Question to all climate skeptics

[storealex]

Even though the vast majority of all scientists agree it is real. Even though the leaders of the entire world are meeting as we speak in Copenhagen, to discuss how to solve this problem, let's just for arguments sake pretend that we have no idea whether man made climate change is real or not.

But even if we don't know, why not take action anyway? What is the worst case scenario if we actually do something? Economic stagnation? Look at Europe, several countries have proven that it is indeed possible to have economic growth, while reducing CO2 emmisions at the same time.

Now let's look at the worst case scenario if we don't take action. Can we even imagine what it would be like? Probably not, so let's just talk about a semi-bad scenario. The worlds ice is melting, already happening. This will lead to rising sea levels, threatening several densely populated areas and maybe interfering with the Gulf Stream, which millions depend upon.
Desert spreading. Already happening. Lack of fertile land will cause people to immigrate, political instability and hunger.
Extreme weather. Already happening.

Now, even if we aren't sure about anything, not taking action might make these problems worse. Can we honstly efford not to then? It's like insurrance. Even if we don't know if it's well spend money, we do it anyway, just to be on the safe side.

 

[Camikaze]

[devil's advocate]
If someone says the world is going to end unless we regulate against any new construction or the opening of any new businesses in the country, should be regulate in such a way? I mean, the worst that can happen if this apocalypse doesn't come is a bit of economic stagnation, but if we don't regulate, there is the chance of the world ending. And obviously that will be of far greater impact than economic stagnation. So it would make sense, given the ravings of a few televangelists, to regulate against any new construction work or any new businesses opening, given that the consequences one way are much worse than the consequences the other way.
[/devil's advocate]

 

[Garonius]

Resort to popularity/authority.

No I tend to agree its better to do something than nothing even if there is no AGW.

I don't personally think it matters, making things more efficient, cutting reliance on fossil fuels needs to happen anyway. So the fact that it may also help save lives is obviously a rather sweet cherry on the cake.

 

[amadeus]

Look at Europe, several countries have proven that it is indeed possible to have economic growth, while reducing CO2 emmisions at the same time.

Isn't that because the benchmarks were set just as Western Europe was decommissioning its coal-fired power plants?

 

[Garonius]

Storerelax, there is a world wide recession which means going green is being side lined. The UK was going through a boom all the while it was going green. So I quite agree with that point about it being possible to reduce emissions, not only that but it should save money in the long run by making things more efficient overall and less costly.

 

[Garonius]

Isn't that because the benchmarks were set just as Western Europe was decommissioning its coal-fired power plants?

No. 2133333

 

[Brighteye]

Let's assume that the climate science is very dodgy: that there is a mere 5% chance that they're right that there will be moderate change and the resulting stagnation.
That means that we should put in 1/20 of the possible loss from stagnation into preventing climate change.
Now, climate change is thought to be hundreds of times more dangerous than taking action to prevent and accommodate it.

Add to that the fact that the science is more like 95% certain and we should be putting a lot more of our income into preparations.

The problem is that the market is incapable of long-term planning. It responds to immediate concerns whilst expanding resource consumption. Markets without adequate regulation will give booms and busts, but the possibility of a resource/climate bust is a lot more worrying than a bit of a burst in a derivatives bubble.

The idea that regulating the free market to take into account future impacts is in fact a conspiracy of 'leftists' shows a poor understanding of how markets are already regulated and the attitude that underpins that regulation.

We have regulation about housing safety, because otherwise the market would produce cheap, unsafe housing because cheap is what matters. It's hardly a leftist conspiracy to regulate pollution, including climate-changing gases, along the same lines.

 

[Riffraff]

Isn't that because the benchmarks were set just as Western Europe was decommissioning its coal-fired power plants?

Emissions are still decreasing.

 

[Cutlass]

Worst case scenario of acting, if proves unnecessary: Increased investment in renewable energy and pollution mitigation reduces pollution that we should be doing anyways and leaves everyone better off in the long run.

Worst case scenario of not acting and it does prove necessary: The death and displacement, hunger and suffering, of up to 3 billion people. Property loss on an incalculable scale. The ruining of many cities. Vast economic loss and dislocation.

In other words, even if the science was a hell of a lot more iffy, there is simply no possible justification for not doing something about it.

 

[Kerozine]

By 'skeptics' I think you probably mean the people who acknowledge that climate change is/can indeed be happening, but doubt the severity of it's impact on the Earth mainly due to lack of information/understanding on the topic.

The ones that doubt that it's man-made, and thus doubt that mankind could do something about it are borderline deniers, if not outright, depending on their attitude vis-à-vis.

So, for this discussion to be fruitful, maybe you could cite some on-goings to read up on? Nothing too complicated, a simple news article would suffice.

