Global Warming

2007-12-14 03:44:57 · 5 answers · asked by gabasnon 1

If all humans were sacrificed, removed from the planet, then the Earth would be able to heal, and return to her normal and natural state.

Wouldn’t the destruction of the human species be the greatest gift we could give to Mother Earth?

2007-12-14 03:38:49 · 24 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Does the principal of altruism fit the values of the believers of AGW? Should we perform self sacrifice to save the planet? Wouldn't the world just be better off if man didn't exist? Wouldn't the destruction of man be the greatest gift we could give the planet?

2007-12-14 03:35:12 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.

“Earlier in the week, UN officials in Bali closed down the ICSC's first press conference there. Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises.”

Black is Barbara Black; Black is NGO liaison officer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.

Yep nothing like winning a debate by making sure the other side can’t say anything. You might not like what they say, but they should have at least been able to say it.

2007-12-14 03:06:26 · 5 answers · asked by Richard 7

I am not an american but I heard the american government refused categorically to reduce air pollution in their economy. So I wonder if the american citizen are aware of the great danger of global warming, or if you think it's bullshit. Do you care personally or do you think as your government does ?

Sorry for my english.

Regards.

2007-12-14 03:02:03 · 24 answers · asked by vinetodelveccio 5

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=

‘Redistribution of wealth’

The environmental group Friends of the Earth, in attendance in Bali, also advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations on Wednesday.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.
http://www.climatenetwork.org/bali-blog/ngo-bustle-in-bali

Now the true motivatives are coming to the surface shouldn't they be question just as much as those who critize man-made global warming being in bed with big oil?

2007-12-14 02:58:18 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

We have 100 scientists many of whom were on the UN IPCC who state that climate control is futile. In the open letter they stated:

“Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.”

Can we now get on with life the do the really important stuff, like ending hunger?

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

2007-12-14 02:53:12 · 2 answers · asked by Richard 7

After all many top scientist at the time like Sir Francis Galton and Charles Darwin believed Eugenics was real. Do you think you are smarter then they are? Should you dare question scientist like this?

Eugenics was supported by many people, including the Rockefeller's, the Carnegie's, and the Harriman family. There was support world wide for this "science".

And just like this Bali conference, there were three International Eugenics Conferences to present a global venue for eugenicists.

And some countries even adopted Eugenics as part of their political views.

How could anyone stand up against the science of Eugenics? Who dare think that they are smart enough to disagree with the science of the time? After all, the consensus agreed that Eugenics was real and we could breed humans just like animals.

Maybe you agree that we should adopt AGW as part of a political platform just like gvmts in the past adopted Eugenics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

2007-12-14 02:51:42 · 3 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

How many celebrities flew private jets in to address the conference? Wouldn't it be better to do all that sort of thing via satellite feed from localized spots? Or did the royalty just want a nice holiday in a tropical paradise?

I think I already know the answer.

2007-12-14 01:42:09 · 4 answers · asked by thegubmint 7

I asked a question about global warming, and if people think the media is making it out to be worse than it is. I got some great answers on both side of the debate. But then, someone has to stick their comments in, saying that I was being naive to think that humans have nothing to do with it. I will reiterate my position again. And this time, PLEASE READ!

I believe global warming exists, but I believe it to be a naturally occuring process. PLEASE! Do not hit the 'Answer' button yet! Now, because I believe that, does not mean I believe humans have nothing to do with it. With our nasty-assed polluting ways, I believe we ARE causing the process to happen FASTER than it should, and by making better choices as a species, we can SLOW the rate of warming down.

Now, for those who want to bash me, go right ahead, but before you do, read the darned question, and also my opinion, BEFORE telling me that I'm "naive if I think humans have nothing to do with it"! Thank you!

2007-12-14 00:38:10 · 15 answers · asked by Shayna 5

We have built mighty dams (Hoover Dam) creating a large lake where a lake shouldn't be (Lake Mead). If the Colorado river wasn't damed all that water would have ended up in the Gulf of Mexico. Don't we also control how much water leaves the Great Lakes, with all the locks along the St Lawerence Seaway?

There are also lots of controls along the Mississippi river which would slow down the flow of water to the Gulf of Mexico.

