Do You Think Mankind Deserves To Suffer From Global Warming?

Question

Report after report from scientists around the world has been released in the past few months, all pointing clearly the finger at human activities as a cause for global warming.

The report predicts more disasters, more diseases, more overall misery for mankind pretty much all over.

There are still a few Neanderthals out there who deny the Global Warming Theory.

Do you think that mankind deserves its self-made gloomy future, since the vast majority of people are irresponsible, selfish, unwilling to change or make sacrifices, and pretty much only concerned with their own immediate affairs?

Answer 1

I don't think we should suffer, per se, since a lot of the impact, such as the tsunami in SE Asia, affected those who did not contribute that much to global warming (Americans have been blamed for most of the pollution), since suffering involves an innocent population as well. Now that we know the truth about global warming, we should, however, become more responsible and try to conserve our energy. Just switching lightbulbs is a step, as well as turning off power supplies not being used and saving water. We can't change the world overnight, but we certainly can try to become more responsible so we don't have to suffer.

Answer 2

The most serious danger of global warming appears to be that it adversely affects the intelligence of some scientists. These reports you reference all have a common theme. That is, the level of mercury in a thermometer is what controls the temperature in a room. So, according to these scientists, if you want the temperature in a room to remain constant, you should protect the thermometer from any jostling that might change the mercury level. Brilliant.

Answer 3

It won't be mankind in general but rather the industrialized west. We beat everyone else to turning fossil fuels into energy so now the UN, sponsors of the latest report, is setting us all up to pay the Third World for our sins.

Can you say REPARATIONS boys and girls?

Answer 4

I am having trouble believing any of the data . Take methane gas ,and explain how u measured it. I cant find the methane gas that is missing. Where did it go. The more I hear it the more it sounds like chicken little.

Answer 5

>>could you forgo mankind's progression (as much as now) to shrink previous international warming?<< No. in case you propose to ask could i adjust the way that we've stepped forward, then i could say confident. besides the undeniable fact that, there is not any genuine purpose in on reflection and regretting the direction that has led you to the place you're. >>enable's anticipate that guy's CO2 emissions, land use differences and deforestation replaced into completely to blame for all the warming by using fact the commencing up of burning fossil fuels.<< i think of this is slightly a stretch by using fact the burning of fossil fuels in all risk is going back plenty farther than i could in all risk wager... >>And enable's positioned the quantity of warming led to by potential of this interest at 1C.<< i assume this is honest. >>My question is: in case you may desire to return and forth back in time<< Oh geeze... >>to the factor the place we began emitting CO2 (enable's say 1850) and had of challenge to maintain all the fossil fuels interior the floor and positioned an end to clearing land for agriculture and construction products with a view to realize a international temperature at present this is 1C much less, could you compromise to it?<< seems I already responded that. No, of direction i does not. >>the belief of this question is making the climate extra advantageous. no one seems to be addressing that.<< pondering the reality that it is not achieveable to somewhat do what you're asking, that doesn't marvel me. >>In different words, could a international temperature this is comparable to 1850 (i.e. 1C decrease than at present) worth attaining by potential of having 0% CO2 emissions for the final 162 years?<< No. all the advancements that have been made in all risk are not rather well worth the shortcoming of AGW. >>Or, what do you think of society could be like at present with none burning of fossil fuels or clearing of land?<< what's the factor of speculating. this is an attractive exercising, yet that isn't be something that i in my opinion love to do. The extra substantial question is the place are we going from right here. we could have what quantities to a various revolution in potential and technologies yet some choose for to in basic terms shop using the comparable previous easy tech from the...1850s (meaning coal and oil). So who do you think of needs to stay caught interior the previous? _