Does anyone really care about Global Warming and the Environment?

Question

People keep bangning on about it but I don't see anyone making any radical changes.

Answer 1

I like a lot of what "musonic" said about this. Especially about making things well and handing them down. The planned obsolescence is really a huge part of the problem. S/he doesn't say where s/he gets the 57% CO2 emissions from the sea and 38% from respiration. But it doesn't matter. Those numbers are irrelevant because that CO2 came from carbon that's already in the food chain so there was no net atmospheric CO2 gain. The plants take it out of the air. We or animals eat the plants and return it to the air. IT'S ONLY WHEN WE BURN FOSSIL FUEL THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM.

===========================
“CapNemo” likes to go to all the global warming questions and paste in a statement pooh-poohing the threat. His statement is misleading and incorrect.

He says it’s only increased by 1 degree (F) in 125 years. This is a misleading number, because it is a global average: land and sea. We don’t live in the middle of the ocean and that’s not where the polar ice caps are melting. The temperature change over land surfaces has been twice that and most of it in the last 40 years.

He says, “The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero.” If you go to his source, it says, “Temperatures reach a minimum of between -80 °C and -90 °C (-112 °F and -130 °F) in the interior in winter and reach a maximum of between +5 °C and +15 °C (41 °F and 59 °F) near the coast in summer.” OK, now the observation that the caps are melting makes more sense. It melts at the coast, in the summer, DUH! (Note by the way that his average number (-109) is only 3 degrees lower than one of the minimum numbers. I wonder, what kind of math did he learn?)

Then he says, “Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING”. All what hype? I was around then. I don’t remember any hype. And if you go to his source, it says, “This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting … The theory never had strong scientific support”. He tries to mislead us, by implying that a temporary flurry pf press reporting is comparable to what we are seeing now and that some hype without scientific basis is somehow similar to a consensus within the scientific community about global warming.

The truth is that those 2 degrees are HUGE in the scale of average weather change. But the real problem is the speed of change and that it's accelerating. Scientists are predicting a temp 4 to 8 degree (F) increase over the next 75 years. “This may not sound like a great deal, but just a fraction of a degree can have huge implications on the climate, with very noticeable consequences." (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/5_predicting.html ). Yes, scientists predict, that's their job. They've gone to school years more than we have and spent their lives studying this stuff. This representrs humanity's BEST GUESS at where this is all going. Of course, you can believe it snows in hell, or any other stupid thing you want. No one can stop you from believing what you'd rather hear, than what is the most probable outcome.

The link between CO2 and global warming is undisputed at this time. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 50% over the last 115 years (250 to 381 ppm, http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). In the last 30 years, it increased at a rate 30 times faster than at any period during the last 800,000 years. In other words, this change is totally unprecedented. (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). What else is totally unprecedented about the last 115 years? Industrialization and the population explosion. Duh. This is not rocket science; it is simple arithmetic!

"If Bert Drake is right, the good news is that, within the foreseeable future, Maine residents will be able to stop banking their foundations and to store their down parkas and snow blowers in the barn permanently. The bad news is that a lot of those barns will be underwater" (http://awesomenature.tribe.net/thread/fcc70c8b-be7e-489b-85f7-6c6c08031c65 ). Yes, this is opinion. Who is Bert Drake? He's an SERC researcher who's been studying this for 17 years. If we aren't going to believe our scientists, who then shall we believe??? Oh, I know. Let's believe CapNemo!!!

If global warming wasn't a real threat, why have 178 nations ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit CO2 emissions? Why are the US and Australia the only two holdouts among the industrialized nations? (http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm )

CapNemo’s statement reminds me about the frog in the pot on the stove that doesn’t move as the water gradually gets hotter and hotter. From this seemingly insignificant 2 degree change, we’ve already seen enormous consequences. (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Impacts/) How much hotter does it have to get for some people to wake up and face the music? And in the meantime, while you’re pondering all of this, be sure to check the dates on people’s references. Things are changing so rapidly that older information is no longer useful.

Average Northern Hemisphere Temperatures for last 1000 years:
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/Template/0_CO2ScienceB2C/images/subject/other/figures/mannetal_nh1000.jpg

Answer 2

Actually the temperature of the earth has increased less than 7/10 of 1 degree (C) from 1880 to 2005. That is an increase of about 1 degree (F) in 125 years. You may choose to believe that is global warming or you may not. Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/2005cal_fig1.gif There are numerous charts all over the internet showing the same. Some say that 1 degree is enough to impact the global climate, others say it's not. Most proponents of global warming think the earth's temperature has risen much more than that and don't even know that it has only risen by 1 degree. But the charts do not lie as do the proponents on both sides of this issue. The average temperature in Antarctica is 109 degrees below zero. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Climate It seems to me 108 below (one degree warmer) is still pretty cold and not enough to melt anything. But there are those that say it will.

