What is the current debate over Global Warming?

Question

Why should we care about Global Warming?
What is the current state of debate over Global Warming?
What are the current public policies designed to affect the issue and what are the pro and cons about that policies.?
What changes or new policies could be implemented in the future?

Answer 1

The debate:

Is it real

Is it a problem

Is it too hot outside to wear jeans?

Answer 2

That's 6 questions. Anyway, whether or not the Earth is warming is not debated by anyone in the qualified scientific community.

To what degree (no pun intended) is this warming taking place? What's causing it? Those are the 2 questions we need to address before worrying about pros and cons of public policy in relation to global warming.

Most of those in the qualified and accredited scientific community have reasoned that current global warming is indeed caused by man. Some fringe neocons insist this is the result of a massive conspiracy spearheaded by communists in an effort to destroy the free world. They're obviously not educated enough or sane enough to evaluate the issue. So now that we've got them out of the way:

I think the biggest and most convoluted aspect of the debate is about the overall long term effects. Will it ultimately destroy civilization as we know it? Will it only have minor, easily negotiated long term effects? Will it split the difference between the 2?

The internet is littered with stats, new data, old data, qualified opinions, and charlatan evaluations that can assist anyone in believing whatever the hell they want about the issue. This is the most unfortunate part of the debate. It seems many on both sides of the issue have already made up their minds and refuse to be confused with the facts.

Until we can all look at the situation with clear heads and open minds, we'd better damn well keep our fingers crossed.

Answer 3

People now refer to Climate Change rather than Global Warming. Unfortunately the climate debate has become extremely politicised. Conservatives, particularly those with an interest in the fossil fuel industry, often scoff at the debate as a left wing conspiracy. The left on the other hand, are genuinely guilty of trying to hijack peoples' fear of climate change to initiate a social agenda. Global warming alarmists want to see a world where industry is heavily taxed, where we all ride bicycles and any sort of development that requires trees to be cleared is banned. This has as much to do with their social and economic view of the world as it does a concern for the climate. The facts of the climate debate are; (1) There is good, though not irrefutable, evidence that the Earth has warmed over the last few decades. This warming has not been evenly distubted across the globe and hasn't followed a steady pattern. One puzzling aspect of the warming is that it has mainly been due to an increase in night time temperatures, something that is not yet fully understood. This warming has occurred at the same time that the levels of carbon dioxide have also increased. This lends strong circumstantial evidence that we are seeing a result of "the greenhouse affect". This theory states that CO2 is more efficient at trapping heat from the sun than other gases and will cause the atmosphere to warm up. Most scientists believe that the greenhouse affect is a definite possiblility, but most will also point out that there is no way we can ever tell if the warming we seem to be experiencing now is a result of CO2 levels or some other cause. The earth's atmosphere has been much warmer in the past than it is today. We do not fully understand what causes these fluctuations. Also some astronomers have claimed that the ice caps on Mars are also shrinking. This would seem to indicate that the warming might be due to increased solar activity. In addition other climatic and ecological changes seem to be ignored in the climate debate. For instance, evaporation rates have declined markedly in the last few decades. This is much easier to measure and more definite than global warming. A probable cause is "global dimming", the pollution of the atmosphere by particulate matter, especially contrails from jet aircraft. An increased number of scientists are concluding that this could be a bigger contributor to climate change than CO2 levels. Another change that has occurred in recent decades is that the tropical grasslands of the world are turning into forests. Woody vegetation is invading tropical grasslands in Africa, Australia and N a S America, one of the biggest ecological changes we have seen have in history. It receives 0 publicity. The point I would make is, even if the greenhouse affect turns out to be a non-issue, it would still be prudent to reduce air pollution, to conserve forests and to seek a replacement for non-renewable fossil fuels. There are good reasons to do all this apart from the greenhouse affect.

Answer 4

This might aid: You are not able to debate it, it's merely clinical. Unless all the individuals doing the controversy have a deep clinical heritage you and every person within the debate are not able to potentially comprehend all that's worried. You might debate the media hype the for and towards within the public area. You might placed ahead a debate that during one hundred years we've long gone from horse and cart to flying in jets and vehicles and house exploration, we've cellphone telephones, microwave technological know-how, scientific technological know-how on and on. So we've placed believe in our wellness, security and present day all within the fingers of our Scientists - but now whilst they're telling us there's a crisis we're all announcing 'nup' that could not be viable. The present day day Scientists are pulling their hair out considering that public and media debate aren't clinical, we're simply watching external our possess door announcing 'it isn't sizzling right here at present' they do not know what they're speaking approximately. I recognise that if I ever get melanoma or a few sickness, I would possibly not be going to the media or a public opinion to get dealt with, I can be placing my existence within the fingers of clinical study. That is what we ought to do to aid heal the planet. Not carrying on with to force our lazy arses round in oil guzzling vehicles. Basically there are and there can be extra so, too many individuals in this earth for the earth to manage. We are destroying the lungs of the earth - the jungles of the arena are one intent why we're respiring, however that's just one intent. The Carbon we as persons are generating is handiest three% in keeping with 12 months, which does not sound a lot - the crisis is that it's accumulative in order that we're including three% additional each 12 months to the atmosphere - and feature been doing so for a while now, and that additional isn't absorbed by way of the traditional cycle of the planet (pretty much it hangs round and builds up) for this reason we ought to difference our methods. I am no scientist, however those matters I suppose are precise.

Answer 5

It is agreed that it is happening from every leading edge publication of the scientific community. The issue in general is being downplayed and repressed by the current controllers of our mass media--the publickend party--due to the fact that the corporate entities that are creating the problem would have to spend enormous monies to clean up their acts and they lobby and control our representatives to keep the lid on the issue. George W had the leading scholar on the issues formal report doctored by an appointee to make his findings seem non-consequential. Censored it--to say the least!! The truth is that global warming is effecting our climate, ocean currents, air we breathe, and our future existance if nothing is changed. The melting of the polar ice caps is slowing the flow of the natural ocean currents through the addition of fresh water to the salt water. The lack of reflective ice allows for the absorbtion of more sunlight as there is no reflection back into space. The ozone layer is suffering tremendous gaps over our poles--without ozone harmful solar radiation can permeate our atmosphere. In Australia--school children must wear sun hats to and from school by law. Do some research for yourself--Try Al Gore--he's got the facts to back up my thoughts!!

Answer 6

Why should we care? Stronger storms are in the making. Remember Katrina? well with warmer climate we can expect stronger than Katrina stormes.

Current State? The republicans have their thumbs up their asses because they say it isnt happening.

Policies? Not many. America refused to enter the Kyoto agreement because they felt developed countries are not contributing to the global warming. Bullshit, we are comsuming the most oil and burning the most fulls. Yeah, i bet that person in africa is soooooo inconsiderate polluting the world with his yak powered plow :P. The cons of new policies is its not cost effective meaning big oil will be getting one less million dollars a year.

Future? bleak because people dont care. And that is sad.

Here's my opinion. We should address our pollution issue and believe global warming is real. And, hypothetically, if it isnt happening, what have we lost? Boo hoo, cleaner atmosphere, less asthma, hopefully switching to the electric car, meaning we can eliminate our dependance on oil. There are many problems we can face just by believing in the "MYTH" of global warming. Its our planet people, and we have no where else to go.

Answer 7

The debate is over. It is not real.