Environment - March 2007

2007-03-09 07:16:34 · 5 answers · asked by bonnie-bee 2

Chemtrails drop chemicals, heavy metals and biological agents down onto the population (hence the sudden rise in deaths from respiratory conditions). The presence of these particles can be verified by anyone with a good microscope. Contrails, on the other hand, dissipate withing 45 seconds and are based on crystalised moisture particles (basically, water molecules). This being so, why do people bother to try to disprove something as obvious and easily proved as chemtrails? Please, answers only from those of you out there who understand the question. Thanks

2007-03-09 07:12:21 · 2 answers · asked by rarosera 1

I have just seen people going on about that global warming isn't an issue! Have you been blind for the past couple of years? Have you never heard of antartica! If you don't watch out you Great- Grandchildren/Grandchildren will see the effects in their lifetime, i bet i will too because of my age, And its all because someone left a lousy light on in the kitchen when they went to bed or left the tv on when no one was in there? Antartica is melting because the o-zone layer is getting thin so the sun is getting more heat to earth and don't forget, Antartica is ice. What is ice? WATER its going to make sea levels rise! Soon we'll be the new atlantica!

SORT IT OUT PEOPLE THE GOVERMENT OBVIOUSLY AREN'T DOING ANYTHING

(Sorry by the way.. this is more of a rant than a question.. i'll make it even now...)

What do you think then?

2007-03-09 06:54:22 · 15 answers · asked by Frizzi 2

I know that this is an older model but why 3 small blades. Why not 5? 8? I have a theory and I hoping to prove my dad wrong so let me hear your answers.

Here's a picture of what I'm talking about.
http://www.unisa.edu.au/researcher/issue/2005may/images/winds.jpg
http://www.kidcyber.com.au/IMAGES/windfarm.jpg

2007-03-09 06:13:27 · 4 answers · asked by Stick 4

Are we being fed another story so we'll stop bothering to be considerate to our planet which will in turn mean a load more dough for whoever's behind this "con" story.

2007-03-09 06:03:22 · 9 answers · asked by Cream tea 4

I would need infromation that can relate to Nash Community College pond and that can be written in at least 4 pages.

2007-03-09 04:57:17 · 4 answers · asked by nosmphany06 1

Just wondering how it was. I'd like to see it, from what I've read it confirms a lot of what I've thought about this for a long time. And apparently one time sex pistols fans were involved judging from the name.....

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

2007-03-09 04:53:06 · 2 answers · asked by Rossonero NorCal SFECU 7

For example, would it be possible to extude carbon dioxide from the atomosphere?

2007-03-09 04:38:53 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

what would be your worst fear?

2007-03-09 04:38:12 · 7 answers · asked by looby 6

please no smart elleck answers.

2007-03-09 04:33:03 · 3 answers · asked by Lara Croft 3

i am doing a project about this and if you help me it would be very helpful for me.

2007-03-09 04:23:58 · 3 answers · asked by Vim v 1

It is now proven that Global Warming is caused by normal changes in the Sun. The Sun cycle is going into a high emission stage. So why are they blaming it on carbon emissions and man made causes? We have never experienced global change due to the Sun's output but that is what is happening. There have been multiple ice ages during periods of low output and many occured before man and carbon release. There have also been periods in the past with severe droughts and Arctic ice melts. Why must we be subjected to this rediculous propaganda?

It is obvious this is nothing more than a political lobbyist push by Big Oil companies to create a global tax on fuels and rape us at the pump and on our utilities!

What is your take on this issue?

2007-03-09 04:22:34 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-09 04:20:10 · 5 answers · asked by Nick 1

2007-03-09 04:19:07 · 8 answers · asked by Bhikkhu 4

Tried phoning animal welfare lines no answer

2007-03-09 04:18:03 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Carbon Dioxide is a natural part of the organic chemistry of the environment. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. What is the absorption capacity for the World? Can we improve the health of coral reefs and rainforests to increase this capacity?

2007-03-09 04:03:00 · 1 answers · asked by Brian L 4

i don't know who to believe anymore

2007-03-09 03:58:03 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-03-09 03:54:08 · 6 answers · asked by gocubs112001 1

It couldn't be he's hyping global warming for personal gain, could it? And at the same time, living in huge energy using mansions, flying in private jets, riding in gas guzzling limos. Just doesn't seem right.

2007-03-09 03:53:24 · 8 answers · asked by the_skipper_also 3

My girlfriend works in a sewing factory making parkas with gore tex and her sinuses are horrible during the week while she works, but clear up on the weekend. Just trying to figure out if it's the gore tex or if it may be something else in the factory causing her chronic sickness. I'm thinking it is the goretex because she stinks of it in the evening where they have to iron it into the fabrics. I judging by the smell I can't see how it could be safe but I just wondered if anyone actually knew if there was something in the chemical makeup of the gore tex that could cause it. Thanks

2007-03-09 03:38:33 · 4 answers · asked by CuriousOne 2

on global warming today? It seems it's going to occur in any event so why go bust over it?

2007-03-09 03:38:07 · 10 answers · asked by the_skipper_also 3

All of the focus has been on the guilt of the United States, even though third world countries are clearing rainforests and using destructive agricultural practices, causing nitrogen rich runoff to suffocate the coral reefs. Rainforests and reefs are the biggest carbon sinks on Earth and perhaps we should spend more attention on restoring them. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, the concern is just a buildup in the atmosphere. Right? So we need to focus on sequestration. Counting the net loss of Brazil's Carbon sequestration against the gain of not using petroleum, did the World gain? It seems to me that we could address CO2 levels by improving the quality of life for people in the underdeveloped world through education of better forestry and farming practices. (and moving past fossil fuels too).

2007-03-09 03:18:01 · 2 answers · asked by Brian L 4

2007-03-09 03:00:25 · 9 answers · asked by dj 1

2007-03-09 01:42:03 · 18 answers · asked by deepak57 7

"Better late than never", this maxim ,i'm affraid may even prove to be wrong when it goes to refer Global warming and its terrible terrible consequences. The entire human race by and large have come to be aware of the simple fact that this beautiful planet is not just quickmarching but doubling towords the day of total annihilation when this pleasant earth will turn itself to be an inferno before going into flames.

We all shall resign overselves to the destiny if the catastrophe is a natural phenomenon but then it is exclusively anthropogenic. The green house gases that contaminate both the traposphere and stratosphere remain the culprits to cause global warming in sheer geometrical proportions.

The carbon monoxide, the corbon dioxide, the cloro floro carbon and the hydro cloro floro carbon, all have thier field days owing to the industrial race we are engaged in. What- if- the- globe- warms-or- cools attitude most of us have clearly exhibits how selfish and careless we are.

2007-03-09 01:37:26 · 8 answers · asked by xavier 1

I was wondering if some people are more concerned with the wellbeing of the physical earth ........ and less concerned with the problems of the human race ?

2007-03-09 01:29:13 · 4 answers · asked by burlingtony 2

2007-03-09 01:13:02 · 4 answers · asked by redheadpippy 1

I believe that the whole subject is a job creation sham! The evidence points to CO2 NOT being anything to do with the warming of the planet.

2007-03-09 00:58:36 · 92 answers · asked by Sir Sidney Snot 6

Since carbon credits place a monetary value on carbon emissions isn't this like saying, "If you can afford it - you can drive (or fly) it"? It sounds hypocritical to me.

2007-03-09 00:51:08 · 8 answers · asked by Spud55 5

2007-03-09 00:50:27 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous