Environment - June 2007

The IPCC report has been edited so much it doesn't fallow the scientific data.

algore's movie has been shown to be a fabrication:
Polar bears are not drowning.
Glaciers are not shrinking as fast as claimed.
etc.

Consensus of scientists is not scientific fact, just opinion.

Peer reviewed data is not scientific fact, just agreement of opinion.

The graph that seems to be thrown up every time it is asked about temp. is a farce. We do not have records of temperature to the 100/th of a degree before the 70s. And the estimations of temps are all within a margin of error that they are not conclusive of anything let alone accurate.

CO2 is not light enough to reach the upper atmosphere to reflect heat from the sun back to earth and if it was it would also reflect heat away from earth. Funny how physics works huh? CO2 doesn't even hold or reflect heat.

2007-06-18 01:23:28 · 12 answers · asked by jack_scar_action_hero 3 in Global Warming

2007-06-17 19:35:06 · 20 answers · asked by joe c 1 in Global Warming

I personally do... actually, I sort of think it's obvious. The vast majority of scientists believe it is true, and the only peopel who don't seem to be pompous. Don't try to convince me with The Great Global Warming Swindle, scientists quoted in that documentary are currently fighting against it, claiming that they were misquoted. Also, people like Glenn Beck support that documentary, which means it is rediculous and irrelevant.

2007-06-17 18:46:27 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

I have a pretty big 2 story house plus basement, so which will use less energy, running 5 standing fans at once or turning on the ac?

2007-06-17 18:45:55 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

2007-06-17 18:35:01 · 8 answers · asked by Ω allan y 6 in Green Living

We have 5% of the worlds population and we use 30% of the worlds energy. We are really the most to blame for global warming. I've been to 33 countries and 4 continents and I don't see SUV's, 2000+ sq ft homes (as a standard), lack of mass transit, and the excess I see in the US. I used to work in advertising and quit because I realized my job was to tell people to buy a bunch of crap they don't need and I was contributing to the destruction of the planet.

2007-06-17 18:12:34 · 9 answers · asked by Robert B 2 in Green Living

2007-06-17 17:44:25 · 22 answers · asked by The1uluv2hate 1 in Conservation

im 30 and the global warming is getting bad,the weather wa not like this bad when i was a child ,doesnt anyone understand what where going threw ????dont yous ppl care about our earth????

2007-06-17 16:28:24 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-06-17 15:36:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

Could someone please tell me the proof of global warming and the argument against it. Bye the way I have seen an Inconvinient Truth

2007-06-17 15:34:39 · 12 answers · asked by Karin-chan 4 in Global Warming

(A) My wife and I, who are both vegetarian, with our 3 SUVs and no kids.

OR

(B) A welfare mom who rides public transportation, eats at KFC and has four kids (2 girls, 2 boys).

I'm just looking for (A) or (B), not high-minded rationalization.

2007-06-17 15:00:42 · 11 answers · asked by Citizen for President 2 in Conservation

You want everyone to change to Compact flourecent bulbs.
These take three times as much energy to produce and produce poluting chemical biproducts. They also contain mercury that is very lethal and they are more harm to the environment than any amount of global warming if they are broken.

You want people to drive electric cars that use acids that must be disposed of because they can not be recycled. And if disposed of improperly they are not healthy. Or if the vehicle gets in a wreck it could leak and be even worse. Plus they do not use any less energy because they have to recharge, so your gas bill goes down a little but your electric bill goes up to compensate.

Or you want people to use Hydrogen power that has a biproduct of water vapor, that just happens to be the one substance that has been scientifically proven to be an actual green house gas.

And don't get me started on waterless toilets. We'll be returning to the days of black plague with that one.

2007-06-17 14:54:52 · 15 answers · asked by jack_scar_action_hero 3 in Global Warming

I will only give my pet inchworm Organic, no chemicals...
So do they eat cherrys? please, please answer!

2007-06-17 12:53:30 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

It would help with shade, and would fill a vacant space of land.

2007-06-17 12:38:33 · 18 answers · asked by Holiday Magic 7 in Green Living

on july 1st, and then the non smokers can go to a non smoking pub

2007-06-17 12:00:32 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

listen its the melting of the snow and the sea level rises yes there will be flood but atleast we will have more water.

2007-06-17 11:11:07 · 24 answers · asked by samj 1 in Global Warming

2007-06-17 10:11:51 · 12 answers · asked by DOM C 1 in Green Living

We don't have a lot of land, and we want to compost, but we don't want to attract bears, raccoons, skunks, and the other scavengers that also attract mountain lions. (We have little kids!) What are our options?

2007-06-17 09:22:03 · 9 answers · asked by KristenCO 4 in Green Living

You can place your city anywhere in the continental United States where a city does not already exist.

The government will give you as much money as you want to start this city.

What kind of city would it be. College town, high tech city

Things such as economy, organizational structure, street pattern, public transportation all can be planned out by you.

Would your city be car Free, water based city (venice), environmental friendly city. You can be as "out there" with your idea as you want. It just has to make sense.

2007-06-17 08:54:02 · 5 answers · asked by jimvaneron 1 in Other - Environment

2007-06-17 08:45:25 · 12 answers · asked by THE DON 1 in Global Warming

Are humans destroying the environment causing the balance of Nature to be disturbed, or is our increasingly steady destruction of our planet a part of Nature itself designed to remind the universe that life is scarce and fragile and easily capable of its own destruction as a result of that fragility?

I believe its both. Although they some what contridict eachother they both have a sense of destruction and an awareness of the fragile resources and organisms of this planet. What do you think?

2007-06-17 08:42:51 · 4 answers · asked by Jen 1 in Other - Environment

2007-06-17 08:39:56 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-06-17 08:24:42 · 5 answers · asked by Jackish 1 in Other - Environment

2007-06-17 07:13:10 · 15 answers · asked by jerry b 1 in Global Warming

2007-06-17 06:49:24 · 4 answers · asked by sincere12_26 4 in Other - Environment

2007-06-17 06:46:05 · 12 answers · asked by Sylar 2 in Other - Environment

does it make any difference depending on what size of bulb is in it? Sorry to be so dense.....

2007-06-17 06:03:24 · 5 answers · asked by RuthieC 2 in Other - Environment

The Lexus RX400h gets about 25 miles to the gallon. While this is better than the non-hybrid model, it is still not great mileage. I wonder whether the RX400h's emissions are the same as any other 25 MPG car, or does it pollute less?

2007-06-17 05:49:37 · 10 answers · asked by Richard F 1 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Has any candidate offered a platform you feel has credibility? Will the media help or hinder by presenting the facts in an objective manner?

2007-06-17 05:43:46 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Consensus is important in science. The only way it can be cleanly decided if something is "scientifically proven" is whether or not the scientific community accepts it as proven. There is no "Supreme Court" to decide, and there are always a few skeptics. The scientific community decides what the rules for proof are, and applies them.

You can personally choose to believe the Earth is 6000 years old or that NASA faked the moon landings. But that's not science. In doing so, you are rejecting science and proven scientific facts. The same is true for global warming.

2007-06-17 05:22:03 · 13 answers · asked by Bob 7 in Global Warming