Global warming?

Question

Are scientists actually going to be able to stop global warming in seventeen or eighteen years??? It was a big rumor in the neighborhood.

Answer 1

No one will be able to stop or control the climate in the next seventeen or eighteen years. What we will have are new policies that will cause economic and environmental damage. I encourage debate and would like someone to investigate my points with the intention of refuting them.

______________________________________________

Countries following the Kyoto Protocol are encouraged to pollute in order to control CO2 emissions. For instance, toxic mercury light bulbs and other florescent material replacing the light bulb. Releasing of poisonous HFC-23 into the atmosphere is encouraged to prevent the release of natural CO2.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093850,00.html

____________________________________________

Oil is being found in Canada, South America, Africa, and India. Now these countries want to go to market but they don't want to play ball with the big chiefs - American/Multinational companies. This is why Venezuela's Chavez is making a stand against the US. The profits should go to those countries and to their development, not to some American multinationals like what's happening in Iraq. The IPCC plan will prevent these countries from entering the market, unless they play ball with multinationals. This is because they will limit oil distribution to the good ol' boys.
______________________________...

The best alternate energy sources to oil happen to be the highest CO2 emitters. That's ethanol and other fuels made from vegetables, corn, soy, and hemp. Today, the world is producing more food then is ever needed and can feed the planet a hundred fold. Most governments have to artificially control the price of crops. The result is that farmers are no longer able to make a profit running their farms. In a country like India, that has lead to farmers living below poverty. The answer is a crop that would be in high demand, in other words, biofuel crops. Economically, this could save many third world and developing countries. It would also reduce the cost of fuel that almost anyone can afford it.

If CO2 is the problem, our solutions suddenly become limited as to how to tackle our environmental and energy problems. Essentially making us dependent on oil companies once again who will charge us more since there is carbon tax.

Whats more, farmers will face extreme conditions since they are considered even without biofuels to be high carbon emitters. This will increase the price of food, decrease the number of farms, end the food surplus (therefore no surplus going to Africa) and increase starvation in the world.

______________________________...

It will make energy unbearably expensive (and therefore keeping the third world down for more exploitation and oppression) which is only good for highly industrialized nations and the rich.

______________________________...

Developing countries will be the most hurt. Africa has already been told that they could not use the abundant coal they have as an energy source and their oil reserves are now being taken out of their control as well.

______________________________...

Rich people can afford to keep a good life style, but everyone else won't be able to afford it. We will be taxed every time we shut on our computers.

______________________________...

We Will be coerced by taxes to buy products that will lower our standard of life and may cause other health and environmental problems. Expl: Toxic chemical industries sell fluorescent, mercury, and other toxic chemical lights to replace the light bulb.

Many businesses have already invested much money to capitalize on the global warming scare while our lives and our freedom will be controled just like what they did to us with the Patriot Act.

______________________________...

Carbon credits will become big business. Chemical companies will profit. Natural CO2 emissions will be controled at the cost of the environment. The focus is not on pollution but on CO2. A better understanding of the ramifications on CO2 models on the economy and how big oil companies profit (by increasing value of energy which will be made harder to acquire and therefore making carbon credits higher in demand and energy even more expensive) and the solutions to the CO2 problem and the danger of those solutions will have to be investigated.

______________________________________________

If we stop making CO2 the enemy, we could essentially save the planet with reforestation, saving rain forests, allocating preservation's, increasing the quality of life in the third world, etc. Technology is one of our great hopes in solving the current environmental and economic problems. Thanks to the computer, millions of acres of trees have been saved from the Axe because we've gone digital. Toxic vinyl has been replaced by mp3's. With a computer, a poor person has almost as much power as the rich.

We could take advantage of the fact that the sun is sending greater amounts of energy upon the earth right now. If we could harness that energy and store it in batteries for future use, we could focus on solar energy instead of making the poor poorer while the rich live it up. But because the focus is on CO2 emissions, all GW programs as put by the IPCC is mostly about preventing CO2 emissions and not about the environment.

______________________________...

This issue is not as simple as it seems. If I could get some renegades out there to dig deeper we may find out for ourselves what's really going on. Don't trust anyone in government or any head of a multinational corporation. Think as an individual.

Answer 2

Contrary to to what many of the previous answeres have said, allow me to give you the perspective from someone who looks at ways that science could intervene.

There are a number of schemes that have been proposed that could either reduce, halt or reverse global warming and / or climate change. Some have been trialed on small scales and shown to work.

The two main areas of research are looking into ways to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or to reduce the amount of solar radiation (heat) we receive from the sun.

I'm not sure where 17 or 18 years comes from as no-one is putting time scales on any of the proposed projects because there isn't any funding in place and no committment to proceed. If these hurdles were overcome then schemes could be up and running on a small scale in a matter of months, to scale up to the levels needed to start reducing the effects of global warming would take many years and could well include several concurrent schemes.

There's a variety of schemes, some are natural, some naturally induced, others use chemical processes, physical properties of light and glass, some work on a molecular level, others on massive scales. Costs vary from a few hundred million to almost half a quadrillion dollars.

I won't go into details here of the specific schemes, you can e-mail me if you want specific details or post another question.

