Why do people drone on about global warming?

Answer 1

Because they care. Because they're worried. Because for at least the last 20 years they have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there's a problem before action would be taken.

The Iraq war was a pre-emptive war based on the principle that it was necessary to act now to prevent nasty things happening in the furture.

Why shouldn't the precautionary principle be applied to our environment as well? The answer is so that
business as usual could continue for the greedy and the self absorbed [Ref An Inconvenient Truth].

Business as usual has continued in the face of growing evidence of a serious problem, when common sense alone would indicate that preventative measures should have been enacted, but which have been stopped so that the rich could get richer, the poor get poorer and that the powers that be maintain their unassailable grip on the levers of power with minimal effort.

This isn't about tax. It's not about penalising anyone. That's the type of propagandist crap spoon fed to unquestioning masses, who in turn have parrotted the same message, without once asking whether or not what they had been told by their Governments was correct or otherwise.

Turn your self centric world view outwards for a moment - this isn't about you. The people who "drone on about this" aren't thinking about themselves. They have an altruistic motivation - its about saving what we have, its about caring for the world around us and good stuardship of that world for future generations. Its about meeting our innate obligation of care for our world and the things in it of beauty and wonder that would be lost otherwise forever through our stupidity, greed, arrogance and ignorance. In fact pretty much all the "qualities" displayed by the worlds greatest leader: Shrubb.

Perhaps the reason for your condemnation of their efforts is due to some or all of the following:

A lack of good information - this doesn't mean that you're a dummy, misinformation has abounded about this for years. It's been deliberately constructed to prevent action sooner. The system itself has generated that misinformation to allow things to carry on as usual - thats vested interest at work, Bush et al.

A lack of understanding - this could follow on from the first and can be rectified if you are prepared to do some reading and some research. But this could also be down to lower than average IQ, or a very poor education leaving you unable to question the information that you are presented with. So this would make you a dummy.

A lack of compassion or concern - this would make you indifferent or opposed to taking action because of your fundemental selfish nature, its all about you, and that's all you care about (including your tax dollars) - this would make you a sociopath.

Juvenile rebelion against what could be preceived as boring or dull or unpopular (becasue you've been told thats what this is - you wouldn't have questioned this). That would make you dum and pubescent.

Alternatively you could have a vested interest in doing nothing because it might cost you money: this would make you greedy and selfish - quite common into todays society based around the belief that survival of the fitest is Gods Way and will solve all of the problems that we face - eg Bush, Cheyney, various heads/CEO's of the Fortune 500 companies.

You could be in denial and despair: understandable but not helpful. Action against this is still possible. But it needs to be done now - we're all in this together, we must act, irrespective if your neighbour (because of any of the above) won't. This isn't about one-up-manship and who should do more - its about doing anything that you can - it'll make you feel good. AND it'll save you money too...........

Answer 2

I don't know how old you are, but man, since the dawn of time has raped. pillaged, and drained just about every type of fosil fuel to use in the vast variety of industry.Consequently, today, there has been so much **** and crap let loose into the atmosphere, it's been damaged beyond repair,As of now, the seas are higher through clacial melting, the the temperatures over the globe have risen, and if you REALLY want to know why we"drone" on about it, it's because the next 2 generations will be living in a greenhouse.Now, if you don't know what i mean, try being in greenhouse with no windows or doors open in the middle of summer,( better still in the middle of the sahara) and you'll get an idea.Also, the earth will not be able to sustain food production through lack of water, people will starve, millions will die, and if you think"droning on" about it is a pain in the backside, we, the humans, you and me, have contributed to how things are today through our greed and unbending attitude to life, the planet, and each other, so, as long as some of us " drone on" perhaps we may, just may, be able to make all those people with their head up their arses, come out and take a look at the mess they've made of it all.
THAT'S why we drone on about it.

Answer 3

Quite simply, because the government is going to use all this global warming scare mongering as an excuse to tax the hell out of us!

Good old 'Bob' (above) can state "it will be the worst disaster in human history" as many times as he likes, but it won't make it any more correct. But the global warming alarmists bleat on like this in the knowledge that some, gullible people will believe them. Sadly, it works and many do.

The IPCC's (UN's) latest report, (that was released on Friday) gives many different scenarios for future warming. If you take the average of these, they are predicting a "most likely" rise of 2.8°C by the end of the century.

But during the medieval warm period it was up to 3°C warmer than it is today and it didn't cause "the worst disaster in human history". In fact, mankind flourished. So 'Bob' is talking rubbish.

And as for 'Lemon Twist' (above) what an obnoxious fellow he is! He's telling you that you're misinformed, a dummy, a sociopath, pubescent, greedy and/or selfish. Just because you lack his gullibility.

He says at the beginning of his post... "Because for at least the last 20 years they have had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there's a problem before action would be taken."

And that's the problem; they have failed to convince me that there is a problem.

The whole GW scare-fest was kicked off by James Hansen back in 1988. He predicted what the climate would do by the year 2000. He even hedged his bets by using high, medium and low figures.

His guesses were 0.25°C, 0.3°C and 0.45°C.

