How are we supposed to be concerned about global warming when we constantly get conflicting information?

Question

In the 1970s they were telling us to fear an impending ice age. Now you have some that tell us it's unclear as to whether man has anything to do with the melting of the ice caps.

Also, the earth has gone through extreme temperature changes in the past, long before we had infrastructure of oil products, toxic emissions, cell phones, computers, televisions, PDAs, etc...

Answer 1

All you need is morality, conscience, and ethics. You don't need facts to abide which is right. You are responsible of protecting everything around you and need not to wait just to do that, right?

Answer 2

This is the only planet we have, so being concerned is as good a start as any. I recommend getting information from a variety of sources, going to lectures on climate change where you have the opportunity to ask questions of the speakers directly, and basically taking everything you hear and read with a grain of salt.

Then act as if at least half of what is said is true and do your share to help, and let your elected officials know you are aware and informed and wanting them to show true leadership on the matter.

And finally, roll up your sleeves and volunteer to do habitat restoration or other conservation work locally. Getting plugged in to local issues is a good way to start caring more deeply about broader issues.

Answer 3

The stuff in the 70s was just a few scientists with little data and no backing from any major scientific organization.

That is vastly different from today's thousands of climatologists, backed by a mountain of data, and EVERY major scientific organization. Much more about it here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Historically warming was due to changes in the the Sun. How do we know that isn't happening now? Prety simple, we measure the Sun constantly. It's slightly decreasing these days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm

When it was warmer in the past coastlines and plant life were very different. Our modern society would be very damaged by that now.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647

The world's scientists aren't conflicted on this, except for a very few "skeptics". There always are a few skeptics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"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://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 4

1. Do your research. Who is the speaker, who do they speak on behalf of, follow the money. Is the person a scientist or a shlock journalist misquoting science. Are they BIASED? Is this nothing more than an opinion piece? What is the context of their statements (when you fit it into the entire GW puzzle does it make sense)?

2. Politics and religion are not excuses for not remaining openminded. I take that back ... they ARE just excuses for not being openminded.

3. Some events are related to other climate events, some aren't. It is sometimes difficult to establish the difference between the symptoms and the disease causing them, i.e. cause and effect; so it can be very confusing. Again, do your research, use that browser.

4. DO NOT listen to opinion; get the FACTS! There are many more opinion pieces than scientific articles. Confirm the opinion for yourself (if they provide sources at all).

In conclusion, if something is confusing you, verify it for yourself, and ask for clarity. A truthful person will be happy to provide it.

Answer 5

Well, you just have to listen to the top contributors here on Yahoo. They work off pages of links and quotes. They spend lots of time copying and pasting. They know more about planets than Copernicus and have a mathematical model and all the data needed to accurately explain 650 million years of climate change. They can also predict the future climate out to 500 years with only a +/- 3% error range. Amazing.

Answer 6

You don't need to decide who is right or who to believe. The solution for global warming would be the same as for environmental protection. You don't want to see the rainforest destroyed, you don't want to be locked in a permanent traffic jam, you don't want the world to run out of oil. If you believe in these things and try to correct them to are fighting global warming at the same time. So you don't need to figure out who is right.

Answer 7

If you pull up satellite photos of the ice/poles you will see a dramatic change. Read the articles about sea level rise and you will find plenty to be concerned about. Since so many people live at sea level there are going to be many people effected by sea level rise. This will also effect the economy. There is so much to be concerned about that soon your problem is going to be how to stay optimistic.

Answer 8

There is not much evidence for extreme temperature change in the past - disregarding massive extinction events from meteor impacts and other huge catastrophes. It was hotter hundreds of thousands(or millions) of years ago, but temperatures changed slowly over millennia, not decades.

Answer 9

its all not true.

global warming IS happening, but it is out of our control. the other planets are doing the same at the same rate. unless we are cutting down forests there, i really do not see how this is happening. Its the democrats who are trying to brainwash people. (if you do not believe me, look for more republican news stations or articles written by republicans)

Answer 10

Not the greatest first answer.But check out this article in the news today.

