Do you think global warming is inevitable?

Climate change is inevitable, be it warming or cooling.

So, if we take away personal and economic freedoms, national sovereignty, income redistribution from richer countries to poorer countries, and eliminate property rights, we will save the planet?

Sounds like a big Marxist hoax to me. The inefficiencies of Marxism will cause the planet more harm.

If enough people believe the conspiracy theory that it’s a marxist hoax and sabotage efforts to mitigate it, then it probably is inevitable.

I think this is the wrong question to ask, rather it should read “is climate change inevitable”.

As Gary so correctly pointed out, not every spot on earth has gotten warmer, and that some places are cold now, when they used to be warm. Now if every single spot on earth, nay the entire earth was getting warmer at the same rate, I would chock this up to a Socialist, “you didn’t build that, redistributive plot and not Marxism.

I don’t know.

It seems to me that unless a person has spent their working life studying the climate, analyzing the air bubbles in ice cores, sampling the air, generating the data, and discussing findings with others doing the same work, how can any of us have an opinion that is worth anything? I think we can’t.

If climate scientists say the climate is changing due to mans influence, based on years of study by many scientists, then that is the best opinion we can get. What are we going to do about it?

Gary F. “So, if we take away personal and economic freedoms, national sovereignty, income redistribution from richer countries to poorer countries, and eliminate property rights, we will save the planet?.” ……

who let the canard, duck, silly goose in the room ????

You must be reading from the M.Bachmann-G.Beck fear-mongers manual.

there is no loss of freedom … but there are jobs in cleaning up the existing mess, moving to cleaner energy, building new technology. Your fear that China and India are somehow going to just take advantage of coal and oil is false. China is already suffering from massive atmospheric pollution in cities – and is investring heavily in clean coal technology – not just HEPA filters on stacks. They are also very agressive on wind, solar and the central power grid system they have is woefully built and unreliable. they are looking to leapfrog the grid (lock) and move to site based power generation – which is wind, solar, and geothermal as well. tidal in some instances. The USA will be the backward child. Time to grow a set and get in the game. Either American business can get moving or get lost.

So it’s hot in northern Minnesota. Must be global warming.

My buddy lives in London and its been colder and rainier than usual. Must be global cooling, right?

One only has to research the beginnings of the Chicago Climate Exchange with our favorite hypocrit Al Gore. CAP ad TAX Trade is a good example of how the public gets scammed under fears of Man made warming. It was only a decade back when it was called Man made Global Warming. Then they figured cooling changes meant trouble for their scam so now we call it Man made Global Climate Change. Hot or cold, they are covered. When the EPA ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, I had to ask, ” so I should never exhale and feed the plants? Al Gore, the Global warming yahoo, flies around in what? Highest polluting jet ever made. How much does he pollute every day in his mansion in CA?

Hmmm, and once again here we are with a day’s question that is just a liberal diversion away from issues affecting the most important election and no media wants to expose the facts we have a

” redistribute wealth” the SOCIALISM mantra of our President who swore to protect the Constitution. Welcome to coming hyper inflation , gas lines at the pumps and bare food shelves once the fed reserve’s third manipulation of printing money continues to lower the dollar’s vlaue. 1980’s with Carter were grand liberal years, high inflation, gas lines and terrorist attacking at will. Global climate change this_

We are well into the era of global warming so the question does not make sense. Can we avert certain dire tipping points that will soon arrive? Yes with a concerted effort, but the recognition of the scientific phenomenon as well as willingness to act seems to be lacking.

We lack the political will to respond in ways that would be economically and environmentally beneficial and sustainable. For example, why not adapt a pricing system that rewards our use of non-renewables, especially alternatives to fossil fuels?

Current estimates calculate the universe/earth to be about 16 billion years old. Daily solar activity impacts the earth for more than the perception of global warming. Humans may wish to be humble in its ascertain that we know how things should unfold as things have been going well for 16 billion years without us.

To the deniers,

Which other science do you reject when rejecting climate science? Cancer research? Science has not proven exactly what causes many types of cancer, so by your logic, those researchers are merely shills for big pharma or other conspiracy right.

How about physicists. Physics has yet to determine what gravity is (other than a force, but what makes gravity, gravity), so is the research going into this area of physics also a myth.

Your position is untenable, and goes directly into the face of the incredible amount of data, gathered by actual scientists, doing actual science, but since Faux news tells you climate change is a liberal plot, you, without thinking for yourselves, just open your mouths, waiting for the feeding, but life is good and ignorance is bliss huh.

I don’t believe that the question asked is whether or not climate change is real or that it is caused by human’s interactions with the earth. I see both of those as facts. Yes there has been warming and cooling periods on earth but nothing like the speed at which it occurs today. The question sounds to me like it asks whether or not we are able to slow or prevent it by being a responsible society. I would say that I have lost faith in an action based, able to reason, rational society (supported by many of the previous comments) and therefore say yes it is inevitable.

We need obama to give a speech to nature. I’m sure the environment would respond and begin cooling down.

Steve the Cynic – [Jefferson, if you were one of those who stood to lose your home, livelihood and community due to things like rising sea levels, you wouldn’t be so cavalier in your “look on the bright side” attitude. If I knew that the people of the world had some willingness to actually look out for the well being of those who would be most harmed and compensate them appropriately, I might share your optimism. However, it sounds like the negative effects will fall most heavily on folks who are currently poor, and helping them cope will no doubt be decried as “marxist redistribution,” never mind that it’s the currenly rich of the world who have benefitted most from the activity that caused the problem.] *** My family does own some land right next to the Atlantic Ocean, actually it’s about a block away…from what you’re telling me I should be looking forward to enjoying some sea side property in my lifetime. Once again you’re neglecting to look at the bright side of global warming!

