Global Warming is happening as we speak. Why are they not doing anything to prevent further warming?

Answer 1

well car companies are trying to make a envirnmental frendly car, but some people dont care about the envirnmenat most people like that have no education

Answer 2

Because it will take hard work and cost a lot of money. Fossil fuel companies, which have a lot of political influence will be hurt.

The swindle movie (and its' "science") are wrong.

"A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also have a way to "Ask the Expert" about global warming. The questions go to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.

The "Oregon Petition" is a dubious document.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Answer 3

U talk about it as if it had increased 10 deg last year not 1 deg. F in 100 years. U don't need to worry we as a country is not a drop in the bucket . the rest of the 6 bouillon is where our problem may be . Most of those people will not listen any way. If our 300 million all got serious in 10 years it would mean nothing. If the population continues to increase the WAR will give u something to cry about.

Answer 4

Yes, but it appears from your wording that you did not watch the TV programme on Channel Four a few weeks ago called "the great global warming swindle"???

In this top scientist, meteorologists, Greenpeace's founder, political statesmen and other experts exposed the facts and falsifications about climate change. These revelations basically are that much of what we are being told by the Green lobby, supported by the likes of political band-waggon climbers Al Gore and Tony Blair contending carbon emissions are responsible for causing climate change (etc. etc). simply do not stand up to proper scientific investigation and analysis. So without wishing to appear disrespectful until you get better enlightened on climate history dating back centuries, effects of solar radiation and other relevant facts so excellently exposed in this documentary, may I suggest you withdraw this question!

Answer 5

Who is "they"? We are ALL responsible! From the vehicles that we drive around every day to the bottled water that we drink, we all contribute to global warming...a good way for everyone to help is by recycling and WALK when possible or at least ride-share! Why point the finger at your neighbor when it is all of our jobs to help save the earth!!

Answer 6

Global Warming is the biggest threat humanity faces today, even more than terrorism. But it would take decades for humanity to ween itself off fossil fuels and find suitablie replacements. We're just in too deep.

Answer 7

Who says global warming is happening? What is the overwhelming evidence? The piece of propaganda that states that only in the popular media there is opposition, and that there is none in the scientific community? If you believe that I suggest you read this list of articles that cast doubt on the theory of man made global warming.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Madhav%20bibliography%20SHORT%20VERSION%20Feb%206-07.pdf

Here is an article that refutes the Oreskes claim that no scientist disputes the theory of man made climate change.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm

Have you ever heard mentioned the poll on 500 climatologists that asked the question "To what extent do you agree or disagree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes? A value of 1 indicates “strongly agree” and a value of 7 indicates “strongly disagree”.

The results:
Mean = 3.62; Std. Error of mean = .080; Median = 3.00; Std. deviation = 1.84; Variance = 3.386



Frequencies:

1 strongly agree 50 (9.4% of valid responses)

2 134 (25.3% of valid responses)

3 112 (21.1% of valid responses)

4 75 (14.2% of valid responses)

5 45 (8.5% of valid responses)

6 60 (10.8% valid responses)

7 strongly disagree 54 (9.7% of valid responses)

The majority of scientists are undecided.

Do you think it is wise to spend trillions of dollars on an issue that is undecided? That is all of the countries in the world.

Answer 8

Because it will destroy the economy of every country on the planet!
To prevent the human factor in global warming, we must STOP using cars, aeroplanes, electricity power from fossil fuels, gas consumption, (gas as in vapour, and not gas as in petrol), so are you prepared to live without electricity, no motorised transport, no shopping malls, no gas to cook your food, no industry to work in?
NO!
Then there is NO easy answer!

Answer 9

Because the only real way to stop Global Warming is to COMPLETELY STOP agricultural burning... but that will never happen because the politicians have been bought and paid for by the companies that are the worst offenders.

Every year millions of acres of sugar cane are burned in Texas, Louisiana and Florida, putting MILLIONS OF TONS of pollutants into the air... but the sugar cane lobby is one of the most powerful in Washington, so the politicians tell you about how bad cars are... but not diesel trucks or airplanes or burning fields or burning trees or cutting down the old growth forests are... nope... it's easier to blame cars because Americans can understand THAT.!

Answer 10

The media tends to focus on the dramatic - it loves simulations of cities sumberged beneath rising seas and images of devastating storms. They're not realistic of the potential consequences but they are dramatic and grab an audiences attention.

The science of combatting global warming is much more mundane and hardly gets any media attention but it is ongoing. Several schemes are currently being considered, below is a broef outline of some of them...

HUMAN VOLCANO
Volcanic eruptions emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide which blocks out some of the heat from the sun. One proposal is to simulate natural volcanoes by firing pellets of sulphur into the upper atmosphere where the particles of sulphur will reflect back some of the solar radiation.

SULPHUR BLANKET
Professor Crutzen's idea is to launch rockets into the stratosphere (10 to 50km above Earth's surface) and release one million tons of sulphur. This radical plan could have drawbacks including an increase in acid rain and damage to the ozone layer.

SOLAR MIRRORS
The US National Academy of Sciences has proposed a scheme that would involve positioning 55,000 gigantic mirrors in space. Each mirror would be 100 square kilometres in area and the effect would be to reflect some of the sun's heat energy back into space.

GLOBAL SUNSHADE
British astronomer Roger Angel has proposed creating a giant sunshade consisting of 16 trillion glass discs, each one microscopically thin and weighing just one gram. On board each disc would be a tiny camera, computer and solar sails allowing each disc to align itself so as to refract light from the sun just enough so it misses Earth.

MOVING EARTH
Perhaps the most ambitious of all schemes so far proposed is one to actually move planet Earth into a different orbit. It has been estimated that if Earth were 1.5 million miles further from the sun then the reduced heat energy received from the sun would compensate for anthropogenic global warming. It has calculated that the energy required to move the Earth this far would be the equivalent of 5 quadrillion hydrogen bombs (5,000,000,000,000,000).

CLOUD SEEDING
Cloud seeding isn't a new concept and one variation on this theme is to launch a fleet of self propelled vessels to sail the world's oceans and spray a fine mist of sea water particles into the atmosphere, this would produce specific clouds which would reflect some of the solar radiation back into space.

ARTIFICIAL TREES
In the artificial trees air passes through the device and hydrogen sulphide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, each 'tree' could remove 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year. The carbon dioxide would need to be permanently stored and one option could be drilling holes thousands of metres deep into porous rock beneath the oceans into which the CO2 would be injected.

PHYTOPLANKTON
Phytoplankton are microscopic marine plants, like all plants they photosynthesise - taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Increasing the quantity of phytoplankton will result in more carbon dioxide being absorbed and when the plants die they sink to the ocean floor taking the carbon with them.

-----------------------

Just like to add a couple of comments.

One of the answers refers you to 'The Graet Global Warming Swindle' this has been ripped apart sentence by sentence as complete nonsense. Even the producer openly admits it's nonsense and states it's purpose was to cause controversy and has no real scientific basis. You don't have to take my word for it - simply Google 'Martin Durkin' (he's the producer).

You've also been referred to a survey a few years ago of climatologists. This too has been widely discredited - it was conducted via the web with no way of knowing who was responding, a circular was sent to climate skeptics giving them the password to access the site and they were encouraged to respond. Again, you don't have to take my word for it - it's clearly explained on Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change