The actual observed rise was only 0.06°C. So that was less than one quarter of his lowest guess. He was *way* out!

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but when someone makes a prediction like that, I tend to think, "OK, let's see if he's right." When, 12 years later, we find that his predictions were grossly inaccurate, then I tend to think, "You're wrong. Good-bye!"

To put it another way, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect these alarmists to prove that they know what they're talking about by accurately predicting how the climate will behave. So far, no one has managed to do that.

What's also significant to me, is that their predictions are always too *high*. That suggests a certain bias to me.

For now, my advice is - don't believe the hype.

:::edit:::

In response to Bob, above, who comments…

“we have huge cities with a lot of very expensive stuff sitting almost at sea level.”

Oh, and we couldn’t build sea defences to protect these cities from the expected *one foot* of sea level rise over the next century? Are you suggesting that we’ll simply do nothing, watch these cities flood, and just say “Oh well, it’s global warming and there was nothing we could have done.” The Netherlands has been successfully reclaiming land from the sea for years.

He also says…

“very sophisticated agriculture which relies on the current climate pattern.”

And we can’t change this “very sophisticated agriculture” to work with the slightly increased temperatures? Or perhaps come up with different “very sophisticated agriculture” to suit the new climate pattern? That would be impossible, would it? Remember, the increase in CO2 levels is good for plants, because CO2 is plant food, and the rise in temperatures will mean a longer growing season. So, the current global warming trend will be *good* for plants, so we’re actually more likely to have *more* food, not less!

“This is not a drill” he says. Indeed. Finally, something we agree on. A drill is something we do in order to prepare ourselves for a specific crisis. Since there is no evidence that there’s going to be any specific crisis, there is no need to drill. Hence, we are not drilling. And even if you did, you’d probably find that any crisis that did occur would be entirely different to the one you had drilled for. Until we know, *for sure*, exactly what is going to happen, drilling, and indeed, acting, would at best prove to be a waste of time. At worst, it could aggravate the situation.

Answer 4

omg i have to do an article about it for science riiight now. its really important, ill show you my article summary =P

“There is at least a 90 percent chance that human-caused emissions are the main factor in warming since 1950.” This was reported on January 30, 2007 by James Kanter, reporter for the New York Times and writer of World Scientists Near Consensus on Warming. The rate for Global Warming is higher than it’s ever been. Mountain glaciers are rapidly melting, and there’s a large possibility that the Artic ocean will be without its ice later this century. One reported stated that our only options concerning global warming are mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. He’s basically saying that we can either improve our environment unfriendly habits, or we’ll have to adapt to the circumstances and suffer.

Answer 5

In the hope that someone will do something - most importantly the government. Actions always speak louder than words though and it's time for the droning on, to stop and the action to start, we all have a part to play!

Answer 6

It change into and continuously been a fashion to shop the lots in administration. it is referred to as economic slavery. Make up a favor, then rigidity it on the conventional public as a change of letting the loose marketplace type all of it out. as a change, as so nicely suggested with assistance from the asker, we are compelled to burn our nutrition. In different words, there change into, is, and not in any respect has been a authentic attempt to advance option fuels that truly paintings, commence out intense priced via the undeniable fact that is how coming up technologies paintings. yet this transforming into nutrition for gasoline is finished nonsense or maybe even with the actuality that it has shown to be an finished failure, we are nevertheless meant to help it. Oil, certain, oil is a bio gasoline, is it no longer? it is made from flowers and is derived from the Earth, similar with coal, it truly is a bio gasoline, it too is made out of decayed plant count number. it truly is the position carbon credit fail, it truly is often more reasonable for an marketplace to pay a carbon tax, than it truly is to position in pollution administration instruments on their boilers. regrettably, any more effective expenditures figured into generating products is exceeded on to the customer. Truckers, whose truck bypass many of the products by out our united states of america are paying as a lot as $a million,000 in step with proper off, and we get to pay for it in larger costs for nutrition, products and amenities. What an rather good idea! :c(

Answer 7

Because it will be the worst disaster in human history.

It's not going to be like a Hollywood disaster movie. Very gradually coastal cities will start to flood, first in storms and then just all the time. Changes in temperature and precipitation patterns will severely damage agriculture. Rich countries will be able to cope, but it will cost them huge sums of money and lower their standard of living. In poor countries people will die of starvation.

It's a disaster in very slow motion. The worst disaster in human history. It will take another 20-50 years for the worst effects to appear, but if we are going to reduce those, we need to start now.

To amancalle below. One difference is that we have huge cities with a lot of very expensive stuff sitting almost at sea level. And very sophisticated agriculture which relies on the current climate pattern. Very few scientists think we can take even a few degrees of warming without bad things happening to both of those.

This is not a drill.

Answer 8

Quite simply because like the human rights law there are people jumping on the gravy boat and making a lot of money out of it.
Surprising how many snouts get in the trough when some obscure theory is touted.

Answer 9

Who wants summer rains 11 months of the year?

Answer 10

Probably something to do with changing weather patterns, global catastrophes and that small thing of caring about the sort of world that we will bequeath our children and grandchildren...