 

[Lillefix]

I used to be convinced of it, but when the environmetalists began talking about how judgement day is closing in, the entire theory just lost all its credibility in my eyes. When real scientists argue for it, I am inclined to believe though. Problem is that I think many of them are biased. You only hear that EVERYTHING will be worse. Dry places will be dryer, wet places wetter, cold places colder(gulf stream) and so on. And they blame almost every natural disaster that is possible to attribute to global warming, to global warming. It's become a scapegoat of sorts. I haven't heard anything positive about global warming, and I refuse to believe there isn't any(the global warming 12000 years ago worked great for example), therefore I believe many of the global waming people to be biased.

 

[Verbose]

[devil's advocate]
If someone says the world is going to end unless we regulate against any new construction or the opening of any new businesses in the country, should be regulate in such a way? I mean, the worst that can happen if this apocalypse doesn't come is a bit of economic stagnation, but if we don't regulate, there is the chance of the world ending. And obviously that will be of far greater impact than economic stagnation. So it would make sense, given the ravings of a few televangelists, to regulate against any new construction work or any new businesses opening, given that the consequences one way are much worse than the consequences the other way.
[/devil's advocate]

Well, sure. It would seem to boil down to what status we should accord scientists and their results. Same as televangelists or not? According to some we should be preparing for the imminent The Second Coming anyway, and whether we end up cooking the planet, or not, becomes moot.

 

[warpus]

Even though the vast majority of all scientists agree it is real. Even though the leaders of the entire world are meeting as we speak in Copenhagen, to discuss how to solve this problem, let's just for arguments sake pretend that we have no idea whether man made climate change is real or not.

When people say that climate change is man-made, they forget that women drive cars too. Maybe not as well, but they should shoulder some of the blame.

 

[Patroklos]

But even if we don't know, why not take action anyway?

If you are of the position that all the carbon we have been pumping into the atmosphere for the last 100+ years has had no or negligable effect, why on earth would you believe that there is anything we could possibly do to alter it the other way?

If climate change zealots really wanted to get something useful out of deniers they would simple try and dovetail their goals with others. I don't yet see proof in AGW, but I am all about reducing coal and oil energy demands in favor of nuclear/solar/wind/etc. mostly for pollution reasons but also from a national security standpoint. Win win. But this never happens because the AGW crowd isn't in it for the science, they are in it for the politics. You have to support such changes there way or they want nothing to do with you.

 

[civ_king]

I used to be convinced of it, but when the environmetalists began talking about how judgement day is closing in, the entire theory just lost all its credibility in my eyes. When real scientists argue for it, I am inclined to believe though. Problem is that I think many of them are biased. You only hear that EVERYTHING will be worse. Dry places will be dryer, wet places wetter, cold places colder(gulf stream) and so on. And they blame almost every natural disaster that is possible to attribute to global warming, to global warming. It's become a scapegoat of sorts. I haven't heard anything positive about global warming, and I refuse to believe there isn't any(the global warming 12000 years ago worked great for example), therefore I believe many of the global waming people to be biased.

the judgment day type stuff only happens if we continue at the pace we are going at for 100 years, then fun really starts

 

[Patroklos]

Tell that to Al Gore. Did you know the Artic has been without ice since 2003?

 

[Kerozine]

If you are of the position that all the carbon we have been pumping into the atmosphere for the last 100+ years has had no or negligable effect, why on earth would you believe that there is anything we could possibly do to alter it the other way?

If climate change zealots really wanted to get something useful out of deniers they would simple try and dovetail their goals with others. I don't yet see proof in AGW, but I am all about reducing coal and oil energy demands in favor of nuclear/solar/wind/etc. mostly for pollution reasons but also from a national security standpoint. Win win. But this never happens because the AGW crowd isn't in it for the science, they are in it for the politics. You have to support such changes there way or they want nothing to do with you.

ACM isn't exactly the hardest thing for one to wrap their head around, if you simply consider the fact that hydrocarbons have long since been sequestered underground, and only recently has man tapped into them as a major energy source.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Tell that to Al Gore. Did you know the Artic has been without ice since 2003?

You know the only people who believe al Gore is the spokesman for the Science behind AGW are deniers and zealots, right? He deserves kudos for bringing the problem to our attention, but I and many with me frown at the way he did it.

@OP: I also find the term Climate Change Sceptic, meaning only those who do not believe in AGW odd. A Sceptic questions and doubts, a Sceptic would not state that AGW is not happening. Many people I hear against AGW do not doubt. They are certain. Certain they are right, that AGW is not happening. Because admitting that there is a chance it is, would mean at least caution. And this is severely lacking in their reasoning.

I believe the term you are looking for is simply Deniers. AGW is denied, not questioned. Questions should lead to greater understanding, and I hardly ever feel this is the case.

 

[Luckymoose]

Climate threat is just the UN's excuse for a villain post-cold war. It's no more harmless than the Soviet missile stockpiles.

 

[trader/warrior]

I just wish there was more focus on other types of pollution and general resource efficiency of the world, that way it would be a hugely beneficial investment in the long term even if climate change is not as big as we think.