Why do most people ignore of doing something about global warming? I just don't get it.?

Question

Greenhouse gases produced by man-made activities that cause golbal warming is already a fact. But most people still try to ignore their responsibilty to the place they live in.

Answer 1

Scientist Implicates Worms in Global Warming

  Jim Frederickson, the research director at the Composting Association has called for data on worms and composting to be re-examined after a German study found that worms produce greenhouse gases 290 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Worms are being used commercially to compost organic material and is in preference to putting it into the landfill. The German government wants 45% of all waste to be composted by 2015.

"Everybody... thinks they can do no harm but they contribute to global warming. People are looking into alternative waste treatments but we have to make sure that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire," said Frederickson.

Answer 2

Go to this link:

http://www.youtorrent.com/tag/?q=The+Gre...

And download the documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Then get the propaganda follow up called PROOF THAT 'THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE' WAS A SCAM.

Do some research into these topics:

The year without a summer

The Little Ice Age

Global Dimming

Super Volcanoes

When you look at the FACTS... FACTS AND ONLY FACTS... you will see that Global Warming is nothing but a cult being used to manipulate the small minded and perpetuate the adgendas of anti-advancement and anti-globalism political groups.

Nothing more.

Answer 3

Not everyone believes what you believe.

Answer 4

When you refer to "most people" what is this based upon? In my experience "most people" in Europe are already doing a lot to combat climate change caused by man's activities. This is also reflected in many other areas of the developed world including America.

Don't let yourself be persuaded that just because the sceptics and deniers are loudly proclaiming uncertainty or proffering their "Pink Elephant Theories" that they represent a majority because they don't! Outside of America they are simply treated as misguided people who have been overly influenced by a political & economic slant that dictates that profit & growth are the only things that matter in life. It is a fundamental flaw that many of them share that economic growth is the same thing as human progress!

Those already taking action are united in a belief that our adverse impact on climate change must be halted for the good of everyone. You will not find a unifying "call to arms" amongst the Pink Elephant Group only the unifying tactics of sophistry & disingenuousness.

Answer 5

Because its a hoax, plain and simple

Answer 6

Because when people like Al Gore stops flying in a fuel sucking jet and let us see how he really lives at home with his fifty rooms, central heating and AC, not to mention his forty acres which needs mowed at least twice a week then I'll do something. Which will be nothing since he talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.

Answer 7

Change the name from global warming to Global Cooling then I might not ignore you.

Answer 8

I find the collapse of our economy and the loss of personal freedom a greater threat to me and my family than a degree of warming over the next century, given I can fight a political movement (as opposed to fighting the sun).

Answer 9

Not sure you have an understanding of the issue at hand.  Is carbon that man generates bad for the environment? Yes.  Would going back to wood to heat homes be worse for the environment be worse yes.  Would Wind, Solar, Nuclear (Fission and Fusion), Geothermal and Tidal be less impacting.  Yes.  Build the political will in the country to support these alternative energy sources so that we do not have any reduction in our standard of living and you will see the problem solved.  Note I did not include Biomass as a viable alternative source as it has to large an impact on food prices with to little benefit.

Answer 10

Last year for the stupid global warming concert, hundreds if not thousands of private jets were flown to each location.  If it is such an emergency, why didn't they drive hybrids or at worst fly coach?  Must not be as big of an emergency as they contend.  When Algore and the alarmist generals start taking it seriously, I *might*.  Oh, who am I kidding.  I won't take it seriously until someone proves it by debating the facts and showing scientifically it is occurring.  Not some stupid report from the IPCC that is politically motivated to say the least.

Answer 11

Cause I simply choose not to be a sheep or a cult member....  Sorry

By the way, when the sun went down last night, did it get cold?

So, why does Gore need billions of dollars in research money????  

If you think to solve global warming, then you are....  well, I don't want this excluded...  HE WANTS BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH MONEY TO PROVE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!  LOL

Answer 12

Because so called AGW or GW doesn't exist.

If you look at the IPPC panels findings you'll find that they are on their 4th revision, that they didn't include enough statisticians and they were, well, plain wrong...

Read this article, cut and pasted from the Washington Times, authored by H. Sterling Burnett.

+++Start of article+++

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.

In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.

However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.

Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.

These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."

The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.

Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.

In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.

A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.

Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.

The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.

The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

Answer 13

because if they ignore it they can pretend its not even happening. i guarantee you when they have to find us another planet to live on once everyone ruins this one but they can take 1,000,000 people it'll be people like u and me who care about the environment who will be going hahaha