Who has a feasible solution to Global warming?
963049
If you read enough "studies", you will probably be as confused as everybody else is about global warming.  There is no real answer to such a question, because nobody knows what causes it, or what will end it.  \n        Just enjoy the changes that happen to our world every day unless you choose to NOT enjoy them.  Either way, changes happen... changes that mankind only can report...not influence very much.  Our news media, when there is little else to talk about, gets on a roll, and makes mountains out of molehills.  \n        "Global warming" happens to be in the crosshairs of their reporting machinery at THIS moment...it will be something else later on.
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
482950
I'm a conservative, and I'm also pro-environment and pro-animal rights.  But I do think that the entire "global warming crisis" has been blown out of proportion by special interests.  The scientists who speak the truth are silenced.
1076095
Yes but it would take a some time and a lot of effort and money invested into alternative sources in energy . We know that we have the capabilities with hydro electric wind solar and nuclear energies but they need more time and effort the only problem is with global warming Do we have the time?
609126
The world will likely want more than it can get by 2020.\n\nGood! Maybe someone will finally get serious about a workable alternative!
936066
What if we have reached the tipping point on global warming?
469656
In the long run no there is nothing we can do. We as a species will either die out or evolve into something that does not resemble current modern day man. Eventually the Sun will go red giant and swallow the Earth. Then the sun will die out and turn cold. Things get even more grim after that. \n\nGlobal Warming: yes in there are things that we could do to make it less sever less quickly, namely slow our use of fossil fuel. \n\nWars, hatred, and racism.. Those things will wax and wane over time. \n\nTsunamis: get away from the coast after an earthquake, subsurface landslide, or Ocean landing meteor strike. \n\nTornadoes: stay away from the South and Midwest. \n\nSoaring temperatures: move closer to the polar icecaps, or higher elevations. \n\n  Can we turn it around depends on whether or not you believe in free will. \n\n  Is it too late: Right now this is the only ship we have to ride, so keep fighting until it goes down. That is all that any of us can do. Giving up will solve nothing. Placing all of your hopes that someone else will fix it, or some God will come down and clean up our mess is just fanciful dreaming. \n\nWe can lobby our government. We can vote. We can drive economy cars, carpool or take the bus. We can recycle. We can use more insulation in the walls and ceilings of our homes. We can invest in alternative fuels.\nNever give up hope.
1095625
There very well could be.  The earth has had many temperature cycles.  The crowd that is currently talking about global warming was touting the theory that we were headed into the next ice age  thirty years ago.
1073265
The defense is to ignore it as a problem that they can do anything about. The most common argument that you will hear is: "The global climate has been changing throughout its history." We do have more than 100 years worth of data, and yes, there has been major climatic changes in the past.\n\nThere is some disbelief that human actions can affect anything as big as the global climate, too. Arguments that take science into consideration are the best ones, but they're the least often used. Usually, it's just this general statement of disbelief that is given.\n\nLet's take the previous poster's example of the Mars ice caps melting, and how we haven't been studying the Earth's climate for long enough. First of all, there is no statement about how this is beyond the normal seasonal fluctuations of Mars. After all, the ice caps wax and wane according to the seasons. Now, consider how long we have been studying Mars too. Have we studied Mars sufficiently long enough to be able to decide what is or is not normal seasonal changes for Mars?\n\nAnother claim to helplessness is to say, "This is the only choice that we have - without a fuel source, economies would collapse." This argument relies on the fact that there are no viable alternative fuels. However, I would like to see a little less helplessness, too. If we don't have another source of fuel for getting to work, why doesn't the government fund research into alternative fuels? Before you say there is no money, think about how much money we spent on Iraq. Wouldn't it have been better spent on research & development of alternative fuels? If we are no longer dependent on foreign oil, then we are not funding terrorists.\n\nAnother tactic is to attack people on a personal level, to distract attention away from the problem. In truth, it's difficult for the individual to make big changes in the world, and that is why for things like that, the government has to step up to the plate.\n\nHowever, I do not want to be mistaken for towing a party line. I do not limit this rule for Republicans or Democrats. While the Democrats have been slightly more environmentally friendly, I would like to see somebody more radical from either party come into office - you know, somebody who is willing to try to fix the problems that the government is presented with, both on a national and an international level.
375511
your observation of current conditions go far beyond the political structure that our world suffers from Today.In brief, the answer to the first part of your question is 'Its already too late!" Our Environment is in total upheaval due to the persistent use of FOSSIL FUEL!! Global Warming is UPON us as we sleep, eat and make war....for the very product that will terminate Life as we know it...First of all,once the concept of Greed is comprehended ...We as a race might have a chance to not become exstinct. As it stands now, it doesnt look very good. Understanding the free worlds economy and realizing that it is controlled by the Petro Dollar.and the handful of people that own the Companies that produce Petroleum.Failure to keep the Petro Dollar afloat WILL and WOULD collapse the free world economy,  THIS is the POLITICAL Machine that decides whose Son or Daughter should be sacrificed to maintain a "Freedom" to breath foul air and watch our Planet slowly Die; Being ravaged by Hurricanes,Tornadoes,and Floods caused by the melting of our Polar caps.Once the Salinity content of our oceans deviate much more or the temperature should fluxuate (I believe its 4 Degrees Celsius) disrupting the food chain, we as a race of people should be issued a shovel the next time we fill our gas tanks ....so we can start digging our own graves....We are on the Precipice, and it IS serious,....but we as a people have a tendency to not want to hear this until its knocking at our door...I pray that we as a society will take note and a STAND and commit...your children and your grandchildren have the RIGHT to live in a world free of Toxic Gases we call 'AIR' that is generated by the handful of Petrol Sharks that keep us stuck from utilizing the technology that ALREADY exist to burn clean fuel  ...Sundancer
940204
Go ahead.  Global warming is a MYTH!\n\nWe can treat them like the useless United League of Nations sanctions and ignore them, just like most of the Middle East! Why are you interested in penalizing the countries that have economies that grow instead of trying to become members of the free world economy?
239301
Have less people drive. Instead they can get on the bus.\nDesign cars differently so that they don't emit so many exhaust fumes.\nThose are the only 2 ideas I can think of right now. Try typing in reducing the greenhouse effect. Good Luck
103662
true solutions will not settle
1055015
Certainly not the bunch of oil-money sucking goofs in Washington, D.C.  (and I'm talking about both sides of the aisle, for those of you who still believe there's a difference).\n\nGood old ingenuity will do it, and enough people are sick of the status quo that I think it will happen within the next 5 years.  I see a lot of people talking about electricity for cars in Y answers--forget it.  Batteries too heavy, most electricity still produced using fossil fuels.  "Hybrids" are smoke and mirrors--still rely on fossil fuels.  My question would be, "Which intelligent people out there are smart enough to buck the system and introduce some new, truly alternative energy sources, not to the hide-bound corporate types and the politicians, but to the average Joes and Janes in this country who would like real options?"
492736
Reduce pollutions is the answer, but a certain political party, and their lobbyist will fight you all the way. So I say there is no answer.
1177252
Yes, global warming has started and finished and started and finished.\n\nThe earth has been much warmer before and much colder.  It will be both much warmer and much colder again many times.
63611
Given the rising post cold war competition (and cooperation!) among the US, the EU, Russia, China, India, etc. it's very feasible. Current projects point towards the year of 2030, and even if they're overdue, it should still be within our lifetime.