Do you think humankind has already lost the struggle against global warming?

Answer 1

Yep! If it's true about global warming, and it's getting more and more convincing, then I am convinced that the damage has been done and the consequences are inevitable.
Just hope that the natural cycles of the earth (we are in an interglacial, or warm period, geologically speaking) are far stronger than what man is doing, and that things will iron out to our benefit. But I'm not optimistic.

Answer 2

Interesting question.

But consider this…

The climate of planet Earth is constantly changing. It has never been in equilibrium. Its temperature is always either going up, or going down.

Currently, of course, the planet is warming and, while it is probably true that mankind is contributing to this, it’s likely to be mostly part of a completely natural warming cycle.

So, what you describe as a “struggle against global warming”, is actually largely a struggle against planet Earth itself – something that mankind has had to do throughout our history.

I imagine that, if we could phone up and chat with one of our ancestors from the last ice age (10,000+ years ago), they would tell us that we don’t know how easy we’ve got it and would happily swap with us.

Another thing to consider…

What would you describe as “winning” the struggle against global warming?

Would you consider us to have “won” the struggle if we simply stopped any climate change whatsoever? Hey, yeah! That would be great for us humans! But, given the point I made above about the fact that planet Earth’s climate is always changing, it wouldn’t be very “green”, would it?

Surely being “green” is all about letting the planet do what it’s wants to do, without us interfering? Would you agree with that statement? So you agree that stopping *all* climate change is wrong, yes?

So, does “winning” the struggle mean achieving Global *cooling*? Trust me, that would cause us *far* more problems than warming. Where do you think you’d be most likely to survive; the Amazon rainforest, or Antarctica (where no plants will grow because there’s no liquid water)? Cold weather kills far more people than warm weather.

So, what *do* you want?

A bit of global warming but not too much, perhaps?

Well, how much is too much? Not so much that people suffer as a result? Well, now we’re back to us humans being the most important factor.

Ok, so how about: not so much that it causes extinctions of plants and/or animals. But extinctions have happened constantly, throughout the Earth’s history (dinosaurs, anyone?) so how do we judge what’s bad and what’s natural?

Basically, I think the only real answer I can give you is yes, we had lost the struggle the day planet Earth was formed.

As Michael Crichton put it…

"[Our planet is] amazingly active. We have 500 volcanoes and an eruption every 2 weeks. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A moderate Richter 5 quake every six hours, a big earthquake every 10 days. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. Tsunamis race across the Pacific Ocean every 3 months.

Our atmosphere is as violent as the land beneath it. At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. 11 lightning bolts strike the ground each second. A tornado tears across the surface every six hours. And every 4 days, a giant cyclonic storm, hundreds of miles in diameter, spins over the ocean and wreaks havoc on the land.

The nasty little apes that call themselves human beings, can do nothing except run and hide. For these same apes to imagine they can stabilise this atmosphere is arrogant beyond belief. They can’t control the climate.

The reality is, they run from the storms."

Answer 3

Whether the global warming we are experiencing is part of a natural cycle, is caused by humans or simply made worse by human stupidity is irrelevant in terms of the final result.

While the raising of sea levels will reduce the available land area and the weather will likely turn more extreme neither of these are extinction events.

There have been at least four major glaciations and interglacial global warming periods over the last 3 million years. During this period humankind has evolved from a proto-human anthropoid to his current stature, intelligence and abilities: hardly an extinction scenario.

The main problems will come not from nature but when our less fortunate but more numerous neighbours start fighting over the more limited resources. Americans particularly had better get used to sharing more than free markets and the American Dream.

Answer 4

It depends what you mean by 'lost'.
If you mean - will the temperature keep rising, will sea levels rise - then yes.

The Stern report suggests an acceptable average rise of 3 degrees - a play-off between an acceptable cost to industry and an acceptable impact to the environment and society.

If the Stern report is implemented, the outcome may only be a 1.5 - 3m rise in sea level - still enough to take out the southern coastline of the U.S, the Nile Delta, Bangladesh and Holland - and quite a few other places. Displacing at least 60 million people.
As long as the ice shelf on Greenland does not come off all at once, people can move.

A rise of over 5 degrees is when things would get quite nasty - for example, the rice crop failing in Asia - a couple of billion hungry and angry people tend to have a dramatic effect on things (given that the UK is banking on growth in China for the next century - that would effect the economy here)

If you mean 'is it the end for humanity? I don't think so.
It may be ugly, but humanity has adjusted to sea rises before, and people adapt to most situations.

We can still take action, and to prevent widespread deforestation and start using alternative energy is just good sense - taking the long term cost of our actions into account when looking at the bottom line has just been overlooked by the economics till now.

It may have it's flaws, but carbon trading is a move in the right direction, and when humans put their mind to it, they can do amazing things.

Answer 5

All the ecosystem is cyclical in development while the human activities are all linear in development.After the second world war with the revolutionary changes in the industrial development much of the human activities started causing the eco imbalance and global warming is one among them. As all the natural process of eco system is cyclical there is always we have a choice of reversing the global warming as well as arresting further causation. All we need is sincere and heartful efforts of environmental rules, and a research on eco friendly production. We haven't lost, neither we lose, we only altered, which is reversible.

Answer 6

We can beat this - the question is will we choose to, or will we continue to bicker over the evidence. I get the feeling that for some no matter what environmental consequences manifest themselves no proof will ever be able to justify that there is a man made (and therefore resolvable) influence on the earths climate.

Fortunately governments are no longer taking a sceptical view and they are heeding the warnings and taking precautionary steps to limit the damage - even Australia is getting in on the act by making incandescent light bulbs illegal (and they refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol). Well done Blue!

So it's looking hopeful that the powers that be are taking the correct approach to the problem and making the right decisions to reduce carbon emissions.

We have our work cut out - but no one wants to see the end of the world through our neglect (at least no one with a sane brain), so there is hope that we can crack it.

We are resourceful and innovative and we can do this especially when you see what we're capable of (Link1) then you have to believe that there is still hope.

Answer 7

This planet is Robust & can support us all including our lifestyles.

I find it hard to believe that no one is considering the effects of chopping down the rain forests in Brazil & Asia etc..

It is that which is causing the problem..

Trees take in carbon dioxide at night & let out oxygen during the day.

In Europe most wood producers replant more than they cut down. If every industry had a policy of buying only from sustainable sources there would be no problem

If the rest of the world followed suit, ther would alos be no problem.

The world should get together & make those responsible for cutting down the rain forests replant & help them to do it quick.

I am prepared to pay for this to be done.

We could then all breathe fresh air

Answer 8

No but some humans are not willing to make the changes as it is not in there best interest. I sent this letter to Al Gore- no responce yet: I would like to propose the biggest cleanup in history, cleaning up the atmosphere. I do not see any proposal, realistic or proven, at any cost, that can solve the problem of global warming. Not even Washington can throw enough money to solve climate change. I see governments acting like a deer in a car’s headlights and unfortunately, many people acting the same. Meanwhile, the inevitable disaster is almost upon us, if not here already. Beyond cleaning up our atmospheric mess as I am suggesting, we humans must do a better job reducing or cleaning up carbon monoxide, burning less of everything, collecting and storing methane and ethane to be used as fuel, cleaning up our forests, using more solar insolation and recycling everything. But even if every person on earth does his or her share, we may not be ok.
Making a plan that includes cleanup of the atmosphere and decisive change is the only option. The technology to start cleaning up and reintroducing new ozone to the atmosphere with little pollution is possible. The ten year cost of one hundred billion dollars, and the scope of this project takes a long term commitment. The first cleanup machine starts with a ten billion dollars investment. Ten year later with twenty-five machines operating, these machines will produce enough ozone to replace both holes at the poles. But more importantly, these machines will remove chemicals that deplete the ozone. Beyond making ozone, decreasing the poisons that deplete ozone, these machines reduce the major greenhouse gases, and that is just the start.
Using solar steam electric generators to produce electricity at near 90 percent efficiency will help reduce global warming. I can see over the next 30 years the world needing 60,000 MW costing one hundred billion dollars. This opens the door to new electric cars and busses and new bullet trains with dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases from cars and planes. With a plan, all governments can help: tax pollution, donate some land and money, and reduce solar steam electric generators regulation to help save the planet from disaster. From getting grants to patents and from land to changing regulations the plan is the start of changing our world.
The message that we can help ourselves is a key to changing the global warming debate. We start helping ourselves by making the plan, getting everyone to agree and getting everyone to pay the real price. Creating a pollution surcharge on gas, coal, diesel, wood, cooling towers, cattle, other ranches, cigarettes, agriculture burning, airplane passengers; this surcharge can fund of these projects and many stationary pollution control devices in general.

