If global warming does not exist?

Question

Even if global warming does not exist, which I believe it does, how much does that really matter?

All the things that we would do to prevent global warming would also prevent and solve problems that are not in dispute.

-Energy through vehicles and homes: the use of fossil fuels causes heavy pollution, smog exists, water pollution exists

-Factories in the midwest: acid rain exists

-Overuse of paper products: deforestation, desertification and erosion exist

-Throwing away recycleables: the one action that I can see absolutely no reason to do, probably explaining why even the least green people put plastics in the plastic bin, the benefits exist!

How long can this list go? As long as the list for proposed causes of global warming can.

Answer 1

The answer is that by diverting global resources and money to a non-existent "problem" we ignore more pressing world issues like hunger, fresh water, and disease which kills millions of people each year ---------- right now---- everyday--- and spend these resources trying to solve a non-existing problem which to date has NOT killed even one human.

Answer 2

If nature is 90% respondsible for nautural occouring green house gases whos going to prove it or disprove it?

The fact is that the earth has went through at least one frigid time in the past and through at least 1 warming in the past. The proof is in the fossils for the warming. It could have been warmer with the earths atmosphere being under more pressure than we now have. And this would explain the tropical environment needed to support the dinosaurs and their food supply. Whether you believe in God or not, there is a whole lot of what goes on in the earth's environment that we will not understand and for sure will never be able to predict. Assuming we don't go stupid and push the nuke button.

I personally have a hard time believing man is responsible for 10% of the greenhouse gases. As this is only an estimate from someones model My model says well under 5% and Im a layperson.

If the estimates were given before the Montrial Protocal where we gave up the production of Refrigerant 12 and the clorene gas it contains to "save the O2" as to what the volcanoes and nature itself was doing about putting CO, CO2, and Compounds of Clorene in the air the estimates at that time 1995 I believe were in the 90% range but no one could research them because of the "supposed hole in the ozone layer over Anartica" Now we know the ozone hole or thickness opens and closes over time every year. Sometimes it closes more sometimes not.

But Our all wise and knowing EPA told us working with the clorene compound gas R12 "well we cant do anything about the volcanoes and the nature of the earth poluting the air, but we can do something about what we do to it".

Since I got this fine data from the experts at the EPA I figure its just another way for us to loose our freedom and "make us more equal" to the poorer countries. After all we cant do anything about nature. And if the models are off the other way the doo-gooders for the enviroment would be publishing the news so I figure its either 90% or a lot less and no one fighting for the enviorment wants to discuss this inteligently. They just want action not facts right or wrong just action. Keeping the profits out of the CORP's and crippeling the ecconomy of the industrialized world.

I have heard of Carbon Cards in Great Brittan. Once you've used your share of carbon credits I dont know what you do, you sit home I guess. I suppose it might be easier for terrorists to hit you if you cant move. And most of them are from developing or 3rd world countries where they can depend on like minded people to take care of the family they leave behind.

Now if you want to believe what "experts say" and deduct fudge factors from their equasion, then factor back in the truth, 95% sounds closser than 90%.

If this is really a man caused problem and if their really is a problem man can correct, the developing countries will take up any slack that the industrialized nations give. Thus no effect.

Answer 3

So far, bio fuels has been the USA's first attempt at controlling CO2 emissions. Here our the results from the USA's first attempt.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?f...

http://planetdaily.ws/index.php/more/184

If this is the result of a very mild first attempt, imagine what happens if our politicians start to really take this serious.

http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/news/Com...

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12118445...

The AGW proponents never deal in reality. Even the originators of the Kyoto protocol (which has been an abject failure in the countries which signed it) admit that it would cost trillions and at most, lower temps .07 degrees. This is an amount so small as not to be measurable. Remember this, government policies have the opposite intended effect. If they enact policies like the Lieberman/Warner bill, do not say I did not warn you.

Answer 4

you have a very good point and now i think u rock! if only we could make other people see that but many companies are making planet saving stuff the hippy days are comeing back but the peace and love thing isnt guna come through wars will still go on many people will still be selfish jerks......so sad but ur stil awesome!

Answer 5

Man create man destroys. Man has created temporary comfort and great achievements, progress and success. Now did they know the side effects? Nope. Who then can say that they are smart if they can't solve what they have begun?

Answer 6

You are absolutely correct.  If people who want action to stop AGW are wrong, we develop diverse energy sources, reduce energy consumption  and generally clean the environment up. Much of this we will need to do even if AGW turns out to be wrong in the future.  Now the EVDIENCE suggest AGW is real.

If the denialist are wrong, we cannot possibly respond to reduce impacts and spend much more for much less results.  What is the price of an incorrect answer.  That is the question.

Answer 7

The problem is solving these issues costs money, and your average ignorant fool is not yet ready to pay for what they are doing to the environment but would rather ***** about how scientists are just making stuff up to get money. HELLO, these scientists arent in it for the money, most truly want to help the environment. they are also usually 100 times smarter than your average american.

btw, great ideas in ur question

Answer 8

Farleyjredfield pretty much nailed this one on the head! To conclude his evidence, something never mentioned is a little Astronomical term called the "Goldilocks Effect".

The Goldilock's problem is an analogy to describe the perfect state of temperature that Earth's climate seems to have. For example, our neighbouring planets Venus and Mars have temperatures of two extremes. With Venus' blasting temperatures of 900F and Mars' nights of -200F, Earth seems to have a comfortable temperature that is "just right" i.e. analogous to Goldilock's "just right" porridge. I guess the 'problem' would be why is this the case for Earth?

You can google search for a visual image of what I'm talking about. Basically, the sun expands as it ages getting hotter and hotter. Therefore, this perfect range from the sun for life is being pushed out further in space towards Mars. There really isn't a whole lot we can do to prevent global warming, and no one on all of these news reports ever seem to mention that the ice caps on Mars are melting also.

Lastly, go check out reports on our Earth's magnetic field. Looks like this thing could flip anytime now. No one's ever been around when it happened in the past, so there's no telling what effect it will have if any.

Answer 9

Except that everything in vehicle, factory and power plant exhaust other than CO2 and water is already regulated.