Global Warming?

Question

While I DO think there are many enviomental issues that we need to address and find solutions for . . . I think most of what we are told about global warming is political hype, used to sway voters.

I think we should do everything we can to clean up our act but I think all the "drama-queen" approach will only turn people off to it.

Anyone else agree?

aladdinwa: Sorry kiddo but alot of "science" is politically motivated now, and its not "all" Bush's problem
either.

Answer 1

If you're concerned that what you're hearing is "political hype", perhaps you should make the effort to listen to what the scientists are saying.

As a matter of fact, politicians are making global warming sound like less of a problem than it really is. The biggest plan I've heard to address global warming is John Edwards' proposal to cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050.

Dr. Simon Retallack of the Institute for Public Policy Research concluded that stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels at 550 ppm leaves only a 10-20% chance of preventing more than a 2 degree C further warming, which will have many bad effects like the deaths of almost all coral reefs. Stabilizing at 550 ppm will require an emissions reduction along the lines of Edwards' plan.

Sir David King, the British government's chief scientist said that recommending a larger cut in emissions would be "politically unrealistic", and if he recommended anything lower, he would lose credibility with the government.

In other words, scientists are more alarmed than politicians. So no, I don't agree that they're taking a "drama queen" approach.

Answer 2

It is political hype, but it is NOT to sway votes. This is global politics, and environmentalists are aiming to allow an unelected entity - the UN - to tax this sovereign country - something on the order of a couple hundred billion dollars a year.

I think we should do all that is practical to decrease environmental damage and wasting of our limited resources, but I think that wealth redistribution will hinder the economy, making it run less efficiently, and subsequently leading to MORE harm of the environment.

I can tell you the poor people can't afford hybrids, can't afford efficient appliances and air conditioners, etc. A less wealthy populace will put a lower priority on mitigating environmental damage and a higher priority on providing food and shelter for their families.


EDIT: Had to after reading Dana's answer. Yet another shining moment for the GW alarmist:

"In other words, scientists are more alarmed than politicians. So no, I don't agree that they're taking a "drama queen" approach."

Scientists? Like Simon Retallack? Who works for a public policy think tank? Who "studied at the London School of Economics (First Class Honours in Government and History)"? That Simon Retallack? Since when does hanging out with scientists make you one?
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Retallack_Simon_18550242.aspx

But if he really believed in the doom and gloom hype, would he have penned this:
" The research by IPPR found that global warming is most commonly constructed in the U.K. through the "alarmist" repertoire - as awesome, terrible, immense and beyond human control. It is typified by an inflated or extreme lexicon, employs a quasi-religious register of death and doom, and uses language of acceleration and irreversibility."

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/63/21841

Sir David King, on the other hand, IS a bona fide scientist. But since when do you listen to chemists for their takes on climate science? Every other scientist that wasn't specifically a "climate" scientist, you dismissed (such as MIT's atmospheric physicist, Richard Lindzen).

You are such a transparent hypocrite...



...and a drama queen.
(or climate pornographer as Simon Retallack puts it.)

Answer 3

I do believe completely in global warming. There is no doubt that it is real and a huge problem. We definitely need to clean up what we're doing in regards to the environment. I do think that politicians are using global warming as a ploy to sway voters, but I'll be happy if they actually do something about it if elected. I do think that Al Gore has brought global warming to the forefront, but also has caused it to be a topic of ridicule. The drama queen approach definitely won't help people realize that global warming is real because there is too much hype surrounding it and they are sick of hearing about it.

Answer 4

global warming
global warming is an increase in average temperature of the earths atmosphere.we are putting large amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and it "blankets" up in the atmosphere trapping warm air in the earth.

global warming is melting the artic. the artic is the earths natural air conditioner. without the earth will become unbearibly hotter. if the artic fully melts the ocean will rise 20 feet. think of every foot of the ocean having an extra 20 feet of water on it. places will flood. one place in india, home to 60 million people will flood. the world trait centre memorial would be under water. in the year 2050 it is estimated the artic will be ful,ly melted . huge amounts of people will be starving and looking for a home. a million species of animals will be extinct.

things you can do:
-change a regular lightbulb to a compact florescent lightbulb
-walk instead of driving more often
-for your washing maching use cold water instead of hot
-install a low flow shower head for your shower

global warming is not a joke. be part of the solution, not part of the problem!

Answer 5

i agree thats its wrong to sway voters in this way ... but in the end (as a enthusiast) we need ppl to recognise wat's happening and if this hype is creating awareness then it can be a good thing ... although it is not showing everything in the best of lights once ppl are interested they must find out for themslves (we hope) or ppl like us must make an effort to get the true depth of the problem out there.

its all about mindsets ... whatever it is..

its like buying environmently friendly things - its all fashionable because living green comes with a certain price tag, but in the end more ppl are living green which inevitably furthers our course. you see by living fashionably they a re buying our views (something i don't support ) but then the more ppl are exposed to this the more they will think about it , the more i hope will change

Answer 6

I think evidence supports global warming as a real problem. It could be the worst problem we face. Just because we're not all dying right now, that doesn't mean it's not a real problem.

We need to learn how to make corporations more responsible for the environmental costs of what they do. We're learning to do this better all the time, for instance passing standards for clean water and air. This becomes more and more important as the population of the world increases. Being responsible for greenhouse gases is just the next logical step.

Answer 7

I don't think "most" of it is, but maybe I read different things.

For example I think impacts will be severe. No, we're not all going to die. But, if we ignore the problem I believe the economic impacts will be severe and some people (not all, but not just a few) in poor countries will die, mostly of starvation due to damage to agriculture.

My personal conclusion is that it's well worth some effort to reduce it and avoid the worst impacts.

Bottom line: I'm not clear about what you're saying. Is this "hype" or a reasonable prediction of impacts of global warming if we ignore it?

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Answer 8

Go to your local library and find the June, 2007 edition of "National Geographic". Turn to page 61, where this highly respected publication says (and I quote):
"Meanwhile, if global warming continues unabated, the coasts could drown. If vulnerable parts of the ice that blankets Greenland and Antarctica succumb, rising seas could flood hundreds of square miles - much of Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands - and displace tens of millions of people." -RKO- 07/01/07

Answer 9

Bush forced the EPA to hide from the public how fast the earth is warming up. Among other cover ups.

Answer 10

i agree if the government stepped back and stopped making it seem like the world will end than people will learn for themselves and start helping the earth and they wonder why their has been so much pollution if you give something too much attention it starts to fade and seem less important