Lets say that tomorrow it is completely proven that man’s activity has zero effect on the earths temperature on a global scale and it was presented in a way that you had to accept as true. Would you be disappointed or upset that the global warming theory was false and if so why?
Elaborate please. Do you mean to ask our reactions to the idea that significant global climate change is not happening? I’d be happy.
Or do you mean to ask us how we’d react if it were shown that it was happening, but was not related to human activity? I’d be a bit concerned, since then if we were not causing it, the likelihood of our being able to stop or alter it would be diminished. But I’d still push for study to discover ways that we could minimize the harmful effects of the global climate change.
I love pending natural disasters so I would take it as good news. As long as me, my family, and my descendants are safe, I think it would be great to turn the world into a giant glabal warming disaster area. Perhaps some of us can even profit from it. I get so sick of the human race thinking that it has control over everything. It is narcissicm on a whole species level. The universe, solar system, and earth were formed, humans evolved, and the last ice age came and went without us doing anything. The earth and the universe are also going to end in disaster and there is nothing anyone can do about it. Global Warming is just a very minor preview to that.
Plus, I am from Lousiana and Boston is a little too cold for me so any help would be appreciated.
What **Qadgop **said. If I found out the increasing size of the ozone layer was natural and not caused by human usage of hydrofluorocarbons and was caused by something else unknown, I’d be a little concerned that it’s something we wouldn’t be able to stop eventually but if it’s something known, we at least have a jumping off point to try to figure out how to stop it.
Plus, I’d be a little worried that industry standards would start growing lax at the discovery. “If pollution doesn’t hurt anything, then why not do it?”.
Even if I did accept it as true, I would fight to suppress the fact, because I have previously claimed that global warming is caused by man’s pollution. Therefore, since I Cannot Be (Seen To Be) Wrong, anything that suggests I am wrong must be destroyed, persecuted, exterminated, etc, etc.
I see it panning out like this:
world: Look, all we’re saying is that MAYbe this thing you have accepted as fact is possibly less credible than you once believed.
me: La la la I can’t hear you
world: But don’t you see this is GOOD news?
me: La la la I can’t hear you
etc. This is now the position I hold on an increasing number of issues. I think the point of the game is that eventually, one holds completely wishful beliefs on everything in existence, and if you manage it before you die you achieve Nirvana or something. If you only manage it after you die you achieve Foo Fighters.
Most of human history was during the last Ice Age and it’s only been very recently that the climate’s changed to what we’re used to now. I wouldn’t say that’s a bad thing at all. I love cool weather but I don’t particularly want to live like an Inuit.
Would the OP have anything to do with the paper coming out tomorrow from Harvard, saying that during the Medieval Warm Period (900 AD to 1400 AD approx) global temps were much higher than today, and that we are just returning to another natural warm period after going thru the Little Ice Age (1400 AD - 1900 AD)? Sorry I can’t give a cite but I heard that while driving this morning on the news.
I believe a good number of UN and government agencies and programs would be very displeased, not to mention worried about their immediate future.
Personally, it would bolster my belief that theories are theories: they’re not laws or facts yet. We should treat every theory with scepticism and doubt, willing to update as we find new things, not accept theories as gospel truth, so to speak, as we are often wont to do. But I’m a crackpot so my opinion in this matter doesn’t count.
Basically if it was proven that humans had no effect on global climate. In other words global climate is not a function of human activity. I’m not interested in if it is happening (for the sake of the OP), just taking us out of the picture.
I’m not sure what this means. Global warming is hypothesized to be caused by an increase in greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The ozone layer is believed to be decreasing, not increasing, to the point where holes are now forming over the earth’s poles. These are two distinct phenomena.
Despite being a conservative, I disagree with the right-wing shock jocks who say global warming is a crock. I believe it is real and a concern. However (and not saying anybody her is like this), I believe there are some on the left who would miss that moral high ground.
Once again, I am talking about minorities of stupid people on both sides here. I don’t want this to get political for no reason, and thinking people on both sides of politics are welcoming of the truth.
Right wing dickheads = want global warming to be false
Left Wing dickheads = banking on it being true
I’m no scientist at all, so my opinion isn’t really worth listening to, but I’ve never believed that there’s any Global Warming. Not because I don’t want to admit that we are responsible, but because from what I’ve read the evidence says it’s really only a big ‘maybe’. Only a few years before the Global Warming phenomenon was taken and run with by the Media, everyone was talking about another Ice Age was impending, so obviously the evidence is at the least ambiguous.
Therefore I would feel vindicated if it turned out to be untrue.
I think the OP is trying to do the conservative equivalent of “Would you be happy if Bush were proved wrong?” The difference being of course that Global Warming isn’t exactly something as easy to get rid of (eventually) as Bush.
I’d be surprised of course if humans have zero effect… but if Global Warming were proved to not exist I’d be quite happy about it.
Now the fact that some people are willing to gamble the future of humans on earth just to avoid a few pollution regulations and to help some industry buddies is beyond reasonable and makes Chamberlain seem like a genius in foretelling the future.
I would be worried BECAUSE it would give carte blanche to people to carry on ploughing their way through our fossil fuel reserves, which will run out regardless. It would hamper research into alternatives, which can only be a bad thing.