Friday, October 19th, 2007




Harper advocating unfounded eco-salvation


Fri Oct 19 2007

By Tom Harris


ALTHOUGH environmentalists complain bitterly about the Harper government's admission of the obvious -- we will not meet our

Kyoto Protocol targets -- climate campaigners have in fact won over the House of Commons. The throne speech showed that,

rather than opposing the unfounded rhetoric of David Suzuki and Al Gore, the government has embraced it.

The throne speech asserts: "Threats to our environment are a clear and present danger that now confronts governments around

the world."

The most significant "clear and present danger" is widespread public ignorance of basic climate science, a problem that

provides fertile ground for the unfounded eco-salvationism of politicians and activists driving today's agenda.

Next we are told in the throne speech, "This is nowhere more evident than in the growing challenge of climate change."

Climate change is not a growing challenge; it is a shrinking one. As the Earth has warmed slightly in the past century, the

"challenge" to society is considerably less than it was during previous cold periods.

The throne speech continues: "Our Government believes that action is needed now to ensure our quality of life, particularly

for those most vulnerable to health threats from the environment --our children and seniors."

Neither children nor seniors are threatened by global warming. They may be threatened by funding diversions from social

programs to the supposed "climate crisis." And they definitely would be threatened by global cooling, something the

government steadfastly refuses to plan for.

"Climate change is a global issue and requires a global solution."

This nonsense line is repeated often -- the only "global solution" to climate change is adaptation.

"Our Government believes strongly that an effective global approach to greenhouse gas emissions must have binding targets

that apply to all major emitters, including Canada."

"Greenhouse gas emissions" sound dangerous but, in Canada and most of the developed world, it is essentially code for carbon

dioxide, a benign gas that is increasingly being shown to not be a significant cause of climate change.

"Canada has already engaged the international community at APEC, the G8 and the United Nations and will continue to press for

a new international agreement that cuts global emissions in half by 2050."

Lead pipe

APEC's approach is not as bad as the UN's (i.e. Kyoto), much as hitting ourselves in the head with a stick is not as bad as

using a lead pipe. However, both are based on the false premise that we need clobber ourselves with CO2 emissions

restrictions. Cutting global emissions by 50 per cent would require global energy rationing on a scale never before seen, a

ticket to mass starvation.

"Our Government will implement our national strategy to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions 60 to 70 per cent by

2050. There will be a 20 per cent reduction by 2020."

Like Jean Chrétien's original endorsement of Kyoto and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty's 2002 promise to close the province's

coal stations by 2007, the Harper government must know this will not happen.

"This strategy will institute binding national regulations on greenhouse gas emissions across all major industrial sectors --

with requirements for emissions reductions starting this year."

Such a plan, carried out at levels even remotely close to those demanded by environmentalists, would cost of tens of billions

of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs. This would ultimately be the government's undoing.

"Our Government will also establish a carbon emissions trading market that will give business the incentive to run cleaner,

greener operations."

This confuses carbon emissions (namely CO2) with pollution. A carbon dioxide emissions trading market would make some

companies and market traders rich but would do little to help the environment.

"Canada's emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period...."

The solution to the problem of non-compliance is obvious -- rather than breaking international law by violating the terms of

a treaty Chrétien made the mistake of ratifying on our behalf, Canada must simply withdraw from the protocol in February

2008.

Article 27 of Kyoto states, "At any time after three years from the date on which this Protocol has entered into force for a

Party [February 2005], that Party may withdraw from this Protocol by giving written notification to the Depositary."

Instead of looking to replace Kyoto with alternative carbon dioxide reduction schemes, government must acknowledge that

climate science is still an immature field in which our major discoveries lie ahead of us. In April 2006, 61 climate experts

wrote a public letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper requesting open, unbiased hearings into the science of climate change,

something that has never happened in Canada.

The scientists said, "We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story

concerning this very complex issue." Harper completely ignored them. He must do so no longer.


Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project

(www.nrsp.com).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007 Winnipeg Free Press. All Rights Reserved.