Will US liberals be able to save the world before it is destroyed by global warming?

Question

And since they can't stop global warming why do bother trying to save the world?

Answer 1

Some scientists think we've already passed the AGW 'tipping point.' Others say, at our current rate, we'll reach it in 2017. Who knows? In any case, it doesn't  hurt to start now. After all, the main point of the mitigation strategy is alternative fuel development.

Answer 2

who knows why they bother trying.  the planet goes through natural heating and cooling cycles, ice ages.  I'm not saying that we should go crazy polluting, but at the same time we shouldn't go crazy trying to clean the entire planet up in a week.  i just don't get this whole global warming thing anyway.  its been hot in the south all my life, it doesn't seem any worse now than it did when i was a kid, it was hot then and its hot now.  maybe when it starts breaking 110+ down here then i might change my mind.

Answer 3

If the liberals control the USA there won't be anything worth saving if we allow them to continue.  They want government control (socialism) of all aspects of our lives, and the myth of man causing global warming is one of their main devices to  accomplish this.  

Global warming is a natural cyclical phenomenom.  Sure we should adopt policies to keep our environment clean and healthy.  That's just common sense.  You don't foul your own nest.

Answer 4

It's not just the US and it's not just global warming. It's over fishing and dumping in the oceans, creating unbalanced oceanic ecosystems resulting in an overabundance of jellyfish, like we are seeing now, or farming or developing what should be green buffer zones by the Mississippi river, causing floods like we are seeing now in the middle of the country.

The same thing caused the dust bowl.

In other words, it's not being stupid with our resources and realizing that every action has a reaction.

Even the cons are jumping on board now, so maybe there is hope.

Much of the rest of the world is already doing their part. We are still acting like a third world developing nation in regards to the environment.

Answer 5

I thought the environmentalists wanted to reduce humanities population. Maybe they really don't really believe in this AGW nonsense. Perhaps they just want to make the masses dumb enough, so they can herd them to the slaughter houses or gas chambers, etc.

Answer 6

our world is coming to an end sooner than we think.. look at the weather.. it`s gotten worse over the past years.. so far this year 955 tornadoes and only 742 the previous year.. what does that tell you?

Answer 7

They will certainly be able to make it so miserable that most economic activity will cease.

Will that save the world?  no, but they didn't want to do that in the first place, just save their jobs and power base.

Answer 8

The Liberals need a crisis to exist. If U can get them on a level playing field ,they have already lost. They are trying to destroy the USA any way they can.They have blocked more oil & refinerys at every turn . Need to tell them if the gas is $4 a gal I will hold U responsible.

Answer 9

I don't know I hope they can come up with something that doesn't involve throwing money at the "problem"

Answer 10

So they can tax us to death before we all burn up and spend trillions of dollars on a scam.

Answer 11

I agree with Bob's answer-- however the estimated cost to reverse the upward trend in CO2 concentrations--  is estimated to be about 50 Trillion dollars-- I can think of 1000 other Earth problems where millions of lives could be saved, rather than attempting to control the Earth's temperature----- terraforming only works in Star Trek movies. (we cannot even control the Mississippi River!)

Edit-- Bob you are correct-- it would be great to move away from fossil fuels-- we can to a small extent-- but unless something entirely new is developed solar, wind, wave, geothermal can never replace fossil fuels at the current level of our technology. ( I have hopes that one day in about 15-18 years it may contribute 20-25% of our energy requirements--- however I will probably be dead before that happens!)  :)

Answer 12

This whole movement should be named "The Flight of the Kiwi".  Such a beautiful dream....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdUUx5Fdy...

Answer 13

Well, look at it this way.  They're preaching we're on the brink of the catastrophic disaster of global warming if we don't do something right away.  But since it is really more of a religion that has more holes than a target at gun range, they don't rely on solid evidence.  The evidence they use is flimsy, refutable, and quite often, embelished or flat out wrong (if you don't believe me, see Al Gore, or even James Hansen).  Therefore, since it is huge load of c**p, if Democrats get the White House (which unfortunately, is looking more and more likely), they will throw billions at it, which of course will, either directly or indirectly, come out of every American's pocket.  So when they throw all this money at pointless programs and mandates for something that is a non-problem, down the road, they'll be able to say, "see, it worked just like we said it would, we stopped global warming!" because the earth will be no worse or better off than it is now.

Answer 14

Not alone

But a major difference with the previous administration is that with a multilateral approach and diplomacy, it will be easier to reach a global agreement.

Developed countries need to strongly decrease their emissions while developing ones need to unbundle their economic growth and CO2 emissions.

Answer 15

The world won't be destroyed.  And Man won't disappear, either.

It won't be a Hollywood movie style disaster. Gradually coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be damaged. But it will be very bad. Rich countries will cope, but it will take huge amounts of money. In poor countries many people will die of starvation, but not all of them.

It's far cheaper to spend some money to reduce it, and improve our lives.

EDIT _ How much we spend, and how we do it, are worthy topics of debate.  But note that it's mostly a "twofer", the same things also have value in reducing our need for expensive and unstable imported oil.  The cost doesn't just go for global warming.