O.k I have seen a great many threads discussing both sides of global warming. The thing that I have a hard time wrapping my head around is if there
is a debate who's side has inherently better outcome? Here is my point and I will try to put my views aside in order to keep it open to both.
There is such thing as global warming.
It is effecting the environment.
Fossil fuel emissions are causing, if not causing alot of it.
We need to find alternative fuels.
There is no such thing as global warming.
It's just a natural cycle.
It is only used by a particular political party for manipulation
It's causing gas to be more expensive
Now my question is this. What are the consequences of each side being wrong? I would like to use a common argument of Christians and atheists for an
example. Christians say "well if you are right and there is no god, we are both in the same boat anyway but If I am right and you are wrong you are
screwed". Not necessarily in those exact words but that is what it boils down to.
So taking from that ever common argument I ask this question If side A is right and side B is wrong what are the repercussions. If side B is right
and A is wrong what are the repercussions. It seems to me we would want to take the side A stand because even if we do not fully understand if global
warming is a fact or not, or better stated "true" what would be the negative outcome? We do know that vehicles emit alot of other things other than
CO2, some of them are not good at all, and contribute to acid rain among other things. Take leaded gas for example at the time everyone thought it
was fine, there were a couple of whisle blowers who said this stuff is not good. I imagine there were people who said well it's going to cost more
to change it, you can't prove that its "not good", I don't want to have to have engine work done to run unleaded, and the list goes on. Looking
back we now know leaded gas was bad, and I am aware that some people still use it in vintage cars which is O.K. due to the % of actual vehicles on the
In the same token the migration from fossil fuels brings up a lot of the same arguments. I know that we still have a lot of oil reserves and oil
fields left (in the case of the U.S.) but I can assure you that they are sitting on those as we know that there is not an unlimited supply and should
it run out we have to have a fall back. But who we buy most of our oil from at the time puts us in bed with people we shouldn't be and translates to
alot of problems.
I for one would like to see as many alternative fuels as possible as this makes for a competitive environment.
My stance is that we should treat side A of this argument as true. I feel it's much better than getting down the road and saying "i'll be damned
they were right too late now" or even "well, it was just natural cycles but we still got the benefits of believing it was true". I think the
benefits of side A are better in general even if side A is not fact, than side B if it's true. I will say just from observation that the people who
doubt global warming seem to have a high percentage of right leaning folks. In the same token the people who support it tend to lean left. I would
hate to think that someone would stand behind something that could have the potential impacts to do so much harm only for the support of their party
and proving the other wrong or liars. Unfortunately thats the way I see a lot of the discussions go around here.
My grandfather always said
"consequences determine the coarse of action" I have never seen a better example of this statment.
Whats your thoughts?
[edit on 22-2-2007 by shizzle5150]
[edit on 22-2-2007 by shizzle5150]