Even if you don't believe in global warming, shouldn't we take extra measures anyway?

Question

Personally, I believe in global warming. But if you don't (which is your opinion and I respect it), shouldn't we, from your point of view, take extra measures to keep it from happening? I believe that it is already happening and that we should make changes to keep it from getting worse. What do you think?

Please tell me your reasons for believing/not believing in global warming. Can I have honest answers this time and not answers that shoot my question down?

Answer 1

Yes. I am 71 years old and have witnessed a big change in the climate over that time. Winters were much harsher in years past. In the Chicago area where I have lived for nearly 50 years, the change is rather dramatic. We once had snow cover all winter long, but not anymore. It isn't a lack of moisture, it's a lack of freezing temperatures. A few years ago I was at the Columbia Ice Fields. There are year markers showing how the glacier has receded. The cause or causes might be debated, but global warming is evident.

Answer 2

I don't believe we puny humans can control nature. On purpose or by accident. Global warming is a normal and natural cycle of the earth. And it has happened many times before. Now, for an honest answer to your question.

Yes, there are many things we should do to help the environment. Where I draw the line is the unnecessary draconian measures that would hurt our economy and our working class. Huge tax increases and other transfers of wealth are not required. Demanding that all the countries of the world take part is also important. We need to stop the America bashing or nothing is going to get done.

The problem has always been that this is never about the environment. It has always been about control and money. Look at the ethanol debacle. We are burning food in our cars. That is just plain immoral. And ethanol production is a very energy intensive process. It uses tons of coal burning to produce. And the plants pollute the air terribly. But the so called environmental people just look the other way because they hate cars so much. And my truck gets 20% less millage with 10% ethanol than with real gas. That means I have to burn 20% more fuel to go the same distance. And only 10% of that fuel is ethanol. How in the world does that make sense.

That is why so many people ridicule this global warming thing and the environmental extremists that run it.

I think you ask a good question in an intelligent way. I think we all need to talk, without all the silly hypocritical hype from both sides.

Answer 3

I believe that there is global warming but I am not convinced that it is man-made or that anything we do will change it. The earth has always warmed and cooled. The data does not really show any abnormality to the process UNLESS you assume that for the first time in history the warming will continue instead of adjusting like it has every other time. There isn't any evidence that it will do that only a theory.

The changes that are advocated by "responsible" advocates are things that have always made sense. They will make the earth a better place for everyone to live even if it has no effect on the global climate. Conservation of energy and resources is not something that is new. It is really a lost practice among most people. Farmers have practiced conservation for centuries. Probably the most environmentally conservative people are the Amish.

If you haven't been environmentally conservative in the past, you should start. Most of the measures will also save money.

Answer 4

It all depends on what you mean by extra measures. The extra measures that the IPCC, the G8, and the Kyoto Protocol have been suggesting may actually cause more harm. There is hardly time to breath and think before all these extra measures will be taking over our lives.

Do you know what these extra measures are? Well, the major objective is to commercialize carbon. The atmosphere is going up for private control via big business and government and perhaps even the entire food industry will be controlled as well.

Carbon trading puts all the control of CO2 use in the hands of the oil companies. This is because oil companies are the biggest emitters they can therefore gain the greatest number of carbon credits by limiting the amount of CO2 released in the air by a chemical process developed by DuPont. This will control natural CO2 at the expense of pollution which will be released instead. Call it legal pollution. The incredible carbon surplus that is acquired by the oil companies will then be sold to other emitters like third world hospitals who need to use energy that emits CO2. Much of the third world will need to use CO2 emitting energy to solve their problems and will have to run to the oil companies just to buy credits. This is enslavement.

Carbon taxes will only affect the poor consumers. It will be business as usual for all the oil companies, only their prices will be higher. So will the price of home electricity use, the use of your computer, all electronic gadgets, the price of shipping goods from one place to another, the price of food, the price of medicine, the price of manufacturing, the price of flying, and everything else. The rich will be able to offset their carbon taxes with write offs as they usually do but this time with what will be known as carbon offsetting.

Carbon offsetting causes more damage to the environment by the creation of mono-cultural planting which destroys natural habitats and environments. All these things that I describe have already happened and you can read more about this in the following website:

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/


There has been a lot of fear tactics and a lot of pressure from lobbyists and the media to take global warming seriously just to enforce the above measures. This is why I take an uncertain stance on global warming. It may be true, it may not be true. I can honestly say I don't know.

But any time there is tremendous pressure to make drastic moves, the natural thing that should happen in everyone head is that some sirens should go off and one or two red flags. We should step back and think about what we are doing and not rush headlong into things.

I, like you, respect opinions from all side of the debate. I'm still trying to understand the science of global warming and am sincere in my efforts to understand it. My hunch is that it's a scam. But this is from following the money more than from following the science. I am certain about this: I DO have grave doubts about the proposed extra measures.

Answer 5

I believe in global warming, that is what the data shows and data do not lie. I am skeptical about main made global warming as the relationship between excess CO2 levels and warming trends is poor at best. It is also true that past global maximums have been 3-4 degrees C higher than current temperatures and there is no reason to believe that the ultimate maximum of this global trend will be any less. Thus, I see no reasonable possibility that anything we do will prevent this from happening and would rather spend my efforts preparing for the effects of this inevitable temperature increase.