I know there are other major rivers in the world and I'm sure we have put controling mechenisms on them too.

So how much water have we diverted from flowing to our oceans and seas?

2007-12-14 00:05:40 · 14 answers · asked by Mikira 5

Is "global warming" just a cover-up to weather modification being done by HAARP?

2007-12-13 23:45:53 · 11 answers · asked by PAUL 4

our beloved great barrier reef in australia is predicted to be doomed and too late to be saved by marine experts because of global warming. im shattered to hear this because it is one of the most beautiful landmarks in the world but human interference has caused this wonder to diminish. what have u done to help global warming? it is truly sad to hear this

2007-12-13 22:44:43 · 14 answers · asked by My Name Is Trip 4

2007-12-13 20:23:38 · 8 answers · asked by I represent possibility- Shawn 3

Wrong! About The Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan Terrorism is on the rise, Wrong or Lying to us about Iran, Wrong about 9-11 Intelligence & still wont or cannot find Osama Bin Laden, Wrong About Vietnam 3m dead for a war they had no business starting, Cluster Bombs, Land Mines, Slavery, Wrong about China, About their Economy now in recession, Katrina, Now Wrong about Climate Change, Bush Delegation Blocking any targets to reduce carbon emissions. the world have had enough of American Stupidity, arrogance &Ignorance?

2007-12-13 17:50:33 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

can somebody make a movies about what its going to be like in the future with global warming already?

2007-12-13 14:46:10 · 8 answers · asked by cody c 1

Their arguments that humans aren't causing global warming could work for Barry Bonds and all the other baseball players accused of using steroids.

Historically baseball players didn't use steroids; therefore, they can't be using them now.

Past baseball players have been just as strong as today's baseball players.

The baseball players' muscles clearly grew naturally.

The baseball players could just as easily have gotten so much stronger by spending every hour of every day in the weight room.

There's nothing remarkable about the rate that their muscles grew.

What do you think? Maybe one of the global warming deniers with a pretend doctorate could defend the steroid baseball players?

2007-12-13 14:17:56 · 9 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I've actually been a big supporter of nuclear energy because of it's low carbon emissions when used in a reactor. I know that spent nuclear waste takes some effort to store, but I was always on the side it could play a major role in our reduction of fossil fuels. However, this article says nuclear power has a bigger carbon footprint than most realize, from all the effort it takes to mine uranium:

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/45989/story.htm

Mr. Jello, what do you make of this??

2007-12-13 12:48:11 · 3 answers · asked by qu1ck80 5

For 1 month

Don't buy:-

i) Mcdonalds
ii) watch a movie
iii) Drink Coke
iv) buy a computer
v) Log onto yahoo, face book or ebay
vi) Buy a pair of trainers

Add your own please.

I Know you'll say nothings made in america so what the profits go back to the big companies who are the villains not the people. the only language they understandd ends with kerching!!

You'll also say china well lets deal with one at a time people america is the world leader who everybody follows, lets srike with our cash!!

Nobody else is going to do anything but talk!

2007-12-13 11:43:48 · 18 answers · asked by JOHN M 3

To be fair, in all likelihood 1998 is going to be a tiny bit warmer than 2007. However, 1998 was an unusually warm El Niño-Southern Oscillation year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation

On the other hand, in 2007 the southern oscillation was in a cool phase.

"The natural variations of the Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle thus have minor but not entirely insignificant effects on year-to-year temperature change. Given that both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, it makes the unusual warmth this year all the more notable. It also suggests that, barring the unlikely event of a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next 2-3 years."

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20071210_GISTEMP.pdf

If global warming has "stalled" as some skeptics claim, then why wasn't 2007 much colder than 1998, considering these variations in the El Niño-Southern Oscillation?

2007-12-13 11:14:34 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I think so what about you?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=501316&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

2007-12-13 11:03:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I thought I read an answer from someone that said they lived near the North Pole and that they are getting more hours of daylight. I can't find it now, but I remember thinking how odd it was that a person who is a believer in AGW would say something like that.

