Since even the most passionate non-believers in global warming would have to admit that at the very least.....

Question

there is a debate among scientists, shouldn't we err on the side of caution and take some measures to be environmentally friendly? Why are some people so enraged by this idea, nobody is forcing you to recycle, buy a hybrid etc. if you don't want to. Is there some advantage to maximizing pollution and environmental destruction that you're worried we might be missing out on?

"The global warming fringe lunatics have politicized the issue and the leftists have adopted the cause as their latest way to hate america"

Yes, you figured it out...the goal is to destroy America by preserving the environment

Answer 1

Why do believers think that just because you don't buy the concept that man is the cause of warming, they you must be all for polluting the planet?

Noting could be further from the truth. The business of keeping the environment clean is a multi billion dollar business. There are people who make a good living recycling, reducing, and reusing. And all of these task are possible even when the Sun is warming the climate.

Answer 2

There really is NOT much of a debate among scientists in the proper feild. That was the case up until 2 years ago, but that is no longer, I'm sorry to be the one to break that to you.

We do have lot's of other kinds of 'experts' debating it. People even who work for the EPA in high level positions in fact. But those people are not scientists, or if they are, they are almost always petroleum specialized chemists. That would be like taking your diagnosis from a veterenarian. It's also very telling when you think about what Industry supports them.

Please note that even the language of the conservative politicians has changed over the last two years in that regard. You still have alot of pundits calling it BS, but not many politicians. Even the President has admitted it.

Now what I do call BS on from the liberal side. While we have causation that points to global warming and humans.. We don't have any scientific reason yet to say that this is the reason for things such as Katrina or the recent wildfires in California (which I have seen attempted in the media.) That may yet be proven (as with martians and the Yeti) but it's disingenuous to pretend it has been at this time.

We can expect to see all kinds of weather anomolies as a result of global warming, but how much and how soon is UNKNOWN..

Answer 3

There is a lot of misinformation about global warming. For example, one of your responders wrote: "The only scientist who are trying to disprove global warming are the ones who are being paid by the big oil corporations."

This is just wrong, some of the best scientists do not believe in global warming, including the most prolific and respected climatologist - Roger Pielke. And Pielke has never taken money from big oil or big coal. And there is a host of others.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/09/02/summary-conclusions-of-climate-science/

I am willing to admit there is a debate among scientists, but the "cure" is worse than the problem. If you do not know what these problems are, you need to do some reading.

I am all for developing new clean burning sources of energy, especially if we can end our dependence on foreign oil and end our use of coal. Both of these energy sources pollute, but it is completely wrong headed to think of CO2 as pollution (no matter what the Supreme Court says). CO2 is not toxic to humans and there is no proof it will cause catastrophic warming.

The carbon trading plan endorsed by Al Gore will line his pockets. His company stands to make $1 billion in profit if it is completely enacted. And tjhat means all the rest of us lose.

Answer 4

Actually, it takes TWO sides to "politicize" any issue, and both the left and the right are GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY of politicizing the issues of Global Warming.

The extreme right says "It's all a fantasy, there is no climate change, it's all a leftist liberal commie pinko plot to destroy America!!!"

The far left wails, "It's an unavoidable castrophe, we must all stop driving cars and stop eating red meat and live in the forest in organically-grown all-natural teepees!!!"

Pick which side embarasses you the least.

Personally, I'm thoroughly disgusted and ashamed of all of you. This is far too important an issue to be left to any of the liberal or conservative children who presently inhabit public offices, and, apparently, too complex for the (in general, very gullible, poorly educated, easily misled, and badly misinformed) American public to comprehend.

No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're all ignorant, arrogant, lazy inbred morons who are only interested in watching sports, drinking beer, and tearing up the countryside in oversize 4wd pickup trucks.

Answer 5

Everyone should do their part..most consumer products are recyclable and the energy efficient products would keep bills lower as well as keep the power structure from collapsing from excess use..but to cry wolf and claim the sky is falling is irresponsible at best.
Back in the 70's there was fear about another ice age and we were all going to freeze to death and the ozone hole was going to open up and we were going to burn in hell......now it's global warming...whats next>>>some super disease or bug out break..oh wait..they already did that..and the results were "special taxes" that just ended up in the general funds for pet projects.
The point is that those scientists and researchers need money to continue to exist and college proffessors need to keep a job and others in the feild are being forced to go along with this farce..otherwise they could lose their jobs...even the news media is getting into the hype..there are just as many opposing veiws...but you never see them.

Answer 6

Alot of spot on responses so some distance. Have we fouled our nest? confident. Is the corporate greed device grinding up the organic supplies, wood and water to churn out crappier crap, extra each and every of the time, for the almighty dollar? Yep. Are we pumping a good number of co2 into the air? confident. Are those events making an excellent impression on the area? i think of so. comments on the air, water and soil high quality coming in from around the country and worldwide are down proper apocalyptic frightening! yet are human beings the main appropriate driver of the international climate exchange we are seeing?? I used to think of so, yet no longer any further. The modifications we are seeing are area of a cycle, an excellent one. it incredibly is not worldwide warming...it incredibly is ocean warming led to by using underwater volcanic activity...the seas are boiling, actually. warmer oceans are inflicting evaporation which comes backpedal in increasing precipitation activities, flooding. that's why they got here upon Lucy one hundred ft under the water line. that's the place the ice sheets come from. They sort in place in super snowstorms, and it actually happens very almost in a single day. Ask the wooly mammoths, lots of whom nevertheless had plant life of their mouths that they have been grazing on while it got here. Ice center samples have shown previous iceages have come from climates warmer than of ours immediately to finished blown performed, see you in 11,500 years, ice age in a span of 20 years, sometimes much less. in case you opt to understand what we are up against bypass watch The Day After the following day no longer An Inconvient certainty. it will start up with a six week rain typhoon.....

Answer 7

There is no question the earth is warming, no one denies that. There is no question that over the history of the earth that there have been hotter and colder trends.

I do not believe in the extreme views of the Al Gore and his ilk, nor do a lot of legitimate scientists.

That is, I dont believe that man's impact is as great as stated. The examples they site are considered by many to be part of normal cyclic conditions.

Conserving is good and the responsible thing to do. Developing new technology at all levels is the right thing to do.

The global warming fringe lunatics have politicized the issue and the leftists have adopted the cause as their latest way to hate america. And yet the Hollywood socialists still travel about in private jets. Gulfstream environmentalists.

We should lead in developing energy alternatives, energy independence, cleaner ways to use existing fuels, cleaner alternative fuels etc. But, we should not do this to the detrement of our economy, national security, productivity and the health and prosperity of our manufacturing base.

I have faith that america will do these things, not out of self loathing but out of perseverence and a willingness to do the difficult thing because it is the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, consider what is going on in asia, china in particular, which is fast becoming a toxic wasteland. Our companies are supposed to compete with industry run amock like this, paying slave wages and poisening the earth ?

Educate yourself, see through the leftwing propoganda.

John

Answer 8

You and anyone else are free to take what ever steps you wish. The objection comes when you start insisting that everyone else do the same, or even worse, propose that the government force everyone to do so. Personally, I am quite willing to adopt certain practices that will ultimately reduce green house gas emissions, but only because they save me money. Ideas that cost me money, or make my life less convenient or enjoyable are of no interest to me. Being forced to do anything, even things I might choose to do voluntarily are anathema to my belief in personal freedom.

Answer 9

Again, I’m with Dr Jello on this one.

Just because I believe that there is no need to be concerned about climate change and that the cries of ‘catastrophe’ are just scaremongering nonsense, doesn’t mean that I think we should ignore environmental issues. Let’s just make sure we’re dealing with real issues, rather than imagined ones.

And as for erring on the side of caution… Well, it depends on how far you want to take it. If you are suggesting that we should spend money on action ‘just in case’ – i.e. without solid proof that it’s necessary - then I would say no. Remember, every dollar you spend on these ‘just in case’ actions is a dollar that could have been spent on issues that are real and happening now. So, which should we spend our money on? Actual problems that are happening today, or possible problems that may happen sometime in the future.

It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Answer 10

Like with all things that are asking to change lifestyle, it is perceived as an attack by the left. The commies, child murderers and taxers (BTW, look at the state of the economy, time for democrats to fix things once again).

This so called consultant answering above must be a joke or a con man. Just recently it was shown that CO2 levels have risen much more than feared. What in earth is so difficult to understand? There is rapid, large scale destruction of forrests and other CO2 assimilating ecosystems while in the same time man burns fossile fuels. Plants just can't keep up anymore. Ergo, there is a rapid man made rise of CO2 and hence of global temperature. What is so difficult about this?