What are the different sides for the issue of global warming?

Question

Just the main sides, for and against, I don't really want any grey areas on this, although I wouldn't mind them, since there's almost no definite answer for anything.

I don't really know exactly what to think on this issue---although that's not to say that I don't try to conserve things, haha, I recycle regularly and do what I can, I just don't know if it's real or not. I'm neutral, really, so please, no flames, I just want to know what people think.

Answer 1

The whole issue of Global Warming is just a small blip as far as the evolution of the planet is concerned. If mankind wants to continue his evolution as a partner on the Earth then he must learn to co-exist with all the rest, if he does not wish to take this course of action then he will inevitably become just another species to face extinction. However the Earth will continue, and much to the consternetion of mankind, will barely notice his existence and his demise will be even less of a concern.

Answer 2

Well I was reading wired mag, and global warming true or not, we are still using world resources at astronomical rates, so even if we aren’t totally responsible for all this, we are still in a place where we are running out of time if we don't change our ways...I don’t know of a name for what we are doing, global warming is such a small aspect of the real problem.

Oh, sorry....ok yes and no would be my answer to your question, yes we are affecting our planet, how could we not when we are continuously poising the eco system worldwide, look at the fishing industry stats of the last 50 years, continuously shrinking catches...look at the red tides, the jellyfish migration's. Off the coast of Oregon and Washington over the last several years there have been huge areas of ocean where the oxygen count was so low all sea life died!

   In wired an article called peak water discussed how we are using more water then our biosphere can redistribute. Apparently the Colorado River doesn’t even reach the ocean any more...there are huge droughts the world over, London to Australia, according to this month’s wired "don’t know there sources, but I’m sure they would be easy to find", oh and don’t forget the global extinction rate...can you say accelerating?

Ok, any way, yes there are natural occurrences where more emissions are gushing into our echo system in an hr then we do in a year...but they are years, or decades apart instead of the nonstop which we inflict on planet.

Yes there are natural elements, increased solar activity, natural warming trendes/cooling trends, other previously unknown enviromental trends.

To summate, yah we are F-ing up our planet, to what degree might be debatable, but in research you can’t prove anything, just show its probability.

Sorry I ranted...but I also scared my self by putting it all down in one place...lot more that I just cant rember because im tierd.

Answer 3

There are not two sides.  There is scientific proof beyond any reasonable doubt.  It isn't an issue anymore!   George Bush himself admitted it.

It is absolutely ridiculous to think there isn't a such thing as climate change.

Answer 4

well, right now i am eating organic granola out of a zip lock HEFTY plastic bag, i am washing it down with french red wine, and answering your question while floating on the atlantic ocean, using power provided by my solar panel and several batteries, my macbook likes its power source, i like my wine source, and i see the east coast of florida lit up like a constant lighting strike, what is GREY?

Answer 5

Global warming is a natural phase of Earth, caused by some Solar Activities by Sun. We human don't have to bother about it. Some of the environmentalist says that this is because of the CO2 we are emitting into the environment, but the reality is that we are just contributing towards 1% to 10% of actual global warming.

If the actual cause of Global Warming is CO2 emitted by the humans then why Global Warming occures on other planets. Just Google for "Global Warming on other planets" and see the results, there are no humans on other planets.

Having too little CO2 in the environment will cause for the plants to die more early, more over it also cools down the temperature on earth.

Having too much CO2 (obiviously, not caused by humans. Mostly generated in the Sea/Oceans) will lead to Green House effect and will lead in increasing the temperature on Earth.

So, the best is to plant more trees so that there would be a balance for the consumption of CO2 on the planet.

I personally think that instead of thinking on this baseless issue try to think on what if Nuclear War broke out in the world, it will destroy Earth more rapidly.

So, next time whenever somebody says you about global warming, just ignore it.

Answer 6

The anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) is that human activity is causing the warming and that it is likely to have catastrophic results even worse than the IPCC predicts. They base this mostly on CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. The theory was made famous by Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth but it's been around for at least 100 years. It was James Hansen at NASA's GISS that brought it back to life in 1988.

The skeptics of AGW have differing arguments and include many scientists, despite what advocates of AGW claim. The major problems I have with AGW are that CO2 levels  and global temperature have both been far higher than they are now with no catastrophic results, as much as 10 times more CO2 than at present during an ice age and 20 times higher than now with temp less than 10C warmer than now.

CO2 only traps heat that the Earth receives, keeping it from escaping into space. Nearly all of the warming comes from water vapor and other greenhouse gases, without this warming the Earth would be uninhabitable. CO2 is essential for life since plants require it to live and we need plants to live. It does not cause any warming on it's own, it merely traps some heat from the sun and each additional CO2 molecule traps less heat than the one that came before it so there's an upper limit on how much warming it can force.

The IPCC has some odd charts, one is the Mann hockey stick chart that eliminates the well-known Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA), both of which occurred during the past 1200 years. The LIA ended in the early to mid 1800s, and the measure our warming from about the same time period. Also, the IPCC has a chart showing that a few thousand years ago the CO2 level was below 150 parts per million (PPM). Since this is below the suffocation level for plants and the plants did not die, this is obviously incorrect, but like the hockey stick chart, they continue to use it.

A far more likely cause of the warming we experience up till 1998, which is still the warmest year on record globally, is solar activity. The sun just ended a very active period that lasted for decades. The new solar cycle is #24 and so far it is almost completely inactive. The last time it remained this inactive was the coldest period of the LIA, called the Maunder Minimum, when crops failed frequently and they had a year without a summer, causing mass starvation. We'd do better to worry about the return of the ice age we're currently in or the Little Ice Age, which would be much worse than any warming we're likely to experience.

Conservation is a good idea and so is recycling and ending the use of fossil fuels. But there is no reason to panic about it and rush into any ill-conceived plans, especially one pushed on us by the United Nations. It's very hard to trust people who failed so miserably in Darfur and countless other places, so I strongly resist the idea they can solve what may not even be a problem.

Finally, the last two times it was warmer than it is now there was a great explosion in human prosperity. One was the Roman Warm period and the other was the MWP when most of the great cathedrals of Europe were built. They could afford to build them because crops flourished and there was plenty of food and prosperity to go around.

Answer 7

Recycling is not a bad activity to do at all, but the reasons for doing it are sometimes bogus.  I am on the side of having a clean planet, clean water, and clean air, but not for saving our planet.

I ask you, from what are we saving the planet from ? The CO2 theory is bogus for many reasons I have written about but I will not go into why’s for answering this question.

The expense of global warming is mind blowing on a global scale and for good reasons is unethical. Using corn to make ethanol has resulted in food shortages, price increases in every corn based product at the supermarket, and has to be subsidized by the government to make it to market. Globalists see industrialization as evil and go out of their way to see only solar and wind power are offered to third world nations. Not only are these types of energy mega expensive, but are not reliable as a energy source. Coal would be better, because it’s a proven energy source, and could provide the energy needed for poor nations at a cheap cost. Meanwhile, the poor nations are left with no power, a high mortality rate, and very short life span, when compared to the western world nations.

All this is done in the name of global warming.