This is just a start. Many other ideas are needed. Paint roofs white. Use sky-lights.

Answer 9

humankind lost struggle global warming

Answer 10

THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS STRIKE AGAIN

By William Rusher
Thursday, February 22, 2007

The media have recently been blaring what they depict (inaccurately, by the way) as the latest grim warning from the practically unanimous ranks of the world's climatologists concerning global warming. It is time to take two aspirin, lie down and consider the matter calmly.

The global-warming controversy is powered by three mighty engines, which are almost never recognized. The first is the natural human impulse to fear allegedly forthcoming disasters, especially if they are clothed in the raiments of scientific certitude. The media can be depended on to ferret out and wildly overhype any potential negative development that any so-called scientist is willing to predict and deplore. Remember "acid rain"? The factories of the American Midwest are supposedly belching enormous quantities of sulphurous gases into the air, which then drift eastward, pollute our pristine lakes and lay waste the Appalachian forests. We had barely had time to digest this awful news when the same media introduced us to the ghastly phenomenon called the "ozone hole," a gap in the Earth's protective layer of ozone that had developed (thanks to human pollutants) over the Antarctic and threatened to increase hugely the amount of deadly interstellar radiation reaching the planet's surface, causing millions of fatal skin cancers. The subsequent news that the ozone hole was actually diminishing was lost in the gratifying burst of terror over the discovery of global warming.

Forrmer U.S. vice president Al Gore speaks at a news conference for the 'Live Earth' concerts in Los Angeles,, California February 15, 2007. The planned July 7, 2007 concerts will take place in Sydney, Johannesburg, London and other cities to mobilize action to stop global warming. REUTERS/Fred Prouser (UNITED STATES) The second engine (which was also influential in the flaps over acid rain and the ozone hole) is the traditional liberal hatred of "American corporations," which is mobilized whenever some new misfortune can be laid, however speciously, at their door. All sorts of manufacturing operations emit carbon dioxide, which are thus responsible for some uncertain part of the seven-tenths of one degree Celsius by which the earth's surface temperature rose in the 20th century. Actually, believe it or not, cows emit far more greenhouse gases (from their rear ends) than corporations do, but corporations are easier to hate than cows. So the ancient cry has gone up, "Stop the corporations!"

The third and final engine is, as you might expect, money. Do you have any idea how many billions of dollars the United States paid "scientists" (mostly in universities) last year to study this or that aspect of global warming? They are raiding this El Dorado with both hands, and you can imagine their attitude toward any colleague who dares to doubt their warnings.

The latest incitement to panic over global warming is the recently released summary of a 1,400-page report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We won't get to see the actual report till May, but the IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, says "I hope this report will shock people."

Given the media's hype concerning the human causes of global warming, it undoubtedly will. But the actual figures, when compared to those in the IPCC's last report in 2001, are downright encouraging. Christopher Monckton, a British analyst, points out that the new summary "more than halved its high-end best estimate of the rise in sea level by 2100 from 3 feet to just 17 inches." (Al Gore predicts 20 to 30 feet.) Monckton adds that "The U.N. has cut its estimate of (the human) net effect on climate by more than a third."

Part of the problem is that the earth's temperature is always in motion, up or down. At the moment, it is trending slightly up -- three-hundredths of a degree Celsius since 2001. Before that, in the midyears of the 20th century, it was actually falling -- providing grist for the media's hysterical predictions of a "new Ice Age" back in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, you can count on the liberals to demand savage cutbacks in the output of America's "greedy" corporations (never mind what that does to the economy) and on the opportunistic hacks in the science faculties of our universities to carve still bigger grants for themselves out of the federal and state budgets to finance more justifications for the panic.


William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy