How long and what does it take until people figure out about dangers of global warming?

Answer 1

Basically, if you have a glass with ice in it, and pour water up to the top, when you come back in an hour, is there water everywhere? Nope. Warming and cooling are just normal climates, just another phase that earth goes through. History repeats itself.

Answer 2

Some people don't accept Global Warming as real.
They would rather throw the covers over their head and
dream on.

Most of the Scientific World knows it is true and all are
doing their best to find a solution, to reverse it. They must start to think about Replanting Forests. Trees are the only
things that absorb Carbon Dioxide and emit Oxygen.
Man and other Animals absorb Oxygen and emit Carbon
Dioxide. This cooperation maintains a Chemical Balance in the Atmosphere that allows mankind to survive.

Internal Combustion Engines suck Oxygen from the
atmosphere, and spew out unimaginable amounts of Carbon
Dioxide. They do this in vast amounts, in competition with
people. This must be corrected immediately.

Write your Congressman.

Answer 3

Today's news should make a dent.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/04/06/climate.report.ap/

Of course, it was clear before today.

There's a completely overwhelming amount of scientific data showing that it's real and caused mostly by man.

Short version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

The best summary of the data:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

The data is why scientists know it's mostly us and not the sun, volcanoes, etc. The data is why the vast majority of scientists think it's real. Proof.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Watch the national news tonight, pick up a paper, or check a major news source on the Net. This truth should now be clear to all:

"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."

James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.

“With overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is adversely impacting the health of our planet, the time has come for the Congress to take action.”

Senator Olympia Snowe, Republican, Maine

"I agree with you (Gore) that the debate over climate change is over."

Rep. Dennis Hastert, Republican, Illinois

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona

Answer 4

Check out my answer (it appears after the second '~~~~' line thingy, lol).
Here is a question posted by ~ocean~ a while back...:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

What will you do to help slow down global warming and the wasting of our nonrenewable resources?
Check out these websites (click or copy and paste them into your browser) ^_^: www.climatecrisis.org

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/26/global_warming

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/library...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/pollution_sto...

Additional Details

4 weeks ago
Have you seen Al Gore's "An Inconvienant Truth"? What do you do to help slow down global warming?

Global warming, to me, is a serious crisis that is occuring right now in the world. It is our duty as human beings to slow down the process of the earth heating up.
(If you don't believe that it is currently a problem.) Could it really hurt us so bad to convert to renewable resources instead of wasting our NONrenewable resources? We'll run out someday anyway. Then what will we do? It'll be too late to use renewable resources once we run out of nonrenewable resources to manufacture the first factories to use renewable resources as a new main source power.

So, now a question to those who don't think global warming exists:

Should we go on wasting our Nonrenewable resources? Or should we convert to renewable resources?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

=) Everyday I see more and more people changing their minds due to the fact that it is becoming harder to reject the scientific evidence.

I don't think the links will work (except for the first one), as I copy and pasted ~ocean~'s question because it was too long to type out...hehe.

Anyway, here are some other links (lol, that will or definitely should work):

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/environment/?cnn=yes

http://fightglobalwarming.com/index.cfm

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/03/10/climate.report.ap/index.html

http://eobglossary.gsfc.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWarming/warming.html

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

Feel free to visit any of these. I like to provide reliable and reputable research in my answers. =)

Answer 5

.
rense.com

Opposition To Global Warming
Severely Suppressed
Silenced Global Warming Critics Expose Gore's Hoax
By Lawrence Hecht
Executive Intelligence Review
3-9-7

Sources: Daily Mail, Canada Post and Others 3-5-7

The Gore climate machine loves to claim that there is no scientific opposition to their human-caused global warming fraud. It's a lie. The real truth is that anyone who criticizes it is either misrepresented or silenced. Some examples:

** Prof. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said the list of scientists endorsing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a "sham," because it included the names of panel scientists who disagreed with its exaggerated climate predictions. Reiter, an expert in malaria, told the London Daily Mail that he only got his name removed after he threatened a lawsuit. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," Prof. Reiter said. In a report in the Jan.-Feb. 2000 issue of {Emerging Infectious Diseases}, Reiter showed that the claim that the increase in malaria was due to climate change was absurd. Dr. Reiter contributed a Viewpoint to {21st Century Science}, Winter 2003.

** Senior French physicist and pioneer of isotope studies Claude Allegre came out against global warming last September, after having been one of its most outspoken proponents for over 15 years. His case is featured today in Canada's National Post, in an ongoing series called "The Deniers." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre, had been among the 1,500 scientists who signed a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great." But last September, in an article in {l'Express} ("The Snows of Kilimanjaro"), Allegre said that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier had nothing to do with human-produced carbon dioxide, and also pointed to growth in the Antarctic glacier. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled," he said. A member of the U.S. and French Academies of Science, Allegre is a pioneer in the field of isotope geodynamics, a method of dating past events like the formation of the atmosphere, by isotope signatures. He participated in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Allegre is also a leading figure in the Socialist Party and served as Education Minister.

** Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor is under threat of losing his job for arguing that most climate change is the result of natural variations, not human-produced carbon dioxide. Despite threats from the Governor and a pending bill in the legislatures to have him removed, sponsored by Democratic State Sen. Brad Avakian, Taylor has held firm. "If the facts change, I'll change my mind. So far, I haven't," Taylor told a climate change conference at Oregon State University. Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991, when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU.

** Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. He wrote an open letter shortly before the issuance of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Dr Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of a part of the IPCC report had participated in a press conference claiming the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases. Wrote Landsea: "To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."

Answer 6

I don't know. I see a lot of people that just don't care, but then again, when I read the news it looks like some people are doing something so..

EDIT:

I apologize, as I am pretty busy and couldn't give a better, lol, or more informative answer. Hm, lol (I say that too much, lol), it looks like two people didn't appreciate my uninformative answer. Oh well!

Here are some links for ya =)...:

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Climate_Change

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/t/e/tes203/pollution.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8889-glacial-earthquakes-rock-greenland-ice-sheet.html

Answer 7

According to the data, it shouldn't be much longer now. Evidence will be overwhelming no matter if people understand the science or not.