Here's a link to a website listing sunrise and sunset times. The copyright at the bottom says 1999.

http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm

2007-12-13 10:15:02 · 8 answers · asked by Mikira 5

A frequent argument by global warming skeptics is that the climate has historically changed naturally without human influence. For example, they'll show a graph illustrating the close correlation between climate and Sun over long periods of time in the Earth's history, but won't show the modern data such as this:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png

or this (TSI since 1978):

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/pmodacr.jpg

vs. this (global temp since 1975):

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg

Of course the climate changed without human influence in the past, because humans didn't have the capability of influencing the climate in the past!

Now we do, and lo and behold, the climate is no longer following changes in the sun, and it's warming at a rate 20 times faster than when the planet naturally comes out of an ice age.

Is it possible to be a global warming skeptic without ignoring modern data?

2007-12-13 08:52:19 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Do you find it hypocritical that 10000 global warming scare mongers flew on private jest to Bali to hold a global warming seminar?

Do you also find it hypocritical that Al gore spends $5000 a month on electricity?

Do you find it silly that Al Gore flew to Bali on a Private Jet and then “shunned a limo for a hybrid?”

Do you find It hypocritical that the elites that promote reduction in carbon exempt themselves?

Do you find it Ironic that we and all living animals and insects living on our planet are made of carbon? And three breathe carbon, yet theses wako’s want to eliminate carbon?

2007-12-13 08:42:38 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Isn't this a good thing?

The money that is proposed by Al Gore & his constituents to use for his "Global Warming" agenda is just a foolish waste of resources. The U.N. is the worlds largest criminal organization and is rife with corruption.

The globe is going to warm, then it will cool, then it will warm again as it has done for many, many, many years. Don't fool yourselves into thinking humans are the cause or that we can do anything to change it.

2007-12-13 08:25:59 · 16 answers · asked by Eric R 6

Why or why not?

2007-12-13 08:16:38 · 7 answers · asked by Eric R 6

This is a quote from an article discussing a new proposal at the current UN Climate Summit. ---

The scheme outlined in "The Right to Development in a Climate Constrained World" reiterates what climate scientists have been stating - emergency action must be taken to halt the rise in CO2 emissions.

However, the report emphasises that the global response, "must take care that it does not threaten to lock in today's vast disparities of wealth and income. Just the contrary: It must drive down emissions globally, even while the lives of the poor are improving and ambitious development goals are being met and surpassed.

"To this end, it must slash the emissions of the already wealthy and, at the same time, prevent the unbounded emissions growth of those rising out of poverty. And it must do so without stifling their development aspirations."

---

Sounds like a socialist conspiracy to me. I hope America doesn't agree to this.

2007-12-13 07:33:44 · 16 answers · asked by BillsGold 1

Origin's question to this effect keeps getting deleted, so I thought I would ask it in a more balanced manner.

Here is an analysis of Hansen's 1988 global warming predictions on Climate Audit by someone named "Willis E"

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=796

He claims the model has been way off since 1998.

Here is an analysis by NASA climate modeller Gavin Schmidt.

"Given the scenario that came closest to the real world [Scenario B], the temperatures predicted by the model are well within the observational uncertainty. That is, even if you had a perfect model, you wouldn’t be able to say it was better than [Hansen's model predictions].

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

Willis E also wrongly claims the planet has not warmed since 1998.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

Anyone know who this "Willis E" is, and have any perspective on whose analysis is more accurate?

2007-12-13 07:12:07 · 4 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The USA is the largest per capita greenhouse gas emitter among developed countires.

The USA is the only developed country not to sign the Kyoto Protocol.

The Bush Administration has undermined worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout his entire presidency.

The US has been blocking progress at the Bali climate conference.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bali_climate_conference

Considering all that, what do you make of this statement by one of the US representatives at Bali this week?

"James Connaughton, one of the US negotiators, remained defiant. "The US will lead, and we will continue to lead, but leadership also requires others to fall in line and follow," he told reporters."

http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20071213/ts_alt_afp/unclimatewarmingus.html

Do you think it's the correct policy for the USA to expect other countries to "fall in line and follow" us with regards to climate policy?

2007-12-13 06:52:02 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Curious to know. I know advances in technology say that we had no way to measure previous periods of global temp rise. But what else?

2007-12-13 06:29:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous