Why no one takes Global Warming seriously

So what are you advocating then?

Does it really matter if we believe global warming to be true or not? I guess this is what continually baffles me about the global warming issue, who really cares who's right? We get bogged down in a debate on if global warming is real or not, which does nothing. Does anyone ever argue that the changes global warming advocates are asking for, would have a negative impact? Even if we eventually can show conclusively that global warming doesn't exist, or that humans had absolutely no impact upon it, does it not benefit us to move our technologies forward and become more responsible global citizens? In the end it really comes down to progress and living cleaner, and I'd like to meet the person who would argue against that.

Does anyone ever argue that the changes global warming advocates are asking for, would have a negative impact?

Extreme environmentalism has a definite economic impact on developed and undeveloped countries. Sometimes they impede progress. New technologies must be profitable in order for them to work.

Well then the question becomes what do you consider extreme? Any issue has its extremes, but we seldom need to go to the extremes. There's plenty of progress to be made from here, to that extreme. Why do we continually bog ourselves down with worrying about what an extreme faction of any issue wants? This isn't an issue about appeasing extremist.

When extremism halts development of new technologies because of altered animal migration or windmill blades killing birds or whatever, we all suffer because advances can't be made. A balance needs to be found.

I would be inclined to lump that into #2 or possibly #5.

While I whole-heartedly agree that nature is bigger than man, I do believe that we are capable of effecting nature. The very fact that we are here today is attributable to an abundance of algae in the world oceans billions of years ago, photosynthesizing, replacing CO2 with oxygen. Those microscopic organisms made all plant and animal life possible over a period of millions of years.

Evidence points to mass extinctions in the past caused by volcanic activity and planetary collisions. One of these events was a massive fissure of molten lava that spanned across Siberia spewing toxic gas and ash into the atmosphere. The eruption only lasted a few years but affected the environment for thousands of years and wiped out 99% of life on earth.

We are changing the chemical make-up of the Earth's atmosphere. These chemicals don't fly off into space, they stay with us. They accumulate, spending thousands of years circulating in the atmosphere. This is no different from the volcano. It's just a smaller scale over a longer period of time.

No, I don't believe we can destroy the planet. I do believe that we can destroy ourselves. Earth will bounce back. It always has.

No single raindrop believes it is responsible for the flood....

Even if we're not responsible for tipping a delicate balance -- something that's a matter of opinion more than anything else -- it behooves us not to throw gasoline on the fire. If the globe is getting warmer we would be well advised to take whatever steps we can to at least decrease our impact.

There's no sound economic reason to suspect that governmental regulation will have an adverse impact on markets. All the regulations we put into place will be incorporated into the market structures -- just as they always have. Indeed, if there's anything more resilient than the planetary ecosystem, it's the market economy.

That said -- I should point out that mankind isn't always smaller than nature. Look at footage from a few above-ground nuclear tests and you can see nature shrink before the awesome power of man. We are far more than 6,000,000,000 hairless apes wandering around the planet. We have a significant capability to substantively alter our environment.

I have to say that I am totally with Killfile on this one. Regardless if "we" are causing GW or not, it certainly doesn't help by upping CO emissions and not accepting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol
(

Yay, not being able to edit my post strikes again!
My post above was about 3 paragraphs long. What a waste of time. Delete these please.

I guess this was the main point of all my rambling anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Looks like we're a minority for ratification. I didn't see that one coming!

Regardless if "we" are causing GW or not, it certainly doesn't help by upping CO emissions and not accepting the terms of the Kyoto Protocol

Some argue that complying with Kyoto would be very harmful. Currently the estimated cost of Kyoto is $192 billion (JunkScience.com). When you start to look at the estimated temperature savings of Kyoto and then think of what else nearly $200 billion could've been spent on you might see the harm of Kyoto.

odd that cities that have voluntarily committed to the kyoto Protocol have seen economic booms due to their green business development.

Behind -- I've heard that too but on a radio report some time ago. If you've got a link I'd love to have it.

Really, a belief in whether or not man is responsible for a shift in worldwide climates is irrelevant when thinking about whether we should find cleaner sources of power and cleaner ways to live. We know for SURE that we can have enormous effects on our immediate surroundings and that should be enough incentive to pursue more environmentally sound policies, lest all of our population centers become like Los Angeles where some days the smog is so thick you can't see the Hollywood sign from the valley, or Mexico City where the pollution is so bad that citizens wear masks to breathe outdoors. We don't need another Cuyahoga River style fire (the WATER was on FIRE).

A few points of contention:

- The ozone hole is not 'nearly gone' - 2005 registered the 3rd largest hole on record - only slightly smaller than the peak size. It is predicted to slowly shrink over a period of 50 years. (source: British Antarctica Survey)

- Only amoral and irrational actors maximise their own short-term gains at the expense of their long-term health and wealth, or that of their children. Refusing to help reduce emissions unless the government makes it worth your while is immoral. Now, you can argue that most people need such incentives, and that environmental policy won't work without it (and I'd agree with you.) But that doesn't excuse you from your responsibility to do your part voluntarily.

"The relatively recent reduction of ozone-destroying gasses shouldn't make an improvement so quickly. NASA scientists think that atmospheric wind patterns could be transferring ozone around the planet, helping with the recovery. At this rate, we'll return to 1980 levels between 2030 and 2070."

Let me be more accurate -- the depletion is ending, and the hole is recovering quickly; more quickly than it should. An example of how we don't have complete control of our environment.

"Only amoral and irrational actors maximise their own short-term gains at the expense of their long-term health and wealth, or that of their children."

Oh (sigh) the children. Do it for the children. It's all for the children. If we're all polluting, which we are, then we're all guilty of harming "The Children". You took time to write that spew, Walls, therefore unless you were somehow generating your own electricity through a purified system, there you go harming The Children. How could you be so insensitive and amoral to The Children?

You're correct in saying that I need incentives. Hell, I just need the choice! Give me the option to buy a hydrogen powered vehicle, and offer hydrogen stations, and my affluent self will likely pay more to not pollute. I do not have those options. I recycle. I attempt to save energy when it's feasible. However as an average consumer, those are my options. Give me better ones, at a reasonable price, and I'm in.

And to Vincenze, to your point, I agree. Let's make the world better. Let's fix what we can. Using less electricity is great. However, your article is about whether we all accept our responsibility to do better. I accept it. But short of converting an old volvo to veggie oil and violating my HOA, there's not much I can do. I've installed timers, flourescents, and pay little for electricity.

Now what?

Until I'm presented with options, I'm going to sit here, and do what I have been. I'd surmise along with you that pollution is bad, and may have caused some warming. But after I telecommute and the wife busses in, that's it. What else can we be responsible for?

Yes, try this scare on for size. #6 could put a few other global issues on the back burner.

In the 70's we had the next Ice Age scare too.

Ugly Bastard-

The Y2K bug was real. It was fixed before it became a problem. Pollution was/is a real problem. Environmental regulations are helping to curb the effects of pollution. Over population is a real problem. If it weren't for technological advances in agriculture we wouldn't be able to feed the world. Overpopulation continues to be a problem in 3rd world countries. The threat of nuclear winter has played a key role in avoiding nuclear war.

Science gets a bad rep because of the outlandish predictions made by crackpots who use science to spread their message of doom. The media doesn't help things either. "Did Pres. Bush Cause Katrina?" makes a better headline than "Scientist Predict Global Warning to Cause Climate Changes in 200 Years"

the ice age scare was brought on by ONE guy and he was scientifically proven wrong. that is a far cry from 99% of the climatologists concluding that we are in fact impacting heavily on the climate and that the earth is headed for a massive warm up that will hurt us rather than help us.

1. Lifestyle changes are HUGE - possibly the biggest aspect out there.
2. Tax incentives for conservation (i.e. a much higher gas tax... or the less gas you buy the smaller amount you pay per gallon, stuff along those lines)
3. I support increased funding for research when it's actually for research and not just lip service.