Environment - December 2007

All too often 'Believers' resort to name calling, bullying, intimidation, lies, and other underhand tactics to "prove" their belief that AGW is real.

If AGW is real, if it is truly happening, then why do they have to resort to such low brow tactics? Why not take the high road and just tell us if it will be warmer next month and how they came to their conclusions?

If they have the facts, why not use them for their arguments?

Does the fact that they resort to intimidation tactics imply that AGW isn't really happening, and this is more a political belief than a scientific argument?

It seems to me that if AGW was real, it would be so easy to shut up the "skeptics" with facts.

After all, their is no debate over Ohm's Law, the speed of light, or any other science that is in fact real.

Not even the "believers" can tell you if it will be warmer or colder next year any better than a coin toss.

2007-12-28 08:27:24 · 21 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

or just a lazy way of saying that this is good enough?

No one would ride in an airplane if it had a 99% chance of landing safely. At that rate, there would be hundreds of plane crashes every day.

Shouldn't we demand better? Shouldn't we demand that we know with absolute certainty global warming was real before we take action? After all, if we aren't sure that global warming is real, we could take actions that don't help or even end up causing more harm than good.

Shouldn't we demand that climatologist first be able to forecast the climate 1 month, then 6 months, then 1 year, 2 years then 5 years out first?

Why should we submit to lazy science that leaves so much room for uncertainty?

2007-12-28 08:18:01 · 27 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

what are some ways that you have helped the enviroment this year?

2007-12-28 08:00:56 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

2007-12-28 07:35:19 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

"Amateurish" probably comes off as a condescending and offensive description, but honestly I don't know how else to characterize these arguments:

No SUVs on Mars
800 year lag a.k.a. CO2 lags behind temperature
It's just a natural cycle
It's caused by the Sun
Warmer is better
No warming since 1998 a.k.a. global warming has stalled

Even some skeptical scientists like Bob Carter make these kinds of claims. I call them "amateur" because if you just spend a little time analyzing the data, these arguments fall apart rapidly.

Yet they make up a huge percentage of the arguments made by the skeptics and deniers. We correct them all the time, and yet the same claims are made even by a few scientists and people on Y!A who should know better by now.

What gives? And is there another perhaps less offensive way to characterize these arguments?

2007-12-28 06:51:01 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

While reading the global warming questions, I often come across, "Well, we should be doing it anyway because it's a good idea." It occurs to me then, that to be honest, these people should use the same logic to prepare for any possibility, "because it's a good idea". So we need plans to protect against zombies, robots, aliens, rips in the fabric of time...

2007-12-28 04:57:48 · 45 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

why do we need to develop non-conventional sources of energy?

2007-12-28 04:45:29 · 4 answers · asked by sweetu.honey 1 in Green Living

A Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius made some incredibly impressive calculations regarding the involvement of CO2 in climate change over a century ago.

He concluded that decreasing levels of atmospheric CO2 could have been enough to trigger prior ice ages. Nowadays, the accepted explanation is that orbital forcing sets the timing for ice ages with CO2 acting as an essential amplifying feedback.

Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a 5-6°C warming. The IPCC currently puts the warming at 2-4.5°C.

Arrhenius also correctly predicted that increased CO2 would cause greater warming at higher latitudes, a night, and during the winter.

He believed that CO2-induced warming would be beneficial and could prevent the next ice age from happening. Of course, he also expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now predicted to take about a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect_as_cause_for_ice_ages

2007-12-28 03:51:45 · 5 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

Not everyone wants to fly from point A to B. Sometimes there are places in between.

2007-12-28 03:09:41 · 7 answers · asked by Richard H 2 in Other - Environment

I have been saving all of my clean plastic household waste so that I could recycle it. I also saved all of the wrapping paper and other paper items from Christmas so that I could recycle them. Today I went to the recycling centre and was told to put the paper into the 'Burnable' facility, and the plastic into the 'Non Burnable' facility. There were facilities for plastic bottles, newspapers and magazines and cardboard, which is great, but nothing for other plastic household waste or paper. How can I recycle these?

2007-12-28 01:43:02 · 7 answers · asked by Warm Breeze 5 in Green Living

2007-12-28 01:23:50 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

2007-12-28 00:15:09 · 16 answers · asked by apm2006 3 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

It cost about a £1 a pint to make 95% ABV.

2007-12-28 00:02:47 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

I know this would be bad, but fuel and power rationing is likely the only way to get greenhouse gases under control, considering the people that doubt the data. I would not want this to happen to anyone, but what if the gasoline ration was not enough (or just enough) to get you to work and back, what would you do?

