What's the big deal about Global Warming?

Question

Why do we have to be so concerned about it?

Answer 1

the rising seas, the dangerous weather and the end of mankind.

Answer 2

There are various reasons to be concerned with Global Warming or Climate Change. Though it has happened in the past, it has never reached the current levels.
One major problem associated with GW is altered weather patterns. Take a look at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. It is predicted that more hurricanes like that could be a result of warmer ocean temperatures. Just imagine 4 or 5 of those a year.
Another concern is how plants and animals will react to climate change. Many species are specially adapted to the historic weather cycles and conditions. They may not be able to adapt to the extremes that are predicted. As an example, look at the bleaching of the world's coral reefs. The increased temperature is killing off thousands of square acres of reefs every year. Also look at Polar Bears that rely on sea ice for hunting and giving birth to their babies. The sea ice above Alaska has shurnk by 40 percent over the last few years, reducing their hunting and birthing grounds.
Finally, take a look at some of the deserts of Africa and the American Southwest. Just imagine somehting like that covering the entire planet. It wouldn't be that great of a place to live.

Answer 3

The effect of global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels such as gas and coal and the clearing of trees. Clearing trees increases carbon dioxide levels and scientists believe carbon dioxide levels will double before 2050 to 750 parts per million.

And no, strictly it shouldn't happen but there are too many pollutants in this world. Some people however believe this is a natural process for us to get crazy weather which will eventually turn back to normal.

In fact, January 2006 was the hottest January on record in Toronto. I however believe this is nothing to freak about and some people *cough* tree-huggers *cough* are too concerned over this issue. One thing is certain however, don't expect too many white Christmases from now on.

Answer 4

Global warming is part of a natural cycle. In the past, the earth has been hotter than it is now. And it has most certainly been colder, during the ice ages for example.

Some western governments have climbed on the band wagon, and are using global warming as an excuse to raise taxes. For example, the UK government recently increase gasoline taxes - to "help save the planet".

There is an excellent discussion on this subject at:
http://www.friendsofscience.org

Answer 5

We don't, but it's a great excuse for the Govt to slap an 'environmental' tax on just about everything.
I've been trying to find out what they spend this tax on, no luck so far, all I can get is the usual BS, its to stop people driving large cars, its to reduce the number of planes flying, all absolute cr*p! And that was never my question in the first place the question is quite simple, what are they doing with the cash???
Th tax wont stop people driving whatever they want to drive, it wont stop people taking a flight, printing 'smoking kills' will not stop people smoking putting extra tax on cigs hasn't stopped them smoking, where has the money gone.
Just a very large scam to get tax from us all.
Remember this environmental thing is a theory, like God the Devil, heaven and hell, theories thats all.
To find all the argments for and against just type enviromental effects, or global warming into your yahoo search engine, you will be amazed. Good luk with that, hope you.ve got plenty spare time on your hands?

Answer 6

i agree with you. why is everybody so worried. We may be speeding the process with all of the oil we consume, and the green house gasses we produce, but this is a natural cycle in the Earth's lifespan. This has happened before, and will happen again. we have had ice ages, periods of extreme heat, and have seen numerous catastrophes in history. It happens due to nature not human error. Just ask the dinosaurs!!! What we should all worry about is how to adapt to it, not stop it, since it is inevitable that it will happen. there are things we can do to slow it down, but it isn't really going to make a difference.

Answer 7

with Iceburgs melting, water levels will rise.

Then you can say goodbye to New orleans, New York city, Miami, Rio de janero and any other big cities on coastlines across the world. But its not just cities, it would be states to (NJ, DE, MD). Obviously no one( not even scientists) can predect how much land would be lost, but I think you get the point.

Answer 8

Many people assume that because something is happening, we must be causing it.

They point to "record" temperatures but it's NOT a big deal when you define the terms. The "record" refers to the measured temperature record, which is only 120 years long. 120 years ago we were emerging from a cool period known as the "Little Ice Age." Preceding the Little Ice Age was the Medieval Warm Period, during which tree lines were higher around the world, there were droughts in what is now the Southwest US (of the kind predicted with another 1-2 degrees C of warming over the next 50 years), the plains buffalo migrated 500 miles northward into grasslands that are now permafrost, the Vikings sailed in and out of inlets and bays in northeastern Canada that are now ice-bound for most of the year, the Vikings farmed Greenland, large parts of Britain became major wine-exporting centers, traders crossed Alpine passes that are now ice-bound, and fig and olive trees grew in Germany.

In short, it is not warmer than it was 1000 years ago, when humans clearly had no effect on global climate. Nor is it warmer than it was 2000 years ago or 5000 years ago, when the Alps were ice-free. And while there weren't mansions on the beach back then, generally speaking the human condition was better during the warm periods than it was during the cold periods.

The case for man-made global warming comprises four points: (1) it's warmer than it was 120 years ago; (2) the Industrial Revolution began 220 years ago; (3) since 1800 the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 30% to 370 parts per million; and (4) one physical property of CO2 is to trap heat.

However, we know that it has been warmer than it is now for several multi-century periods within human history, much less the earth's history, and we know that during those warmer periods within human history, atmospheric CO2 levels were lower than they are today. We do not know what caused most of these warm periods.

Also, while the CO2 increase since 1800 is 30% of the 1800 level, it is only 1/11,000th of the atmosphere. CO2 is one of several gases in the atmosphere, including other gases with much greater heat-trapping qualities, such as water vapor, the level of which is not significantly affected by human activity.

In short, we're jumping to conclusions. No direct, tangible evidence of human causation exists. Seriously - ask yourself why you see this conclusion plastered everywhere along with lots of data with respect to what the temperature has been in the last 100 years and lots of data with respect to what future warming might cause but zero data to support the causal relationship between human-generated CO2 and the present warming? A lot of people, including a lot of scientists, suspect that humans are the cause of 60%-70% of the present warming, but an agreed-upon suspicion is not the same as proof.

You need to then ask yourself, if we are to maintain a free society, what standard of proof do you have to meet before you start doubling the price of electricity and telling everyone else what and how much they are allowed to drive (and make no mistake about it, meeting the Kyoto standards with an increasing population would pretty soon get you to outlawing or taxing people who lived more than a given distance from work - that's the state telling people where to live)?

I consider myself a libertarian. The thought of the government limiting the aggregate amount of production and consumption deeply frightens me - there is not a single positive example of any country trying this.

There needs to be a standard of proof that an otherwise free action causes the harm alleged before the state can curtail that action. I think that standard should involve actual, tangible proof, not merely a widely-held suspicion. Widely-held suspicions change. The scientific community believed 20 years ago that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. Then it didn't. Now it does again. 30 years ago these same scientists told us that our doom would come in the form of a coming Ice Age. And the ACTIVISTS don't exactly have credibility - they still dress up like butterflies and take to the streets to march against free trade, even though the Monsanto / Monarch butterfly urban legend has been laid to rest by both the FDA (under Clinton) and the USDA.

When it comes to state action, "we" means me dictating that you must do what I want or you dictating that I must do what you want. You want to change the world to realize your ideals but the world is made up of 6.5 billion people, each of whom has his own ideal and has made his own half acre suit his ideal. You're not going to change the minds of many of those 6.5 billion people, which means to realize your ideal on a global scale, to "change the world," you have to override those other people's wishes.

It's not the idealists' ends I fear. It's their means.

Answer 9

The reason is namely because of the rising sea levels, altered patterns of agriculture, increased extreme weather events, and the expansion of the range of tropical diseases.

Answer 10

It's an Inconvenient Truth...