Answer 3

Global warming is a cyclical event that continues through the centuries. The only problem is that man's industrial revolution over the past 150 years has interrupted the natural order of the process. Polar ice caps are melting faster than usual, and other natural events are evolving at rates faster than the environment and its species can adapt. I doubt that the scientific community will be able to 'stop' global warming in 17-18 years, but I hope - through mutual cooperation of citizens and countries worldwide - that we can help curb the disastrous results that might occur if we simply continue squandering our resources; ignoring the delicate ecological balance between all men, plants and animals necessary for our survival; and kidding ourselves into believing that there's no crisis. -RKO- 06/16/07

Answer 4

If you wish to receive grant money for climate research, do you think that you'll get a cheque if you say," I need the grant, as I think that I can prove that the figures that the current paradigm is based upon are wrong" ? The great environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There is still no proven causative link between the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, and an increase in global temperatures. The WWWF photographs of the polar bears swimming were taken in the Arctic summer; when the ice cap partially melts, as they couldn't get up to photograph in the winter. The ice was too thick! The East-Anglian uni research figures. "Oh! The figures don't match our expectations. Oh well. Keep quiet. Because we know that we are right." When the belief, and the faith is more important than squarely facing the legitimate doubts of a lot of non grant-supported scientists, science has been superceded by religious zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully said." I pray thee, in the bowels of Christ, consider that thou mayest be wrong."

Answer 5

There is not a single shred of proof that global warming of any significance it occurring. There is not a single shred of truth that man is causing any change to the climate. Therefore there can be no action taken by anyone that makes any difference.

I don't want to hear stories of scientists opinions. Scientists are just people like anyone else. The have opinions just like everyone else and they don't count for much. I am an old timer. I have seen scientists opinions that were not worth the paper they were written on many, many times.

What counts is proof and that is something no one seems to have. We have impressive sounding temperature readings but never mention that we even see and increase is primarily due to the fact that we have such sensitive instruments. We never made such measurements before. That means there is no baseline on which to base any assumptions about future changes.

Global warming is not even occurring anymore. Open your mind and read the attached. Please!


.

Answer 6

No, for 2 main reasons.

1) Carbon dioxide has a 20-30 year lifetime in the atmosphere. So even if we drastically reduced our greenhouse gas emissions right now, global warming wouldn't stop for at least 20 years. The G8's plan which Bush undermined was to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in the next 40 years.

2) It's not up to scientists. We have all the technology we need right now to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to a safe level. It's up to politicians to force individuals and industry to adopt these technologies. The US government in particular has refused to take any steps in this direction, though other countries have proven to be more willing.

Answer 7

Global Warming is an incovient truth,many people think its not serious but it is.Why do some people think Global Warming isnt serious?Becuz they're trying to ignore the fact that if we dont change our lifestyle...who knows what'll happen,something not good thats for sure.Think of some of the animals...Polar Bears are drowning because the ice is melting.As temperature rises,so does the the heat-related illness and even death for the vulnerable human population.Global Warming will cause intence rainstorms.Another consequence of Global Warming is deadly heat waves and the spread of disease.
We can make a difference by doing the following things:if you have to go to the market//store try walking there walk more,you can recyle,replace your incandescent bulbs with flourescent bulbs they might cost more but they eventually pay for them selves becuz they dont burn out,recycle,instead of turning on your AC open your window,whenever possible use a clothing line instead of a dryer,unplug electronice from the wall whenever you're not using them,plant a tree.

"Global Warming is one of the most serious threats facing our country and our planet today. Scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human activities and many say we have only 10 years to take action before we cause irreversible harm.
Excessive resource and energy use and a growing demand for raw materials are largely responsible for the depletion of natural resources worldwide and the acceleration of global warming – which is contributing to rising sea levels, extreme weather patterns, extended droughts and floods, disappearing glaciers, and increased health risks.

Fortunately, there are many things we can each do to respond: use less energy, drive greener cars, green our homes, and demand that corporate leaders and our elected officials act today.

40% of the world’s resource and energy use is linked to the construction and maintenance of buildings, and about 33% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. come from transportation. By reducing our energy consumption at home and at work, by building green buildings that are more energy efficient, and by driving and demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles, we can begin to make a difference. " --From PLANETGREENGAME.COM

Answer 8

If people would just listen to them more & we ALL start doing our part, I think we can make a difference. The climate is changing. I saw a difference in Alaska within 4 years when I took trips.The Alaskans are great teachers because they see it every day.
I live in California & it's getting hotter every year but I still meet people who deny it. Too many, aren't interested in leaving a world worth living in.
Perhaps we could get through to the people in denial by convincing them to save the money they love so much, in their homes & vehicles. I changed the light bulbs in my house to the compact fluorescent type & saved $30 the very first month. It off-set the cost. The bulbs last 10,000 hours too.
You don't have to be a scientist to help, just listen to them & DO something. Now, go plant a tree!

Answer 9

Global warming is a big lie

Answer 10

Well I'm sure Al Gore can!

Of course they can, 25 or so years ago they told us there would be a new "ice age" but they obviously stopped that! Course they went to far and now we have "global warming".

Wake up folks this is a bigger lie than "I won't --- in your mouth"

Answer 11

If global warming exists it is a natural thing that we can not effect no matter how many cfl light bulbs (filled with Mercury)that we buy or how many hybrids we drive.