Global Warming Or Global Terror?

Question

I've just been watching a program on UKTV about global warming and global dimming!

And i started thinking why the heck are we fighting among ourselves when in 2025 we would have done to much to the planet to reverse the affects!
Surely we have to stop all wars and start thinking about what we are gonna do!

I would like to someone form a global team from all countries to tackle this rather then 1 country and the rest not give a toss!

What would you like to see happen ?

Answer 1

Global calming, is what's needed.

Despite what the scaremongers on your T.V. might say, global warming is probably not going to be anywhere near as bad as they'd like you to think it will be.

These scaremongers always exaggerate the threat that they are preaching. Just look at the threat of global cooling in the 70s, or the Y2K bug. Both were supposed to be huge disasters that would cause death and disaster. Neither, it turned out, was any threat at all.

James Hansen was one of the people who kicked off the whole GW scare-fest back in 1988. He predicted temperatures would rise by 0.3°C by the end of the century. He was wrong - they actually rose by only 0.1°C. He exaggerated the threat three fold.

Let's face it, that was nearly 20 years ago, and have you noticed any "catastrophic" changes yet? In fact, have you noticed *anything* that even remotely scares you? I certainly haven't. Why? Because James Hansen, as with all GW alarmists grossly exaggerated how bad it was going to be.

GW alarmists often try to suggest that GW will be a "catastrophe", that we're reaching a "tipping point", that the climate change will be "irreversible", or that it's going to kill millions of people. This simply *isn't* true, as any real scientist would agree.

The problem is, that they want *you* to jump on their bandwagon, and you won't do that unless you think the problem is serious.

All I'm seeing are grossly exaggerated predictions that are not reflecting the observed data. Until the predictions are getting it *right*, I think we should be treating them with suspicion.

Remember, it's the GW alarmists who are using the extreme language (catastrophe, etc) to try and scare you. It's the GW alarmists who are exaggerating their predictions to make the problem sound worse than it is. *AND*, it's the GW alarmists who want *your* money to solve the "problem".

Personally, they're not getting a single penny of *my* money until they can at least prove they know what they're talking about, by accurately predicting what the climate does in the future.

Until they can do that, their GW fears are nothing more than hot air (if you'll excuse the pun!)

Answer 2

Watched same programe. I must say I hadn't realized about the Global Dimming effect since, i suppose that the Global Warming effect has gathered so much media attention and thus in the spotlight. So excuse my ignorance of the fact. It did give me a bit of a shock though as it seems from what was being stated in the programe, we are in a "no win situation." i.e. If it doesn't go one way it'll go the other. And so i must relate here that i think no matter what we do now, will have absolutely no effect on the already out of control situation. It certainly looks like we are heading very rapidly to the "Sixth Great Mass Extinction"

You say that you would like to see a "Global Team" to try and tackle the problem. Well i have to argue that there are such teams, as where actually depicted in the programe itself. Those teams are the dedicated scientists whome have been trying for years to convince the powers that be that the threat is very real. Those powers that be have only just started to listen to the scientists but, alas, it is all too late and i think they actually know it and are doing thier damndest now to prevent panic and anarchy. The reality is, i think not enough of us "humans" do actually care, as we are the most selfish beings on this beautiful planet that we are so adept at destroying. I would like to leave by saying that i, and no doubt many others very much value and share your concern. And let us try and appreciate our planets nature of infinite diversity while we still can. Kind regards. AM

Answer 3

Journalists are not scientists, and scientists rely entirely on data.

Politicians thrive on journalistic and public opinion, but then ask an economist to do the science.

Achim Steiner of the UNEP listens to science, but then also supports the Stern Report (Sir Nicholas Stern), which was so badly drawn-up that it lacks all credibility due to the extreme nature of the conclusions based on exaggerated climate data. He can't have it both ways!

The scientists, for their part, admit that they are "not sure" what the rate of global-warming will be, but it "could be" as little as 3 degrees or "as much as" 8 degrees.....not exactly a small difference.

The UNEP man then goes on to say that "we are still learning," and that the science is "very new," but he sticks with the worst-case scenario. Then he admits that the efforts to control greenhouse emission in India and China is not as pressing as the efforts directed towards the "developed world."

Make no mistake, politics doesn't get any higher or any more global than this, yet what is really being proposed is nothing more than a 20% reeduction in motor-vehicle emissions and a huge hike in green taxes, which would have very little effect on CO2......about 20% of 2% of the global total.....in other words, a 0.4% reduction in global CO2, and no more.

