Human being are the stupidest living creatures on the planet. Global warming - WHY?

Question

This planet could have been the perfect Utopia. How and why would any sane living breathing human oppose mandates that would take steps to eliminate global warming. And, if you use the argument that it doesn't exist... Why would you be willing to take that sort of a chance? IF you vote YES to fight global warming and it doensn't exist then you get a cleaner greener earth. Isn't that important to you? Clean water, and Air for you and future generations? Money is a man-made creation. Not everything is about Money!

Answer 1

The planet will be fine, it's been here long before man and will be here long after, I'm not so sure about you, you need to calm down.

Answer 2

How and why would any sane living breathing human oppose mandates that would take steps to eliminate global warming? Well, because the "steps" won't change much and the tradeoff's not worth it.

Look. Nothing comes without a price. Good intentions mean squat; it's the actual results that matter. Kyoto wouldn't change a thing; even its promoters acknowledge that the same levels of emissions would eventually occur, it would just take a few years more. The kind of "steps" that would reduce emissions substantively would basically shut down the global economy. That means war, starvation, violence, anarchy, because without industrialization, the planet can't produce and distribute enough food for all of us.

So no, it's not all "about money." It's about keeping civilization alive, rather than throwing a voluntary monkey wrench into it and killing millions if not billions of people just to scratch some politically correct itch.

Answer 3

"The ice age existed. each and every individual has the same opinion on that. The ice age ended. no one has requested the way it ended... if only faster or later POOF each and everything became warmth? Or, did a gentle warming reason the ice age to end? human beings ought to no longer have led to the accurate of the ice age." yet all of us understand what did, Keith P is going over what occurred the way a skeptic may (an genuinely skeptic, no longer a claimed skeptic that purely denies the reality of international warming). in case you probably did not understand that the mandatory reason is that all of us understand even as each and each and every of the organic cycles ensue and it in order that occurs that we're not in a warming cycle (and there hasn't been any correlation with photo voltaic interest for a lengthy time period both) "What actual info is there that human beings are causing international warming? Freon is heavier than air, so it sinks and under no circumstances reaches the ozone." apart from there only be a tangential relation between the hollow contained in the ozone layer and international warming the CFCs do very a lot attain the stratosphere because the stratosphere is in the heterosphere the position the atmospheric gases are properly mixed by technique of atmospheric turbulence (and it is adequate to get issues a procedures heavier than CFCs as a lot because the turbopause). yet imagine what you're putting forward, CFCs are heavier then air, so is carbon dioxide so that you would anticipate CO2 to sink and sort a layer of CO2 on the floor upon it truly is the layer of molecular oxygen and then the layer of nitrogen and then the layer of atomic oxygen. it truly is purely no longer how the ambience is lower than one hundred km.

Answer 4

Though global warming has been an idea since the 1880's, it really had no credibility at all until 1979. Here's a bit of history for you:

In 1974 The National Union of Mineworkers took well deserved credit for ousting a great number of politicians in the UK. In 1979, the political party of these politicians backed a prime minister candidate by the name of Margaret Thatcher who brought global warming to the forefront of the campaign and later, international politics. If global warming was a real concern then suddenly... nuclear power, which had been passed over as a frightening source of energy, started looking like a better and better idea. So much in fact that the people went ahead and supported nuclear power stations and want to guess what happened to the power of the Coal Miners Union?

Overseas politicians began to take notice of Mrs Thatcher's campaign if only to try to stop her disrupting summit meetings. They brought the matter to the attention of their civil servants for assessment, and they reported that - although scientifically dubious - 'global warming' could be economically important. The USA is the world's most powerful economy and is the most intensive energy user. If all countries adopted 'carbon taxes', or other universal proportionate reductions in industrial activity, each non-US industrialised country would gain economic benefit over the United States. So, many politicians from many countries joined with Mrs Thatcher in expressing concern at global warming and a political bandwagon began to roll. Mrs Thatcher had raised an international policy issue and thus become an influential international politician.

But let's get beyond this for a moment. Surely you are aware that seat belt laws are relatively new. A few states started passing them and some refused. Eventually the federal government started issuing threats - pass a seat belt law or you'll get no federal highway funds. So the states went to the voters... and the voters, in most cases, said no anyway. So the states started threatening the voters (note the bullying tactics - first the feds to the states - then the states to the people) if we lose federal funding, the states said, we will have to raise taxes to make up for it - tell you what, we won't let them pull you over for not wearing a seat belt unless you are doing something else wrong too. So we effentually said, "Gosh. (Just like that too - gosh) We don't want to pay extra taxes... and they can't pull us over just for that... I guess we better vote for it." Can you see how that might have happened? Want to guess who the number one scientic grant writer is? Government. If it suits a country to have 100 new scientists say global warming is imminent (so they can capitalize on the economic benefits) they simply say, "How bad do you want this grant money? Besides, if it doesn't exist you'll get a cleaner greeener earth anyway so whats the problem?"

