Is Global Warming(mankind influenced) truley a Priority Problem?

Question

Whether or not mankind has a significant influence on global warming seems to a bit of a moot point. Shouldn't there be a greater concern for the depletion of the resources that are the cause of this? For example, the depletion of fossil fuels is projected within the next 200 years or less.

It seems like we should first be concentrating on the depletion of our nonrenewable resources first, as any connection it may have to global warming would be further reduced once it is solved.

What are your ideas on the "problem?"

Answer 1

People with no perception of reality or vision are this planets biggest problem..

the second one is over population
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Asuu81WAu4Df1CO3tXuCGAzsy6IX?qid=20070730092350AAF3L8a

This is the main cause of the third biggest problem
deforestation
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgeqXCQuX.N8E_3cjcjTpj3sy6IX?qid=20070807161811AAOaHpS

All of the above have led to immenent global potable water shortage
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiiCRP7L7bJKIZih0oja2Xnsy6IX?qid=20070811083951AAOVDKX
And wide spread desertification
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnGN0xxo2GzJix59WWHVxMTsy6IX?qid=20070629101716AATW9R0

And all of this is directly related to humanity ,not to mention industrial pollution and the effects of civilization on the Environment

People have changed local climates all over the world ,.and for a long time already,
the biggest culprit is irresponsible Agriculture and over pumping aquifers as well as over grazing

the Mexicans are changing the climate in Chiapas,
with cold nights and burning hot days because of their desperate farming for corn to feed their large families
In Africa urbanizations consumes trees ,rivers dry up ,there is less rain and climates have changed .

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiThbu8NR47pd1Il.we0I8Psy6IX?qid=20070614113913AA1E1aw

So the first concern is population growth and a desperate need to change energy requirements .
AS WELL AS changing the worlds agricultural methods to a sustainable type of agriculture like Permaculture
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AkSyKe9JDS3eSLpxsKL3mqLsy6IX?qid=20070815183923AA8E0NK

Global population growth was discussed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1998 at a Bilderberg meeting ,the resulting recommendation called for a lowering of the world population by 60%.

The mind boggles as to how they will go about to achieve that,
but submerged solutions have been in operation since then,if not before.

Answer 2

Being a geologist, I have read alot about the "vanishing" resources. It is interesting that there have been people since the 1800 that predicted that petroleum resources were about to be depleted and we were headed for doom. Clearly there is a finite amout of hydrocarbons which we can extract from the earth, but I would suggest that you probably are vastly underestimating those reserves. Once the price increase, the known reserves increase as well and this doesn't take into account unknown reserves. So called fossil feuls will be readily attainable for at least a thousand years in my opinion and by that time I am confident we will have overcome our technological difficulties with fusion and other forms of nuclear energy.

Answer 3

Imagine you are taking an exam. There are 10 questions. You gain points for every correct answer, and you lose points for every wrong answer. There is a time limit on the exam.

When you see a question you don't know the answer to, you skip it. A wrong answer will cost you. Spending time guessing might prevent you from answering a question you do know before time runs out.

When someone can prove that some specific human behavior or technology has a measurable, predictable, and significant impact on the earths temperature AND that impact is undesirable, we should act. Action prior to that just prevents us from using our time and money to solve real problems that have real solutions.

For the people who read this and claim that either of those two criteria have been proven, I suggest you need better critical thinking skills.

Answer 4

Lindsay Lohan

Answer 5

We fixed recently the problem of fluored gas. Out of the last 6 factories in China, 5 are closed

It will avoid around 20 millions of skin cancers and 130 millions of eye cataract.

I guess pollutants which are cancer grower are also a priority.

But frankly said, yes global warming is clearly among the priorities if we want 9 billion of people to eat and live well.

Answer 6

No. I think it's a waste of resources.

In the USA, 6 BILLION American Chestnut Trees are gone because of the Chestnut Blight. A squirrel once could travel from Georgia to Maine without touching the ground. Now these trees are almost all gone.

We should spend 1/2 of all money spent of "global warming" to fix real and measurable problems that actually do exist.

Answer 7

-more space exploration,
IE:orbital solar power stations, mine the moon, mine the asteroids, move as much industry into space as possible.
-develop more efficient modes of transport, prioritise development on fusion power, spend less on govt, more on things that matter (almost anything!)
-stop focusing on fallacies like global warming and just do the right things in general

Answer 8

Bob's answer says it all:

"But, moot point or not, it's proven scientific fact."

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know"

Ummm, for Bob and the rest of the GW, fear-mongering alarmists out there, scientific fact does not rely on a better scientific consensus than any other issue known.

There was a huge consensus that the world was flat. There were lots of observations that proved the world was flat. Alas, the world wasn't proven to be flat.

Answer 9

Yes global warming is really man made. I suggest you watch An Inconvenient Truth. It will make a believer out of you. I think that the best way to tackle the problem is for the government to give incentives to people who care enough to do something about the problem, like buying a hybrid, changing to fluorocarbon bulbs. etc...

Answer 10

Of course we should reduce our dependence on imported oil, most of which is sold by people who don't like us. By building a lot of alternative energy power plants and vehicles.

But, moot point or not, it's proven scientific fact. From the source below:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

EDIT 5_for_fighting trots out the old untruth that scientists once thought the world was flat. Eratosthenes measured the diameter of the world about 2500 years ago. Once the data was in, most anyone worthy of the name "scientist" accepted the fact that the world was round. A flat world was an unscientific belief.

The same is true about global warming. The data is in.