3 of 3

No

Write now Article Tools

If the premise assumed in this debate question was true, I would probably write on the "Yes" side. In the highly unlikely event that hard scientific evidence showed that global warming was not being stimulated at an ever-increasing speed by anthropogenic (human-caused) sources, I would imagine that the impetus of the Green movement would indeed slow. The majority of people will only take action against something if they see an immediate or soon-to-occur negative impact on themselves from that issue.

Not too many years ago, the nay-sayers were denying global warming and its resultant climate change altogether. Nowadays, those who still haven't accepted the reality are arguing that it is a natural phenomenon that would occur anyway, regardless of human activities. The mainstay of their argument being that there is no hard scientific evidence that human activities are CAUSING global warming. And, of course, they are right!

The limited hard evidence we are currently capable of amassing, however, strongly indicates that anthropogenic causes are significantly impacting the global temperature, so that it is warming at an unprecedented pace, at a time when it should be cooling if it was following the natural cycle. What the deniers always fail to say, is that there is no hard scientific evidence that anthropogenic causes are NOT significantly affecting the global temperature. Something that is far too typical in our capitalist society.

There was no hard scientific evidence that asbestos dust was a potent carcinogenic (cancer causing substance) when asbestos was being installed in buildings as a fire-retardant throughout the developed world. There was no hard scientific evidence that thalidomide would cause severe birth defects in human babies when it was being given to pregnant women as an antiemetic drug to treat morning sickness and help them sleep. That there was none AT THE TIME, had not the slightest inhibitive influence on those afflicted personally by these substances.

The world's environment is a stunningly complex thing; a system with inputs, processes and outputs numbering in the billions, if not far higher. Scientists investigate by modifying as few elements as possible in a process or system and studying the outcome. But how can they do that for the Earth's climate? There are no laboratory facilities in the world where the global environment can be duplicated and tested. There is no computer system or application that can come anywhere near duplicating

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about If the idea of human-caused global warming were shown to be false, would it impact the green movement??
We want to hear your view. Write now!