Is Global Warming really an issue?

Posted by: roun12

Do you think that Global Warming is truly as serious as your Science Class video says it is?

  • Yes. If mankind does not change its actions then soon the world will be flooded by the melting polar ice caps or the air won't be breathable by any life on Earth.

  • No. There is no problem regarding Global Warming and we can continue living our normal lives for many years without worrying about it.

81% 22 votes
19% 5 votes
  • According to many sources, many species will soon go extinct because of global warming. (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons3.asp) (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/urgentissues/global-warming-climate-change/threats-impacts/wildlife-at-risk.xml)

  • It would take an actual effort to cause meaningful change and while fossil fuels would eventually run out they would still be cost effective for a while. While climate change wont cause and apocalypse it would cause huge instabilities with will cost us countless lives, massive economic downturn, and billions of dollars in damage (if not trillions).

  • If the rate of global warming increases at the same rate that it has, Earth will be uninhabitable by as soon as 2100. Now, of course we will have global warming prevention efforts no matter what so that is not necessarily doomsday. We will however at some point have to face this problem because by the time this becomes an urgent problem, it will be too late. If we are not to stop global warming now, when are we?

  • It is still a problem but the worse a problem gets, the harder it is to deny it so soon people will have to accept it and we will be able to get more done. on it.

  • Anthropogenic global warming is.

  • Alternate technology that doesn't produce as much global warming is becoming cheaper and more efficient.

  • I agree ... its a non issue. Its been known that this type of thing would work itself out. There wasn't an 'irreversible' point or any of the other crazy hyped up garbage. Liberals took this to a Y2K level yet again. Energy efficiency is trending as it always has. It was asinine to think the world would stick to industrial revolution class pollution without liberal intervention. All of it was unnecessary.

  • Global warming, is a myth. Climate change is real, but not on the scale scientists lead it up to be.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
triangle.128k says2015-05-01T19:10:08.3063508-05:00
Well it's becoming less of an issue, alternative technologies that don't produce global warming are getting cheaper and more efficient.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T19:55:04.5805533-05:00
I agree. Those techs would have grown cheaper in their own right and fossil fuels more expensive, just due to supply and market volatility.
krayracker says2015-05-01T20:09:12.0614183-05:00
Although it is more efficient and environmentally friendly, many people and businesses use fossil fuels. Not everyone is going to transition immediately...
krayracker says2015-05-01T20:09:33.3556913-05:00
This would make a good debate topic! :)
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T20:13:14.0172579-05:00
They aren't, no. But the world won't end because of it either.
komododragon8 says2015-05-01T20:21:05.4429641-05:00
Freedom: No one said the world would end, more like flooding and storms would cause billions of dallars in damage and make millions refugees.
komododragon8 says2015-05-01T20:21:28.3815373-05:00
"dollars"
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T20:29:19.6606262-05:00
I have literally heard people state that they believed the world would end because of global warming. People did say that, some still are. Check the polls and debates. They're out there ... They really do exist. I promise you.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T21:08:34.3602322-05:00
Trillions? In the scope of a worldwide event?? That's a drop in the bucket. At this rate I'm surprised you people don't think China amassing too big a population on one side of the globe would throw the earth off its axis. What other celestial level damage do you think ants can cause on a planets surface? I don't think you understand how difficult it is to affect something on that scale without matter automatically equalizing to compensate for it. If anything it'll revert just as easily as it was changed ... Which you all seem to claim only took 200yrs.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T21:10:28.5193601-05:00
You all sound like Hank Johnson on The Occupation of Guam.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T21:16:11.4391602-05:00
If you haven't watched that video you really should. You're in for a treat.
komododragon8 says2015-05-01T21:40:52.5015508-05:00
Ants don't affect the enviroment like we do, humans have had a far stronger affect than those insects, we can build massive cities and then destroy them in the blink of an eye, we can control rivers, eliminate entire forests, and cause a mass extinction, If some photosynthesizing bacteria can cause a mass extinction (http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event), Im pretty sure 7 billion primates can too. Also I certainly have met very few people who claim that climate change will destroy the earth and I have no idea where your finding them. Instead people clearly state the affects this will have on the environment. (http://www.Edf.Org/climate/climate-change-impacts) As you can see in this source they arn't talking about destroying all life on earth, instead they discuss the damages this will have on our society. Lastly world wide changes cannot simply "revert just as easily as it was changed". It took about 10 million years for the biodiversity to recover after the Permian-Triassic extinction event.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-01T21:53:45.4273750-05:00
I was referring to us as the ants ... Sorry I got carried away in thought. Dino extinction wasn't due to an internal event. It would take something external to cause 10billion years of unrest before equilibrium returned. A few degree change in weather is a quick revert for the planet based on location. We are such a minimal factor in the earths overall temperature. Just so miniscule.
komododragon8 says2015-05-01T21:53:52.0311297-05:00
Oh and earth still hasnt reverted back from the Great Oxidation Event.
komododragon8 says2015-05-01T21:59:07.5451747-05:00
Those photosynthetic bacteria were pretty small and internal, yet they changed the earth and life on it and so far it hasnt changed back. Also the few degrees isnt the only thing were dealing with, we are also dealing with ocean acidification (which can be found in one of my sources). Obviously climate change wont cause the same type of event that the meteor did but it will still have huge negative affects on our agriculture (through increasingly unpredictable weather) and our fishing industries (due to the loss of coral reefs).
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-02T22:44:10.9056968-05:00
What was the biomass of those bacteria?
komododragon8 says2015-05-02T23:02:02.3742334-05:00
It is unkown as to what the biomass of the bacteria was but that doesnt change the fact that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and its man made. It also offers an example of a permanant change to the climate which did not revert back to the way things were.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-02T23:03:30.0772938-05:00
Carbon capture technology. Exactly how is it impossible to revert back the effects?
komododragon8 says2015-05-04T22:34:13.5372549-05:00
Did I ever say that it was impossible? No I did not, I said that it was unlikely to just revert back naturally and just as quickly as it changed originally. Humans can reverse the affects of CO2 levels, its only a question of how expensive. Now bringing back the species that went extinct and repairing the damage caused to ecosystems, now thats a completely different story and is one of the main reasons we are trying to stop climate change.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-05T06:48:45.8099916-05:00
"Now bringing back the species that went extinct and repairing the damage caused to ecosystems ...'' They had their chance and nature chose them for extinction. We aren't alien to this planet.
komododragon8 says2015-05-05T17:10:51.5209821-05:00
This isn't an argument about whether we are a part of nature its an argument about the dangers to our own species that unstable ecosystems will have, this is about self preservation here but if you would rather lose the vast number of pollinators for our crops and fish for our food than be my guest.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-07T04:15:36.1212925-05:00
The vast number of pollinators is us! We produce that food manually. Hunter gatherer style living is only leaned upon in the most underdeveloped regions of the world.
FreedomBeforeEquality says2015-05-07T04:20:31.7181292-05:00
There isn't 1 food supply we rely on that isn't heavily worked and regulated to ensure its stability. If it requires too much natural intervention and chance, we don't rely on it as a primary food source.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.