Are you worried about Global Warming?

Question

Yes or no, justify.

Answer 1

Yes. Someday we're gonna suffer because all of this will all come back to us. It destroys the balance of nature and many living organisms are dying because of this. Who are we not to worry about that? We share the same planet. so it's our job to look after it and let other creatures live well.

Plus, think of it like this: the temperature during the ice age is about 2-4 lower than ours today. Just think what a 2-degree increase in temperature bring.

Answer 2

Nope, I am a little more worried about what can cause global warming to heat up sooner.
Here is an example for you to ponder. Consider that in the past 70 years the population of China has more than tripled from around 400 million in 1940, to 1.5 billion. Take a look at the land mass of the country. It is just a little larger than the contigious 48 states here. In the same time frame we have only increased our population by approx. 120 million.
From my point of view, it is interesting, the theory of population controls the Chinese have implimented and recently relaxed. Here we have room to make complaints of Human Rights issues against them without knowing the problem outright. I can only imagine what that countries expentitures are to maintain that size of population. I can also see where that country will eventually implode from the sheer weight of population and lack of resources. I can see an eventuality here that the worlds population will out weight the natural resources. I think we are at the balance point right now. Global warming is the largest indicator of what the future holds for us. Imagine the next 70 years of population growth and what it would require to maintain that. What it requires is more resources that will lead to an even faster increase in global warming.
My question is what is it going to take to educate everyone in the world that there is a responsiblity we as mankind have towards ourselves and our future. There is no government, or the UN for that matter, really addressing this issue. These are selfish people who want to control others. Restraining them from moving freely about the world, preventing the alleviation of the problems indicative to each country.
Look at the 20th Century, the bloodiest when it comes to warfare. And still the population has exceeded that. Individual responsiblity is what is required from everyone in the world, to help. We can decrease the worlds population through education.
China's instituting population controls is a bit extreme, but interesting as well, it could become neccessary in our future. It is the will power of the individual that required this in China. I don't think the government in China enjoyed the prospects of having to reeducate its population with harsh controls. It actually risked all when it did.

I think global warming will be the least of our problems if we do not get the individual to understand their responsibility to their future. And I hope you understand how my oblique answer to your question can actually lead to a worse outcome.

Answer 3

Depends where you live really. Some places will be positively affected (i.e. here in london its cold alot so a bit of warming would be welcome), but say if you're in a place like the maldives it might not be so good if the sea levels rise.

I'd say as its not going to happen instantly humans like usual will adapt and relocate to where they can get on with their lives. The world has always changed in terms of climate.

Answer 4

Yes, but what frightens me more is the callousness of governments and those people in high places. This inactivity (or little activity) to reverse the situation is also very scary.

Answer 5

Yes.
The millions of tons of gunk we release into the atmosphere annually is a cause of great concern. As we know so well, Mother Nature will not be trifled with, and when she retaliates, we suffer.

Answer 6

Yes i am, It's a scary thing

Answer 7

yes,becoz it damages ozone layer and if none will live on this world

Answer 8

no
y worrying?

Answer 9

Let Them Eat Tofu!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

They think they can live in a world of only Malibu and East Hampton -- with no Trentons or Detroits. It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Liberals are already comfortably ensconced in their beachfront estates, which they expect to be unaffected by their negative growth prescriptions for the rest of us.

There was more energy consumed in the manufacture, construction and maintenance of Leonardo DiCaprio's Malibu home than is needed to light the entire city of Albuquerque, where there are surely several men who can actually act. But he has solar panels to warm his house six degrees on chilly Malibu nights.

Liberals haven't the foggiest idea how the industrial world works. They act as if America could reduce its vast energy consumption by using fluorescent bulbs and driving hybrid cars rather than SUVs. They have no idea how light miraculously appears when they flick a switch or what allows them to go to the bathroom indoors in winter -- luxuries Americans are not likely to abandon because Leo DiCaprio had solar panels trucked into his Malibu estate.

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants -- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

Because of the industrialization of agriculture -- using massive amounts of fossil fuel -- only 2 percent of Americans work in farming. And yet they produce enough food to feed all 300 million Americans, with plenty left over for export. When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us -- not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess -- are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukranians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eliminate poor blacks, DDT opponent Rachel Carson wanted to eliminate Africans (introduction to her book "Silent Spring" written by ... Al Gore!), and population-control guru Paul Ehrlich wants to eliminate all humans.

But global warming is the most insane, psychotic idea liberals have ever concocted to kill off "useless eaters." If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas -- 299 million of you are going to have to go.

Proving that the "global warming" campaign is nothing but hatred of humanity, these are the exact same people who destroyed the nuclear power industry in this country 30 years ago.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

"Global warming" is the liberal's stalking horse for their ultimate fantasy: The whole U.S. will look like Amagansett, with no one living in it except their even-tempered maids (for "diversity"), themselves and their coterie (all, presumably, living in solar-heated mansions, except the maids who will do without electricity altogether). The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die.

It seems not to have occurred to the jet set that when California is as poor as Mexico, they might have trouble finding a maid. Without trucking, packaging, manufacturing, shipping and refrigeration in their Bel-Air fantasy world, they'll be chasing the rear-end of an animal every time their stomachs growl and killing small animals for pelts to keep their genitals warm.

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and author of Godless: The Church of Liberalism .