Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists

[LIGHTNING [NL]]

Suppose global warming was a myth. What would enviromentalists have to gain?

Now suppose it is not a myth. What does the other group have to loose?

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by LIGHTNING [NL]

Suppose global warming was a myth. What would enviromentalists have to gain?

Now suppose it is not a myth. What does the other group have to loose?

Money. Imagine the enormous amount of money that alternative fuel companies stand to gain from the fall of oil. There are HUGE numbers of companies that would stand to profit from it. Besides that if the fuel market is eliminated than oil companies will only be able to sell their product to plastic companies which would DRASTICALLY lower the price for those companies. It also would mean that the entire Middle East would revert to the third world since their main(and in some cases, only) source of revenue would simply cease to be profitable. Not to mention that throughout history, panic mongering can easily gain someone power. Most democrats probably support more environmentally friendly policies because by doing so they will get elected.

[Admiral Donutz]

I still have to see conclusive evidence that human caused Co2 emmisions have zero effect on global warming and such. Suppose that the influence we have is pretty small, even then it would be worth reducing the negative influence we have. Every little bit counts. Though it's far more realistic that we do have a unneglectable influence on global warming and the green house effect.

So unless there is conclusive evidence that we have absolutly to effect on nature what so ever with our Co2 emmissions it's worth fighting for, even if we all wouldn't be sure we do either... since if we conclusively do happen to infleunce it it might be far too late by then. Better save then sorry.

And this is when I look at the whole global warming pesimisticaly. I actually do believe that we humans are responsible for speeding up the global warming process and that we must do something about it now.

[Deanoz]

How can our opinions about global warming be credible, valid, and applicable to the situation if we don't actually know the facts. It would be very easy to make a determination about what actions to take if we knew whether or not we have a substantial effect on Global Warming, or if it's almost immeasurable and absolutely insignificant in comparison to natural causes.
If we are having a drastic impact on the natural process then who knows what will happen and most likely it will be for the worst. If we aren't having much of an effect, then yeah, we can evaulate the situation then.
Evidence and information is needed more than loose probability and assumptions like thoughts or the arguments back and forth supported by one website or wikipedia research, and other sources are supplying something entirely different. But I do like to go by the philosophy to not gamble more than you can afford.

[Liquid fire]

Originally Posted by Deanoz

How can our opinions about global warming be credible, valid, and applicable to the situation if we don't actually know the facts. It would be very easy to make a determination about what actions to take if we knew whether or not we have a substantial effect on Global Warming, or if it's almost immeasurable and absolutely insignificant in comparison to natural causes.
If we are having a drastic impact on the natural process then who knows what will happen and most likely it will be for the worst. If we aren't having much of an effect, then yeah, we can evaulate the situation then.
Evidence and information is needed more than loose probability and assumptions like thoughts or the arguments back and forth supported by one website or wikipedia research, and other sources are supplying something entirely different. But I do like to go by the philosophy to not gamble more than you can afford.

I can tell that you are a very intelligent person.

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by LIGHTNING [NL]

Suppose global warming was a myth. What would enviromentalists have to gain?

Now suppose it is not a myth. What does the other group have to loose?

Psychological security and a feeling of moral superiority.

Environmentalism exists for the same reason Catholicism and every other religion exists: because every person needs to believe in something.

[Chemix2]

So the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat, and the fact that we're putting 14 gigatons of it into the atmosphere versus the 2 gigatons naturaly produced (7 times more), and cutting down trees preventing it from being recycled in oxygen is just something that we like to beleive in.

[feardamaverickhunters]

sure it sounds like a nice plot to believe in?

[Joe Bonham]

Originally Posted by Chemix2

So the fact that carbon dioxide traps heat, and the fact that we're putting 14 gigatons of it into the atmosphere versus the 2 gigatons naturaly produced (7 times more), and cutting down trees preventing it from being recycled in oxygen is just something that we like to beleive in.

Those things are all true.

However, the belief that this is going to cause a worldwide cataclysm - that is just "something they like to believe in".

[Chemix2]

How is rapidly upsetting the natural balance, not going to cause a worldwide cataclysm. Upsetting nature hasn't proved to be an extremely smart thing in human history.