Can we stop global warming for good?

Answer 1

No, because it's natural. It melted the ice ages before industrialization.

We can, however, get rid of liberalism for good, by realizing the stupidity of assertions such as "global warming."

Answer 2

Ultimately no. In about 5 billion years the sun will swell into a Red Giant phase and engulf the earth. Before then, the process can be influenced by human actions. The largest driver in the current phase of global warming is the use of fossil fuels. The second largest driver is agricultural practises. Both can be modified if people make intelligent choices about energy sources and agricultural practises. Judging by responses to this type of question on YA, I have little reason to be optimistic about people making intelligent choices. There is a better chance that people will make very bad choices and end global warming inadvertently by nuclear war.

The earth has been warmer in the past from natural events. This does not mean that the current warming is natural or desirable. In one such warm period 400 million years ago, (the Permian extinction), a runaway greenhouse effect caused the extinction of 90% of the earth's species in a few hundred thousand years. Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand the earth's climate better and to take pro-active steps resist natural and man-made effects that drive the climate away from the habitable zone.

Answer 3

no. we can only slow it down. the earth has been warming for centuries, we just advance it with pollution. you will never get a straight answer from our government on the condition because all they look at is money. the pressure is on for alternative energy sources, which would really help, but our oilman president is dragging his feet. oil has made alot of people rich at the expense of others deaths. thats the only reason we are involved in the middle east. otherwise those places would just be a spot on the globe. the fact is, burning fossil fuels pollute the atmosphere and is depleting the ozone layer. the worlds population is not declining, so energy demands will increase. we really have no choice. any intelligent person would understand.

Answer 4

We cant stop what we dont control. Cyclic changes have been around for millions of years before man even got a good start.

Measly little humans dont run this planet and were awful stuck on ourselves if we think we do. This is all God's purview. We can kill each other but were not going to destroy earth.

Answer 5

The Earth has been MUCH warmer in the past (Scientists recently found fern fossils near the north pole), and also MUCH cooler. Long before our carbon emissions exceeded gas emissions from ant f*rts. Just to let you know, we can do little to control the weather.

Answer 6

IMO< At current population levels it is nigh on to impossible.

A relevant question to your question:
Can we get a handle on population in order to curtail environmentally devastating pollution?
A major blockade to this is short-term capitol gain.
An ever-expanding population drives an ever-expanding economy in demands for goods, resources, and services.
Natural survival of the fittest instinct in gaining wealth in ones own lifetime trumps social responsibility on this issue.
It's an extremely difficult kibosh to get around.
It will take as many floods, crop failures and draughts as it takes to bring the population into an environmentally acceptable balance but what frustrates me the most about all this is that unlike lemurs, or locusts, we have the mental facility and ability to accomplish this with out resorting to processes of nature which are entirely indifferent to humane tragedy and suffering.
Wall Street doesn’t care so long as they get and have time to spend their profit share before the stack of cards falls, which is inevitable.
About the only thing left to speculate on with this issue from my perspective is whether it will take a slap up along side the head or a natural disaster that wipes out civilization to convince us that our population is entirely out of balance with the environment and that in leaving the environment to remedy the situation, we are faced with a nightmare of floods, famines, draught, and warfare competing for dwindling resources.
Cutting EPA standards and balking at the Kyoto (sp?) treaty means a little money in a few lucky pockets today and a huge obstacle to overcome or perish in the future, so what are you going to do?
Ask if it’s possible on Ya Hoo Q&A , keep up the dialog.
I just keep hammering away at it same as I’ve been hammering away at it since Biology class in college 43 odd years ago and I fully intend to keep bringing this side of the coin to issue in every environmental and religious conversation of this nature till I’m pushing up daisies. .

Answer 7

I'm afraid not, it seems none of us is prepared to give up all the luxury we have in the Western World, no matter what it does to our environment.

But I truly believe we CAN do a lot to make this situation less dangerous, if we only took the time and trouble.

Answer 8

This is mostly a bogus issue. The acid rain pine cones are showing up now and everyone wants to know why.

Answer 9

no. the earth naturally has global warming.

Answer 10

YES! We have to put restrictions on how many sheets of toilet paper each person can use. Seriously, Sheryl Crow made this suggestion....and these people call Bush dumb.