who say just the opposite (i.e. not addressing global warming NOW will be far more costly to the worlds economy).  

Nicholas Stern, the head of Britain's Government Economic Service (former World Bank's chief economist), isn't exactly a raving liberal, but is highly regarded by economists around the world.  The report Blair commissioned him to do in 2006, found that addressing global warming now would cost about 1% of the worlds GDP.  And failure to curb the impact of climate change could damage the global economy costing 5 to 20 percent of the worlds GDP.

So person B is clearly the alarmist and for no good reason (how much hard evidence or proof is there that addressing global warming would produce more economic hardship than not addressing it?).  Sadly, most of those person B types are just as uninformed about economics as they are about physical science.

Answer 5

Person A.  There is no scientific evidence to support the theory that sea levels will rise 20 Feet.

The notion that reducing fossil fuels is costly is supported by many experts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy...

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl...

http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Defau...

Answer 6

Person A is claiming as fact something that can't be proven.

  I have never heard the argument attributed to Person B.  Alternative energy sources (except nuclear) are more expensive that fossil fuels.  When alternative energies are competitive with oil costs, then we will switch.  The market will decide, not a bunch of special interests groups with hidden agendas.

Answer 7

Well Person A is not really accurate because the ice caps won't raise sea levels, melting land ice will.  Despite this error, the statement is essentially correct.  We know global warming is causing glaciers and ice sheets to melt and raise sea levels.

Person B is both wrong and alarmist in suggesting that moving away from fossil fuels could lead to a worldwide depression.  If anything, *not* moving away from fossil fuels could lead to a depression because our oil supply is eventually going to dwindle.  We're going to have to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels sooner or later, and the sooner we do it the easier the transition will be, and the longer our oil supplies will last.

Answer 8

"a·larm·ist (-lärmst)

n.

A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alarmis...

That would be person A.  Person B simply shows you the bill.

Answer 9

I'd say person A. Person B's argument is based on tremendously more reliable data. At the same time, we should definitely pursue renewable energy sources for two very important reasons. Most important, fossil fuels are expendable. Also, we are forced to depend heavily on the people that hate us for our most important commodity.

Answer 10

Biggest Alarmist?

person B

These are the Real Effects of Man Made Global Warming:

In about 9 months. The ice caps will all melt and everyone living below 700 feet will drown. Birds will fall out of the sky on fire. Nuclear missiles will spontaneously explode in there silos. France will invade Germany and win. Cockroaches will grow to the size of hogs. Dogs will begin breeding with cats, producing a vampire like off spring call a dat.

Comets a light year away lurking in the Oort cloud will suddenly start on a collision coarse with the earth. About 10 days after that, the world wide temp will drop to -65 and people living New York city will be eaten by wolves that escaped from the Bronx Zoo. The top rated TV show will be Survivor Idle, where contestants sing for a bag of Bar-B-Qued pork rinds. Afterwords, civilization will be set back many years and if you survive, cell phones will revert back to the size they were in 1989 and you will only be able to make phone calls on them.

Answer 11

Benjamin, I have not heard one resonable skeptic that did not support switching to nuclear, anything else is just a pipe dream.

Answer 12

B.

Nothing could be as costly as continuing with oil.

Estimates of the hidden costs of oil are as high as $800 billion annually.   That would be like adding over $8 to the price of a gallon of gasoline.

See sources:

Nukes are not as good an idea as solar.  Nukes are also subsidised and the liability of any accident has been passed on to the citizens. So the corporations would get off scott free.

It involves mining a dangerous substance and transporting it.  Then it involves transporting the radioactive waste.  Dismantling a used nuclear plant is very costly.

We could have almost an entirely solar electric grid by the end of the century, at a cost in public money about 1/40 of the hidden costs of oil, and about 1/4  of just the subsidies that oil companies get in tax dollars.  About half of the hidden costs are paid for in tax dollars, so the public money for this solar plan would be about 1/20 of that.

This article from Scientific America show how.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

Here's what solar can do. From one of the companies already doing this in California.

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output.  All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

And no fuel ever.  100% clean energy, which will make it possible to have all electric cars .

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

This website has several articles about what solar thermal companies are already doing.  Easy to find, just scroll down the main page.