@ Jefferson,

I think your analysis is not quite right with regard to how a warmer climate effects things. A warmer Minnesota could mean that plants bloom sooner, which in turn means the pollinators also have to be on that schedule(like they are now), and if not, things don’t get pollinated – not great for the worlds food supply.

Or,

A warmer Minnesota means that the boreal forests of the northern part of the state, are being replaced with hard woods, and deciduous species, so yes, there will still be forests, just not the same coniferous forest we currently have.

Or,

I could go on, but the point is not only looking at the macro, but the micro as well.

You are correct that not every outcome from a warmer climate is bad, plants love Co2, and with an increase in atmospheric CO2 it is certainly possible that we might see increased yields from crops – so no, not all horrible, but the trend is more bad than good on a world level.

That’s gotta be the silliest post ever.

Don’t let it keep ya up at night, son. No use losing any sleep over the Republic of Maldives.

The Maldivians will swim over to India. They will be just fine. Nothing to worry about.

You really sit around and wring you hands about what will happen to the Maldives? Really? That’s what gets your panties in a bundle, Binky?

You really believe that should the Maldivians come to harm on account of Global Warming, people in the USA will “owe” money to the Maldivians? Really?

That’s the kind of twisted thinking that has ruined the entire world. The kind of silliness that prevents real progress among the people of the world, and borders on delusional.

I will change that. It is absolutely delusional.

It’s not just the Maldives. That’s just the most famous example. It’s all the low-lying coastal regions that are threatened. It’s also all he people whose ways of life will be disrupted by ecosystem changes. And yes, we (not just America, but the whole industrialized world that benefitted from activities that produced global warming gasses since the industrial revolution) bear a moral responsibility to those who are harmed the most. Of course, they have no leverage to make us pay, because we hold all the power. We may salve our consciences by saying we didn’t know until recently the harm we were doing, but now that we know, if we keep doing it despite knowing how it’s hurting others, we are culpable.

This line of thinking only seems delusional only because most Americans aren’t used to thinking in terms of global justice like that. It’s easier to ignore those issues than to deal with the implication: we’d have to admit that much of our current prosperity is a legacy of living on stolen land, of enjoying two centuries of slave labor, and of the Native American genocide.

I believe that global warming will accelerate as we pump more and more heat trapping gases into the atmosphere, and the companies and individuals who have made their unimaginably large fortunes extracting and burning fossil fuels have brain-washed the non-thinking masses into believing that the laws of physics are a hoax.

In all likelihood, over the next couple of decades, agricultural output will begin to fail, and we won’t be able to feed the ever expanding human population.

The exponential growth of the human race will finally be stopped.

The question should be: Is it too late to avoid catastrophic change? For it is too late to wonder if the planet is getting warmer. Its warmer. And getting warmer still. For those who choose not to believe the mountain of proof assembled by the world’s scientific community and instead cling to a study done by the coal industry, I have one question: What more proof do you need? Polar ice cap now open water? Check. Glaciers losing 80% of their millions of millennium-old mass in just a few years? Check. As predicted, outside the bell-curve extremes in weather are now the norm? Check. Species of plants, animals, insects, virus and bacteria not only found but thriving and colonizing well beyond their ranges for the past millions of millennium? Check. Other species being driven from their historically normal range? Check. Check. And Check. Mate.

I think that most of the commentary misses the point. If you want to argue about ecology, then what does it matter if Global Warming is real or not? We are producing and ingesting copious amounts of pollution each year, and would benefit enormously from finding cleaner, greener ways of living. It’s in our health interest. If you want to argue about economy, then it doesn’t matter if we as a country believe Global Warming is real, the fact is that the rest of the world does and is quickly beating us to the marketplace with their own technology. It costs us jobs, investment money and economic clout each day that we drag our feet to this marketplace. If you want to call it a political ideology, then get your facts straight….there is no Marxism, fascism or any kind of political ism that favors our intrinsic interest in a healthier, cleaner, more lucrative environment, and anyone who tells you differently is pilfering taking points from someone with a political agenda. If you fear that the government is going to impose global warming initiatives on you, then you should be heavily investing in a private sector solution.

When the idea that Y2K was going to shut down the global economy and infrastructure came about in the 90’s, we, as a world economy, pulled together and created billions in jobs, resources, and technology to head off disaster. The problem with Global Warming isn’t that there’s too much money at stake, it’s that there’s not yet enough for the global finance and industry communities to take notice. The question isn’t what are we going to do, its when. And the answer is when it becomes lucrative.

Technically, global warming is not inevitable since it is already happening. People will have to change with the weather anyway, moving to higher ground, changing agriculture to deal with droughts and floods, moving the snowmobile industry further north…so it makes sense to me that if we have to change anyway we should also change what we do to exacerbate the situation. If New York City has to put up more flood walls, they might pay for them with a higher gas tax to encourage more efficient cars. And as with all change there will be winners and losers. Minnesota might win (if we adapt to drought) and Florida might lose…do we want to start paying now for less disturbance later, or deal with what happens when Florida is flooded out?

Time to greenify!

Repeat after me: “Yes we CANNABIS!”

We’re smart enough now to learn from our mistakes and work with NATURE instead of against IT!