Back in the '70s all the hype was about global COOLING and another ice age was coming. I remember that they blamed pollution for that too. They said that all the pollution was darkening the skies and not as much sun was coming through so the earth was cooling off. It took many years to discover that they were mistaken and it was all just hype. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling So when someone says, "the sky is falling" don't believe everything you hear on either side of the issue. There are Spin Doctors galore out there.

Most of the time people will form an opinion and not really be informed about the subject with which they become so opinionated about. So it's best that you not form your opinions from other's opinions, (as in this forum) but on the facts presented. (Many do not provide any proof or links to prove their point, just their opinion.) With that said we do have a responsibility to do our part by doing whatever is within your power to keep our planet alive and well.

I hope that helps...

EDIT:
ftm- That's what this forum is about. Ppl ask questions and other ppl answer. It matters not if we paste an answer or type it.

1. Your chart showing 2 degrees increase is of the Northern Hemisphere. My NASA chart shows the temperature of the EARTH, not just the northern hemisphere. In fact here is a site http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/bigdea... from the EPA stating the global temperature has increased less than 1 degree over the past century. All the global charts show similar temp changes. None of them show 2 degrees. You need to compare apples to apples here and stop the manipulation of what is being said. Global means all the earth, not just the northern hemisphere.

2. The second reference I gave says, "Temperatures reach a minimum of between -85 °C and -89 °C (-121 °F and -130 °F) in the winter and about 0 °C (32 °F) higher in the summer months." If you AVERAGE the winter temps given with the summer temps, you come up with -109 degrees average for the year. Again you are manipulating the answer to say something it does not say. You HAVE to take the minimum and the maximum to get an average. I'm surprised you don't know that.

3. I never said global cooling had strong support, in fact I said it was hype. The article proves that it was just that.

Next you go on to say, "Scientists are predicting..." It's what they do, they say, "it could, it may, maybe, probably, we predict..." Where are the FACTS in predictions and maybe and probably? The truth is there are no facts in those words. They keep their jobs by keeping the hype going... most people can see that.

Last, I clicked on your references and they either go to a "file not found" or a type of blog site where ppl give opinions. We want facts - not opinions.

You have twisted what I said by adding northern hemisphere charts when I referenced global charts, you have played down the temps in Antarctica, when my facts are accurate and you have not really given any working links where we can check what you are saying.

Sorry but that won't work in this forum...

You can fool some of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Answer 3

I have to ask why you believe everything you hear on television? There is no "global warming." Some areas are warming up, while others are cooling off. There IS climate change taking place, but there is no "global warming" happening, even if billions of people insist that there is. You need to investigate what you're being told by the 6 o'clock news. As for the environment, many get emotional about it but continue to use spray insecticides, room "fresheners," "plug-ins" to make the house smell like perfume (even though it's made with some very nasty chemicals you should NOT be inhaling) and there are many very toxic products that people use every day by the thousands of gallons across the country. And then they turn around and say, "I care about the environment!" And I think, "Oh, shut up!" because it's nothing but lip service. So in fact, they couldn't care less -- they're only interested in their own little habitat -- they aren't hearing the larger issues and they're not going to hear them. Call it stupidity ... the human race is not that bright ... it never has been. If people don't even know how to take care of themselves (living on junk food, for one example), then why would they give a damn about the environment? They're waiting for someone else to take care of it, they're hoping "the authorities" will somehow fix it ... maybe the president will pass a law and then everything will be fine! That's the "thinking" of the majority ...

Answer 4

It's my lucky day, because I can repeat an answer to another question!

Politicians pretend that they care, and they hold meetings to discuss global-warming, but apart from "carbon trading," the only initiative appears to be that of proposed taxation; but would taxation work?

The idea that the solution to global-warming has a financial answer is both stupid and wrong, because governments are not technologists, engineers or scientists. Any cost would come in the form of additional taxation, because governments are very, very bad at doing anything else.

Let's try and put this rush towards a greener future in perspective.

No less than 57% of CO2 emissions come from the surface of the sea, and 38% of CO2 emissions come from human and animal respiration. As an absolute total, only 4% of CO2 emissions come from the combined might of transport, power production, cement manufacture and general industry. So whether lifestyle change or taxation is proposed, we are really only fiddling about with 4% of CO2 emissions.

Even if credit is given, and credibility awarded to those who now cite man-made CO2 emissions as the largest cause of undeniable global-warming, they cannot lobby nature, which accounts for the majority of such emissions.

With the best intentions, people talk about re-cycling, using the car less, turning down the central-heating and higher levels of fuel tax, but this really is putting the cart before the horse, when ALL western governments (who are the ones making the running on green issues) subscribe to globalisation and the transportation of goods from half-way around the world.

If sufficient loading of taxation was introduced which might have a real effect, then that would bring global economic collapse as things stand at the moment..

There is so much hypocrisy and so many garbled statements coming from politicians, but without an alternative strategy, they are doomed to failure; and this is why.

