Hypothetical: If Global Warming was Proven to be Natural, Would the Eco-minded Fight to NOT stop it?

This is a purely hypothetical question, and I'm not here to argue whether or not Humans are cuasing Global Warming...

...My question is this: If it was proven beyond a doubt that Global Warming is a 100% natural occurrence, and is a completely natural cycle that the Earth goes through from time to time, would those Eco-minded people such as Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc. fight against people who would try to stop Global warming?

After all, if it is proven to be a "natural cycle of Mother Earth", wouldn't it be consistent with there missions to try and make sure the Earth's natural cycles are not messed with?

Again, this is a purely hypothetical question -- a kind of "devils advocate" question that is meant to open up discussion...I'm not arguing for or against the humanity's hand in Global Warming.

[edit on 6/10/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I think it would depend strongly on our capability to withstand such conditions with relatively good chances of survival.

If we did, then sure, i imagine they'd fight.

If not, on the other hand, i think they'd probably do their share of the manual labour in order to get us ready for the inevitable.

I am eco minded for sure so I will answer this pretty great question that you have posed regarding whether people like me, we are not all alike, would fight attempts to alter Earth's natural cycles if it were conclusively proven that the current global warming was not related to human pursuits in regards to human and human related CO2 emmissions.

I would have to start of by explaining that I feel that humans are a part of nature, just as much as we are a part of space. There is no seperation in my mind between the man made world and the natural world. My obligation is to care for my home, my land and my ecosystem so that it harms no one down stream as best I can while at the same time allowing my species to pass it's DNA to the future. My fight is to bring the man made worlds and the natural worlds together in the minds of others. If it is natural we have to acknowledge it as such and continue to work to bring human civilization into balance with the natural world.

Just to elaborate, global warming is one of many reasons to being eco responsible. It had to come to that because humans won't move until it affect them. So things like fish depletion, species extinction, air quality and so on will move people enough to donate and recycle, but not enough to change their fundamental approach to the planet.
In many ways it doesn't really matter if GW is real.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


True, there is much more to being an eco-conscious environmentalist than just stopping the alledged human imapct on Global climates. I personally try to do my part to help the environment, becuase I have a daughter who will spend the rest of her life in the future I help give her.

However, lets sharpen our focus. Say that it was beyond doubt that global warming was a natural thing, and the Bush administration decided to use some hypothetical device that would move global temperatures back to what they were 30+ years ago. Shouldn't the same people who are fighting what they say are the human impacts on global warming also fight to prevent this "unnatural human-driven global cooling"?

What is hypothetical about the question.

It is a fact that all the planets are warming.

The only thing to show that global warming is man made is a chart showing a correlation between the increase of greenhouse gases and the warming trend.

Correlation does not imply causality.
You could as easily say that warming is causing the greenhouse gases.

The CO2 offsets is just a way to milk the gullable for cash. The industrialists want warming. They want the resources under the ice. Humans and their suffering are just in the way. That is the way it is when you are a Military Industrialist.

Even if global warming is due to natural occurances such as solar expansion, or whatever, I think we still have a responsibility to limit the consequences by not making the situation any worse. Green house gasses are a big no-no.

Just my 2 cents.

Originally posted by Cyberbian
What is hypothetical about the question.

It is a fact that all the planets are warming.

I say "Hypothetical" because I don't want this thread to degenerate into an argument about what is the cause of global warming. There are other threads for that.

I want this to be a logical debate; a "thought exercise".

Haven't you ever (say in a debating class in high school or college) needed to debate for the side of an issue that you didn't necessarily personally beleive in? That's what we are doing here.

To me it doesn't matter which side of the Anthropogenic Global Warming fence you fall on to answer this question.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


I think it would be a little hypocritical for an environmentalist who fought against AGW (based on the premise that GW isn't "natural") to suddenly fight to PREVENT a totally natural warming cycle of the Earth from happening.

Hypothetically, if the Earth's warming was a HEALTHY and NATURAL cycle for the Earth -- a cycle that the Earth needs to go through to stay healthy -- then why would an environmentalist want to stop it? Just so humans living in coastal areas don't lose their homes to rising waters? I think humans need to move inland if the rising waters are a natural Earth cycle.

Maybe we should stop this natural GW because it will cause drought and famine. Should we change the Earth's natural cycles just so we humans can keep our high population?

Maybe we should fight against the natural warming cycle to save the Polar Bear and other species threatened by GW. Well, isn't letting "nature taking its course" the more eco-conscious thing to do. Perhaps the Polar Bear dies off, but it its place other species, even new ones, begin to thrive.

Who are we to "play God" with our climate? If GW was ever proven to be totally natural, shouldn't we just let it go? Couldn't stopping this natural cycle possibly do harm to the planet? A very interesting rhetorical question, in my opinion.

[edit on 6/10/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 6/10/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]

I'm not thoroughly convinced it's a 100% natural development. I feel now that the 20th century is over and our main pollution comes from millions of autos and some of the up and coming countries using out dated coal consumption I still feel that Humans have help speed up the effect if in fact it is a natural reoccurring situation.



I'm no big fan of Al Gore but I applaud his release of the inconvenient truth.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yeah -- but FOR THE SAKE OF RHETORIC, just pretend for a minute that it is a natural cycle that the planet goes through...would it be right to try and stop this natural cycle? Wouldn't a true environmentalist be more concerned for the long-term health of the planet than for the stability of a population of 6.5 billion humans.