Answer 6

According to the best estimates if we are going to have any chance of stopping Global Warming we would have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions world wide to less than one tenth of what they are today.

To accomplish that we would have to shut down all of the economies of the world.

This would cause poverty and misery on a scale that we have not seen in recorded history.

We must accept the fact that we cannot stop Global Warming.

What we must do is mitigate the effects of Global Warming.

The sea levels will rise. Fortunately coastal areas can be protected with dike systems similar to those in use in Holland to hold back the sea.

Hurricanes will become stronger and more frequent. We must help the affected countries upgrade their disaster preparedness programs.

Droughts will become more frequent. We must help the affected areas with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

We cannot stop Global Warming but we can mitigate the effects of Global Warming if we start now.

Answer 7

I also believe in global warming. The data shows it has been warming for over a hundred years, and it has warmed and cooled many times. I am not as sure as some we are causing it. I question some of the data and assumptions made.

I also believe we should be getting off foreign oil for our country's national security, and it can't hurt for us to reduce other pollution. So lets get smaller homes, smaller houses, change light bulbs, and support population reduction. We can't lose.

Answer 8

Personally I believe global warming is occurring.

I think that the climate studies down over the last 30 years are pretty conclusive.

The main opposition to passing legislation comes from the loss of profit large oil companies and automotive companies would suffer. If greenhouse gas emmissions are forced to be lowered, oil company profits would suffer. To make their gasoline better burning would require years of research. And the years of research would take away from the money they make. Also, it may take away profits in that automotive companies may seek to produce not just more fuel efficient cars, but even cars that do not run on gasoline. If large quantities of solar or electric cars were purchased, the profits of oil companies would plumit. This in turn would hurt the economy as a large corporation losing profits does not benefit the market.

Another arguement I hear is that this in an alarmist arguement, that other scientists have produced studies that indicate it is not occuring. Some believe this is a partisan arguement, with the most extreme of terms being a "liberal conspiracy".

Personally I don't see how large corporations, especially oil and automotive, could not adapt. If an oil company fears bankruptcy, why not merge with another energy giant and gradually phase out its oil production? If a car company, particularly Ford, fears that its cars won't sell, why not produce more fuel effecient cars or electric to keep up with the competition? In the short term it might hurt profits, but in the future it will benefit them.

The second arguement I do not find credible either because many of the quoted scientists turn out to be members of oil funded political think tanks. It's difficult to assume that these scientists are without bias when shortly after their study they go to work for Exxon Mobil.

To answer your question simply, it would cost money and political will. On a national level this seems to be absent. In California, legislation has passed against global warming but it's met a set back from the Environmental Protection Agency.

Answer 9

No.
It's a waste of time and energy to take precautions for things that are outside of our control. The earth is heating up half a degree, so what? It's been hotter, it's been colder.

I do think it's a good idea to minimize impact of things like CFC's or PICs, which have proven atmospheric and effects, but carbon dioxide, methane, and water vapor? give me a break. They're natural, and their impact is insignificant (well, water vapor can be significant sometimes)

I don't 'believe' in global warming because
1.) There is less than 1% CO2 in our atmosphere, and plants grow better when exposed to higher levels of CO2, so it will balance out.
2.) Where do you think the fossil fuels came from? They're waste products (from the earth) that got preserved. To the rest of the world, natural fossil fuels are waste, garbage, toxic waste.
3.) There have been several ice ages with global devestation. Ask yourself, if we DO have an impact, is it worse than everything north of missouri being destroyed?

Answer 10

because of the fact there is not something you're able to do to end it. in basic terms an identical, i does not carry insurance if it weren't the regulation that I might desire to have it. i think of it somewhat is unfair that I provide funds away to somebody else incase i might desire to spend it to conceal damages, as quickly as I can in basic terms pay for the damages while it occurs. lower back, an identical, why do not we in basic terms use the technologies we already might desire to offer NO effect on the atmosphere? For the sake of our good wellness, and for the remainder of the planet and its destiny. and avert company leaders from milking society's funds with the aid of producing on the backside allowable standards, and making it so as that the lifespan of things is amazingly short, and intake of consumable products is inspired and controlled to be as much as tolerable. definite we needless to say tolerate. 32 mpg automobiles while eighty mpg is truthfully plausible and functional, and has been for the final 40 years... capability from polluting, non-renewable aspects while there is an abundance of inexpensive, loose, countless, non-polluting capability. greater suitable than 50 years in the past Tesla took a automobile from the ford assembly line and had an electric powered motor put in it. He then plugged a small receiver into the capability inputs placed interior the driving compartment. And powered the automobile remotely from a generator a number of miles away that took capability from the earth's magnetic container! He did this for an aim industry. it somewhat is recorded in newspapers and replaced into considered on television! i visit create a self-perpetuating water generator to capability my abode in the subsequent 5 years. this may well be a tragic international we are living in. And it has constantly been this way. If i attempt to industry my concept, i'm going to probably be stopped or perhaps killed by using effect it would desire to have on oil industry and capability providers international extensive. So i'm going to in undemanding terms share it with few who may well be depended on.