No-one, it seems, understands a basic fact of economics and consumption.

It is the whole cycle of world-trade which contributes to environmental problems and not just one small sector of it. Global-warming, toxic-waste, the rapid depletion of resources and other potential or actual problems, are inseperable from the whole international cycle of business.

The faster things are produced, at minimum cost and at a minimum level of quality, the faster things are discarded. The faster things are discarded, the more that waste is generated. The more waste that is generated, the more it is necessary to process it and move it. The faster things have to be replaced, the more transport is needed to remove the old and replace it with new.

If politicians simply target transport, then the FIRST result will be for factories to close at an even faster-rate in the developed world, as production shifts to the developing economies with the lowest labour costs. The more the developing countries thrive on the back of this shift, the more there will be an increase in world population and consumption, until eventually, the international trade-cycle is dealt a fatal-blow.

How do you bring down international trade?

Fuel taxes? Increased commodity prices? An inability to move goods? Economic collapse? Left wing activism and trade-union pressure? Currency devaluation? Inflationary pressures? Unfair competition? Trade agreements and quotas?

It doesn't actually matter, because EACH of them is as damaging as the next, and unless the world slows down, and governments get a grip on the ridiculously wasteful "throw-away" mentality, then there is absolutely no chance that CO2 emissions will reduce much at all; at least until international trade collpases from within.

The fact is, it is very easy to highlught a possible global problem, but actually doing something about it is where the hard-work and the tough decisions start.

My worry is, that by targetting the "soft targets" such as transport, they may hasten economic collapse and achieve very little.

Are there any visionaries who have the political clout to challenge the myth of perpetual global economic growth and consumption?

I am not optimistic, yet anything less is doomed to failure!


Feb 1st

Why am I getting thumbs down.....I'm suggesting a possible solution? Are all the environmentally concerned also the intellectually challenged?

Answer 4

I agree. the actual reality maximum human beings answering your question did not understand it thoroughly explains WHY "international Warming" is so risky. i have had too a lot faith in guy as a rational creature. What surpassed off to interpreting comprehension? you may want to spell it out in a unmarried and 2 syllable words like this: hi, international warming is a organic area of the Earth's lengthy time period climate cycles. it really is brought about by potential of variations interior the potential (rays) the solar produces (makes). This reality is supported (subsidized) by potential of the info (info) amassed by potential of scientists (men smarter than you and that i) over the finest century (hundred years). The socialists (commies) interior of this us of a have teamed up with the environmentalists (hippies) to push their very own political schedule (take over the gov'ment). Their plans for the country will critically (truly) harm our economic gadget (pocket money) because it stands as we talk in accordance to (says) maximum greatest economists (more effective human beings smarter than you). is this a more effective danger to our lifestyle than terrorists (undesirable men) from the middle east (enormous barren area throughout the sea)?

Answer 5

I won't happen there's too much money to be had in war for governments to seek world peace and too much money in oil for governments to seek ways to reduce oil usage. The capitalist system we have insures we want lots of stuff and that we will do this at any cost to the planet.
Basically companies, societies and governments are greedy and as a result the human race is screwed.

Answer 6

The destruction of the rainforest contributes to about 1/5 of global warming. I'd like to see that this is stopped.

Please visit to preserve the rainforests for FREE
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070131150918AA6dMih&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwI7pkHO4yRGzyv_jomTHLXD9l56R7i3TBax9E9fipM1NXX4c_p9heQj2Kg9e__LDwNQ--&paid=asked&msgr_status=

Answer 7

For anything to happen we need everyone on board. For anything to happen we need to stop in terms of economic growth. For anything to happen we need to stop population growth. For anything to happen we need to work as a team and respect each other and not think that the planet is here for us! That gives you an idea of what i would like to see happen...will it happen? No.

Answer 8

Kill bush has to be the first thing and probably punish tony blair for being his side kick....what would be a good start would be to get people to use public transport (taxing is but making it free would be goo then ppl would be forced!) Make it illegal to throw certain things away (things that can be recycled) Set electricity limits on housholds. Ban smoking for ***** sake its disgusting and you guys make my hair smell when I've just washed it! Plus smoking causes minor radiation sickness that I could really live without. And btw it makes your poonani/willy smell (no matter what you think!)