Maybe the correct asnwer is that it's a "balancing act"...balancing the needs of humans with the possibility of unnaturally altering natural Earth cycles.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


True but the track record is not there imo.

A few decades or so back when Yellowstone national park burned to the ground the Environmentalists crowd were crying fowl When the Forrest dept let it burn!

Even though it was a proven part of natures recycle program of forests even though they knew that culling of the forest was needed, To prevent a fire of almost biblical proportions may and in all likely hood would a cure, they helped prevent it quoting environmental impact studies up the kazoo.

Meanwhile it all could have been prevented by listening to the So Called Experts the fire would have been much less and cost much less

IMHO

"Yeah -- but FOR THE SAKE OF RHETORIC, just pretend for a minute that it is a natural cycle that the planet goes through...would it be right to try and stop this natural cycle? Wouldn't a true environmentalist be more concerned for the long-term health of the planet than for the stability of a population of 6.5 billion humans. "

You won't ever get a sensible answer on the above topic from AGW enthusiasts

AGW is the new religion for those who have dispensed with God and need desperatly to cling to something

When AGW has passed....something else will come along for them to gnash their teeth over

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


There is very little evidence to suggest global warming is a natural process. If it is then why do scientists and mainstream media constantly bombard us with "lets save the earth before it is too late"?

I realise your question was hypothetical but how can we discuss a different theory which has very little credibility? In all sincerity, sir, I believe only the elite industrialists and corporate pawns can possibly tolerate killing millions/billions with gross negligence just so they can save on operating costs and thus increase profits.

Very cool question, thanks for bringing it up.

Also a shout of to stikkinikki for a very nice post.

I am a very GREEN hearted man. I am a very CRUNCHY, tree huggin', dirt worshipin', granola eating, freak.

My opinion would be this...

If Climate Change / Global Warming / etc were proven to be 100% natural and the powers that be devised some sort of mechanism to try to create stasis on the planet to prevent it from happening I would be 100% against it.

You see what I believe is that the Earth is one big system. A system comprised of infinite smaller systems all building on one another in complexity across a range of scales not readily intelligible by the human mind.

My argument against the anti-climate change machine would be identical to my argument against anthropogenic climate change. It is folly for humans to intervene in the natural processes of the planet because we can not assume to comprehend how this machine-Earth operates and we are 100% dependent on it for EVERYTHING!

So the bottom line, as I see it is a echo of Stikkinikki's post. IT is all about realizing our PLACE. It is about being stewards rather than managers of exploiters. It is about being responsible members of this global community that includes every living thing and every living things right to exists. Well maybe it is even more than a right, I think when I really reflect on it I see everything's survival as somehow a necessity.

Edit to add: it is entertaining how people can not let go of their opinions and need to give their talking point rather than just thinking freely and uncommittedly.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Animal]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Animal]

we should be less worried about Global warming and more concerned about the fact that in reducing Global Dimming we are actually disturbing the natural balance of the planet.

In my humble opinion, the views of the public are being swayed by ill informed politicians spouting on about how they will save the world. Not enough Eco-friendlies care to learn that the cause that they are fighting may not actually be the problem.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

There is very little evidence to suggest global warming is a natural process. If it is then why do scientists and mainstream media constantly bombard us with "lets save the earth before it is too late"?

I realise your question was hypothetical but how can we discuss a different theory which has very little credibility? In all sincerity, sir, I believe only the elite industrialists and corporate pawns can possibly tolerate killing millions/billions with gross negligence just so they can save on operating costs and thus increase profits.

It's been a while since I originally posted the OP, but I want to re-visit this...

You sort of touched on my 'Devil's Advocate' argument exactly: If millions of humans decided recently (say the past 5000 years) to build their civilizations and their cities along coastlines, then it is the fault of those humans if the oceans begin to intrude on those cities beacuse of the ice caps melting due to completely natural means such as cyclical global warming. Sure, polar bears may become extinct (and that's truly too bad), but other (and new) species may thrive.

Remember, hypothetically -- if Global Warming IS a truly natural occurance, who are we as humans to interfere with that natural occurance? As ATS member 'animal' stated, we would be very arrogant to even attempt to mess with the Earth's natural cycles (even if we could), and more than likely, we would end up doing more harm than good.

I'm 100% for reducing pollution and greenhouse emmissions -- that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is if we found out that Global Warming is natural, and we had the technology to "cool" the planet to prevent our coastal cities from being flooded and to (for example) save the polar bear, should we do it?

I think that an Eco-minded person should say "no". An Eco-minded person should instead say "if the coastal cities become flooded, then it's the fault of those who built there; if the polar bear is bound to extinction, then it's because of nature" (such as was the extinction of the saber-tooth tiger).

I think the CORRECT eco-friendly course of action to take under those circumstances would be to let the coastal cities flood and the polar bear naturally go extinct.

Try to put aside your personal beliefs to answer this one. If anyone has taken a high-level debating course, you would understand that your personal beliefs really don't apply when you are trying to debate an issue.

...and by the way, the argument about scientists claiming the anthropomorphic cause of global warming can be easily countered by an equal number of scientists who claim otherwise...and the mainstream media just wants to sell their product, so I don't give the media much credence.

[edit on 8/5/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]