Almost the WHOLE of the global economic system is now totally dependent upon visible consumption and the throw-away society; the engine of economic growth and economic stability in the capitalist system. Without total revolution, a global economic disaster or even wars, there is absolutely no way that the system can be changed quickly enough to have a counter effect to the problem of global-warming, and anyone who says differently, is either a liar, a fool or a knave.

The Stern report is a classic example of an economists foray into
a world of conjecture, and demonstrates one thing very convincingly; which is the fact that the author knows absolutely nothing much about anything.

If left to the politicians, the chances are they would be triumphant if they could claim a reduction in overall CO2 emissions by 10%, but that would make virtually no difference to the overall CO2 emissions: perhaps accounting for an overall reduction in global CO2 output of just 0.4% across the board.

To my mind, there IS an alternative which is infinitely more effective, a lot more attractive, and one which would not rock the economic boat too far.

Consider a simple fact of life. It is only in the past century that mass-production has replaced craftsmanship and local industry, and it is only in the past 50 years that society has created the throw-away society and the most cost-effective, lesser-quality icons of consumer-production.

Before that, people kept hold of things and handed things down to subsequent generations, because they were properly made in the first place. Repair or refurbishment was the usual way of doing things, rather than dumping things and buying entirely new.

It is this planned obsolesence which creates the constant need for manufacture, transport, distribution, re-cycling and waste-disposal management. Break THAT particular chain, and we may be on a different cycle, which incorporates all the nice green things such as conservation, lessening waste, reducing transport and reducing the profligate hunger for resources and oil.

If, instead of taxation or international agreements (which amount to very little), governments turned instead towards the longevity of products and the benefits of repair and refurbishment, then the viscous spiral of obscene over-consumption could be broken.

What it would take is international legislation which requires that all goods manufactured, should be of sufficient quality to last three or four times longer than they do at the present time, and this would have a very rapid effect; not only on the reduction of CO2 emissions, but upon the conservation of primary resources.

Does that make better sense than the blunt instrument of green taxes, or the blundering ineptitude of the Stern report; neither of which rely on the technological or scientific alternatives which can and do exist?

Mark my words: hail the man who would tax CO2 into extinction, or hope to reverse the trend of global-warming by turning to those who know nothing about technology or production-engineering, and I will show you a loser.

Answer 5

Hello,

(ANS) YES! you may well be right but its very early days, give it time?. People will only make personal changes when they are forced too!! And not before given humans track record.

When they are directly affected in ways they never thought would affect them. Wait until fresh water becomes the most valuable commodity on the planet, wait until the wars are about acces to drinking water NOT oil or gas supplies.

**No! if human beings were a truely intelligent species and if we really had our collective, planetary act together. We would have already have created a global government focused on nothing but climate change & global warming and working to prevent the worst effects but sadly I feel its already far to late. Humans have spent 150 years pumping CO2 into the atmosphere whilst behaving like Ostriches with our heads in the sand & eyes closed.

**I can remember friends of the earth talking about act local think global way back in the 1970's so who was listening?

IR

Answer 6

Back home (Denmark) it has always been on our priority list since the 70. It's only recently I have seen changes in UK. It's just a little too late, but good on them for trying. They need to get into the schools though, to tech kids that is is wrong to waste energy and dump your litter where ever.
I care and I really hope the rest of the world will start caring

Answer 7

The environment has been improved to a very large extent since that river caught fire back in the '60's. I am all for improving things further, especially with regards to alternative energy use. But Global Warming is not something that people can reasonably be expected to address. That's just Liberal fearmongering. They LOVE to cry 'WOLF!'. Frankly, I'm tired of listening to them.

Answer 8

I am aware of it, but all the governments efforts to reduce its effects are nothing more than to put more into the government coffers!!!

The cause of 90% of greenhouse gas emissions is caused by industry, not by uses of the common civilian.

A factory building almost anything, a power station (non-nuclear) or even a shop produces far more than any civilian household, including 2 4.6 litre V8 4x4 gas guzzlers in normal use.

Until the real causes of this problem are tackled we will never get anywhere to change the world.

Also, with the removal of the rain-forests and many other trees and forests that absorb the excess Co2 we are stabbing ourselves in the foot twice. We aren't preventing anything, and we aren't curing anything either.

Answer 9

I do what I can to protect the evironment, recycling, shutting lights of when not needed, only drive when I have to, common simple things like that. I just don't believe the global warming thing. I have seen and heard to much crap like that in my life to believe it. Back when I was in school the scare was the new ice age is coming. Sorry, I just don't buy any of it. It is just a climatic cycle the earth goes through and always will!!!!

Answer 10

People want to make radical changes but it won't work unless everybody pitches in and I really unfortuneatly doubt that will happen but I always try to save on power by unplugging things when I'm not using them. This global warming will eventually make the whole world under water unless this problem gets controlled. Thank you for making more people aware of this issue :-)