Answer 5

Just a few years ago,the big thing was the hole in the sky that would let the suns rays and kill us all,just before that,a giant asteroid was going to kill every living thing in this world,you now have some say the world will go into an ice age,others that earth will become so hot that it will melt the ice caps and we will drown or that earth will become like Venus and developed a greenhouse effect,what every scientist don't want to admit so not to offend anyone is that the real danger lies on this world becoming overpopulated and not enough food for everyone,Africa already knows what famine is doing to their people and does nothing to stop it,China went thru the same problem and they did encouraged birth control,This nation do not want to admit overpopulation is a problem of which all the rest of the problems including global warming originate.

Answer 6

You are an idiot.

This planet has never been a utipia, and people like you who bury your head in the sand and pretend like the world would be perfect if..... are the absolute biggest cause of most of the problems.

You ever hear of the law of unintended consequences?
Have you ever heard of climate cycles?
Have you ever heard of Global Cooling?
Have you ever had a thought in your head that was not put there by someone else?

The law of supply and demand is not about money. It is a universal truth and EVERY society that has ignored it has perishe eventually, and I am not just talking about human societies.

I am all for cleaner air and water, but not as a reaction to something that might actually benefit this planet.

For instance, one side effect of global warming has been predicted to be 30% more land available for agriculture. We could feed the hungry and all that other crap I am sure you care but not think about.

Answer 7

Wow, you not only hate several groups of people, you hate the entire human race! You know, you are also one of the "stupidest living creatures...".

Global warming is a fact. What is up for debate is what can and should be done about it. I could get into the debate that the Earth will slowly warm up and discuss the return of Christ (God said the Earth would not be destroyed by flood again...) but considering your other questions, it is very likely that it would be a waste of time.

(Everyone answering, if you haven't already - check out the history of this guy's questions and see what we are dealing with here.)

Answer 8

Let me see... Where I am sitting now was once under at least a mile thick sheet of ice, not once, not twice, but possibly 4 or 5 times. Now, what caused the Earth to COOL that much and then warm up again to get rid of all that ICE? "Fight" global warming? Just how are any of the things suggested going to stop it? When global warming stops global cooling begins. So, you want to hasten the return of the ice?

Answer 9

Okay, as far as global warming goes, it has been happening for millions of years. It has been happening for longer than man has existed. It is a natural part of the ecosystem. To truly believe that our tiny presence can actually have some effect on the ecology of an entire planet is more than conceit---it's Hubris. The hole in the ozone layer is there to release toxins, not to melt ice caps. It adjusts to the size needed at the time. Cows produce hundreds of times more toxic fumes (methane) than people. When Vesuvius erupted the hole opened to many times its size to prevent atmospheric poison, and shrank again.

People need to start listening to scientists instead of movie stars. Global Warming as portrayed by the media is a myth, a scam worthy of the greatest of grifters.

Answer 10

You really need to look at this from everyone else's point of view.

If you have the choice of doing something that pays the bills and allows your family to eat another day, and NOT doing that thing and NOT gettign paid.... what would you do.

And keep in mind that the something would be to do something that polutes. And not doing it MIGHT mean that you are not poluting.

Keep in mind also that for the longest time we didn't see polution unless it was right in our front yards or streets. It might take many lifetimes of world wide polution to affect global change. What poor workers in the past could afford to worry about the climate 100+ years in the future when they had to worry about food on the table tonight?

Answer 11

For those who claim that the earth has been warmed up naturally.. you guys are dead wrong and lack of knowledge about climate and history.
Have you hear about Reports, case studies, research and satellite. Do you believe in science or your own ideology???
Most climate scientists are convinced they are right to warn us the prospect ahead is alarming unless we act soon. They accept there are uncertainties but say human activities are having a clear effect on natural climate change, and that the Earth could warm dangerously.
Their critics say the evidence so far is not conclusive, and think the human impact is so small as to be negligible. But recent findings suggest there are real causes for concern at the speed with which the Earth is now heating up.
Before the start of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 270-280ppm. It reached 360ppm in the 1990s and recently climbed to a high of 379ppm. The year-on-year average rise is currently 2ppm.
There is concern that Greenland's ice sheet could disappear within the next 1,000 years if global warming continues at its present rate. Studies forecast an 8C increase in Greenland's temperature by 2350, and researchers believe that if the ice cap melts, global average sea level will rise by about 7m (23ft).
The new data shows that on 19 September, the area covered by ice fell to 5.35 million sq km (2.01 million sq miles), the lowest recorded since 1978, when satellite records became available; it is now 20% less than the 1978-2000 average.

*ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT - SEPTEMBER TREND, 1978-2005

The straight line tracks a more than 8% decline per decade
The current rate of shrinkage they calculate at 8% per decade; at this rate there may be no ice at all during the summer of 2060. An NSIDC analysis of historical records also suggests that ice cover is less this year than during the low periods of the 1930s and 40s.Professor Morris is involved in a new European satellite, Cryosat, which should be able to give definitive measurements of ice thickness as well as extent; its launch is scheduled for 8 October. But she also believes that the NSIDC data suggests an impact from the human-enhanced greenhouse effect.

Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, "It's impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic." We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 - largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes. Last year we had record temperatures in many cities. This year 200 cities in the Western United States broke all-time records. Reno, 39 days consecutively above 100 degrees.