How about power rationing? would it be prudent to put your electrical devices on power strips , and turn them off there to get rid of phantom power loads? Do you do that now (like I do) and want to tell the pros and cons?

Rationing sucks, but would it help?

2007-12-27 22:58:19 · 8 answers · asked by Jim! 5 in Global Warming

please give some meaningful answers...
plz
plz
plz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2007-12-27 21:50:50 · 32 answers · asked by v 2 in Conservation

SO sceptics and deniers, you don't believe in that man made global warming stuff huh?
Well then, what are your views on the origins of the universe and that evolution thing?

2007-12-27 15:56:30 · 22 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6 in Global Warming

The US railways need a major quality overhaul.

2007-12-27 14:46:09 · 11 answers · asked by Richard H 2 in Other - Environment

is there a website where you can pay for the removal of CO2 to stop global warming? I don't mean places like Care2 and ecologyfund where you click to donate, but places where you actually pay for a ton or by pounds or whatevev
OR
a machine that is low cost and removes CO2 from the air in your home or something

2007-12-27 14:23:59 · 6 answers · asked by Hello peoples of the Earth!!! 3 in Global Warming

What is a person called when they are not religious, but are very into the earth, water sun, air, nature etc.

2007-12-27 14:13:55 · 15 answers · asked by UnboundClouds 5 in Other - Environment

for its own sake??
for better air quality?
for better water quality?
for future generations??

I mean ok even if you dont beleive humans cause Global Warming, can you not see we cause environmental damage and should maybe try to control that??
have fewer kids?? tear down fewer forests?? build fewer houses?? rape the planet a bit less?? pollute a bit less??

2007-12-27 14:03:16 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

Okay so I was at home watching my siblings when my parents were gone. and all of a suden we hear this loud shattering noise. All of us were downstairs. We were all too scared to go up to see what it was. so when my parents got home they looked and the window was broken from the inside! and none of us did it soo.. do u think my house could be haunted like a demon or something did it?

2007-12-27 12:16:03 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

Some people have argued that the Midieval Warm Period (which was almost as warm as today) was a prosperous time for people and the planet. However, according to scientists from UMass, U of Arizona, and NOAA:

"There is evidence for widespread hydrological anomalies from 900 to 1300 A.D. Prolonged droughts affected many parts of the western United States (especially eastern California and the western Great Basin) (14). Other parts of the world also experienced persistent hydrological anomalies (15)."

"A repetition of such anomalies today, with more than 10 times as many people on Earth as in High Medieval time, could be catastrophic."

http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/bradley2003d.pdf

Does this make you rethink the supposition that warm periods are beneficial and in all cases "warmer is better"?

2007-12-27 11:24:25 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

I've been to green living enviromental etc...theres some really strange people thinking that all solar energy is bad.Help the ignorant please.

2007-12-27 10:38:03 · 3 answers · asked by Rio 6 in Green Living

2007-12-27 09:08:07 · 2 answers · asked by bill k 3 in Other - Environment

i think im goint to pick up all the litter out on the little patch of grass outside my apartment by the side walk. that way the gcan grow better and mabey it might help the soil a little bit in the future.

2007-12-27 08:15:36 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

So far I have heard reasons why each one (ethanol, hydrogen, solar, and whatever else) won't be able to replace oil. What do you guys think?

2007-12-27 07:54:36 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

2007-12-27 07:00:41 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Do you think that having freedom from Foreign oil is a good enough reason to tear down unique and wild national forests?

2007-12-27 04:35:38 · 7 answers · asked by Jessi11111 5 in Other - Environment

At yesterday’s Deals & Deal Makers Conference in New York, Glenn Hubbard, the Columbia Business School Dean and former Bush administration economic adviser, argued in favor of a carbon tax.

http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/06/28/hubbard-argues-for-a-carbon-tax/

Hubbard supports either a carbon tax or a carbon cap and trade system in which the carbon credits are auctioned off. He does not support a cap and trade system in which the credits are given away, because then the government isn't getting any funds from the process.

Hubbard basically feels that the government can redistribute funds from a carbon tax to reduce other taxes and have no net tax increase.

This is no liberal. This is a former Bush economic advisor who was instrumental in Bush's 2003 tax cuts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Hubbard_(economics)

What do you think about this conservative economist pushing for a carbon tax?

2007-12-27 04:06:25 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7 in Global Warming

what are some ways to put a stop to global warming???

2007-12-27 03:54:04 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment