Global Warming

I saw an interview with Christopher Horner who was promoting his book on global warming, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming. In his interview he outlined the facts against global warming, it seemed pretty logical, but he was obviously conservative and seemed pretty biased. Has anybody read the book or heard of Horner?

2007-08-09 21:28:42 · 5 answers · asked by Gary J 1

Could it be possible that most global warming is not produced by carbon emmisions but rather caused by man made heat

I mean my fridge, car, computer, boiler etc all produce vast amounts of heat, far greater than what would be found naturally in my area and theres 60 million people in my country doing the same thing. it makes sense to me that its the heat produced and not the emmisions that would cause the most rapid rise in global temperature (I'm not denying that carbon emmisions do some damage) your opinions?

2007-08-09 21:14:47 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Al Gore JET do you agree Al needs to drive a electric Golf Cart instead of a Jet his power bill is $3,000 a month for 1 of his houses.What do you think green politicians should drive? How about their House?THEY WANT a CARBON TAX to tax evil OIL Corporations DEM Senator DODD. that means trickle down to you $6.00 a gallon Gas Higher food prices TRUCKS deliver food run on FUEL,higher electric they will build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS its a low carbon foot print

2007-08-09 18:50:27 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

We know that our planet act like a giant dynamo (metal core, and magnetic field), and that our climate is sensitive to geological activities as well as geomagnetic activities in the Ionosphere. So if the sun magnetic storms occurences increase, it could also affect our planet core (as our sun will act a little like electric power on a AC motor), thus warming our planet from beneath the oceans and water bodies...
Our tectonic plates changing direction and faster:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070802_fault_backward.html
Water evaporations in lake/increase in water temperature contrary to thermodynamic law:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070728.wsuperior0728/BNStory/Science/home

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/29dec_magneticfield.htm
Luminescent clouds ligths up by our geomagnetic field:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19507007/
Sun magnetic storm activities increase:
http://www.utexas.edu/opa/news/03newsreleases/nr_200301/nr_edmonds030115.htm

2007-08-09 17:55:25 · 6 answers · asked by Jedi squirrels 5

2007-08-09 16:35:18 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

This question is asked partly to give amancalledchuda a chance to respond. He thought questions were closed out too soon.

The hockey stick was not wrong. It was perhaps overly smoothed (averaged). But its' basic conclusion was confirmed by the National Academy of Science. It has since been duplicated many times with more precise statistical methods:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

The cost of dealing with unreduced global warming will be enormous. Moving people, agricultural systems, and irrigation systems will cost huge amounts of money. And dealing with stronger storms.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

The cost of reducing it to where we can cope fairly easily with the remainder is much less.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

The question will be up for 36-48 hours.

2007-08-09 15:16:38 · 15 answers · asked by Bob 7

Rather than wanting to follow in the footsteps of Europe with high taxes and stiff regulations? What happened to America being the progressive nation of independent minds that the rest of the world follows? Can we ever get back to that American spirit of invention and free-thinking instead of idly watching our leaders argue to no end?

2007-08-09 14:20:31 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Just asking.

2007-08-09 12:43:38 · 12 answers · asked by cosmo 7

GW deniers are always out-debated in this section because they never provide a shred of scientific evidence to support their claims. The best they can do is to fall back on the same old debunked myths regarding GW. On the flip side, GW acknowledgers virtually always provide a plethora of scientific evidence to support their claims.

It seems to me like it would be very difficult to maintain one's denial in the face of such lopsided quality of arguments. If I wanted to remain in denial about a subject, I wouldn't expose myself to such strong opposing evidence.

Case and point - Jello asks for a short-term GW prediction:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AixnKvKsUYwN5zCIr6qOVwvty6IX?qid=20070803132054AApPbTJ&show=7#profile-info-sSvPEf97aa

I provide it, and he now has to find a way to maintain his denial:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AohAH2rljXuU7Cf0YRyYph4Fxgt.?qid=20070809144318AAeJMTU

That has to be tough. Perhaps it's a mental exercise?

2007-08-09 11:19:40 · 20 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

"The United States should consider imposing a European-style gasoline tax if it hopes to improve energy security and tackle global warming, the head of Ford Motor Co. said Wednesday.

'The way to get at is to make an economic decision just like in Europe where the fuel prices are seven or eight dollars a gallon," Ford chief executive officer Allan Mulally said. "Then our behavior would change dramatically.'

The current policy of forcing automakers to maintain an average fuel economy level across their product lines is not sufficient to cut gasoline consumption and is harming the industry, Mulally said."

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1258

Basically he feels that auto companies can't produce more fuel efficient cars until they're in demand, which won't be until gas is expensive ($3/gallon clearly doesn't cut it).

Do you think we should impose a massive gas tax like Eurpoe in order to combat global warming, as the CEO of Ford suggests?

2007-08-09 10:48:57 · 17 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

This should satisfy Mr. Jello, at least. A combination of climatology and meteorology has made specific predictions as to the average global temperature in the near future:

"Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.

Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.

To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content."

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1268

Will this satisfy global warming deniers?

2007-08-09 10:43:18 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

its a popular debate, and i would like someone to prove to me that man made global warming exists. i dont believe its a problem. you can also agree with me, thats always appriciated.

2007-08-09 09:52:26 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous

specifically), can this superabundance of ice cool the prevailing ocean currents to effectively change the world's climates, and bring about another ice age? I have read in scientific journals that this is a real possibility.

2007-08-09 07:05:55 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

I mean, historically this has always been the case, even currently:

Anthrax scare = Mail screening...
9/11 = more homeland security...
Katrina = better response to disaster...
Minnesota Bridge collapse = nation wide bridge inspection...

will it take a disaster for action to be taken?

Global Warming = ?

2007-08-09 06:12:57 · 22 answers · asked by hllhnk 1

Look at the panic so many people are in over global warming. 9/11 didn't cause this much long-term, wide spread panic. It has all the markings of terrorism to me.

2007-08-09 06:05:01 · 14 answers · asked by 55Spud 5

2007-08-09 05:18:11 · 20 answers · asked by hllhnk 1

Is it just me, or is there really major weirdness with the weather around the world lately--earthquakes in places where hardly any are reported, tornadoes in Brooklyn, etc.? Is this the result of global warming, or is this part of a bigger weather cycle? What's the deal?

2007-08-09 04:35:31 · 9 answers · asked by dantiuspalaptine 3

I thinking we could have trash pick-up. any other ideas? and fun activities?

2007-08-09 03:59:36 · 15 answers · asked by Roxy R 1

It's an easy 10 grand. I mean, come on - you're so freakin' sure it's man made, submit the evidence and shut the skeptics up!

Should be a no-brainer, right?

http://www.junkscience.com/

2007-08-09 03:41:39 · 15 answers · asked by jbtascam 5

Now I have heard that democrats Blamed bush for this collapse but NOW its Global Warming... Says that the rising heat has weakened the steel..

Funny, I thought even "fire has never melted steel" at the trade center towers.. even the exploding planes were "not hot enough", so which is it?

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1877464/posts

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/ken_taylor/2007/aug/05/minneapolis_bridge_collapse_bush_did_it

http://desip.igc.org/NoPlanesOn911.html

2007-08-09 03:17:10 · 17 answers · asked by Antiliber 6

2007-08-09 03:12:25 · 16 answers · asked by Bubakar S 1

how could anyone deny global warming

how can we all jump in our over sized suvs and be selfish and kill our earth!!


I know its just not the cars, its everything but how can some people not even try to reduce their negative impact on this earth?

2007-08-09 03:03:58 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Better to start determinedly on controlling man's greenhouse gas emissions - it will be much more difficult to fix if left till the effects are undeniable (although I feel that there will always be some deniers just as there are commercial fishermen who deny the effects of overfishing until stocks are extinct despite any amount of scientific data). Denyers often say, think for yourself, but the fact of the matter is that this is very complex and extensive science, the best thinking one can do is to read somewhat from reputable, peer reviewed science. See past questions on YA about global warming. The deniers claims such as that it is a 'natural cycle' and 'volcanoes generate more CO2' have all been addressed with properly referenced reputable science on YA .

2007-08-09 03:02:51 · 10 answers · asked by Robert A 5

We really need to do something about it, all i ever hear about on T.V., radio, books, internet and everywhere else is how humans are impacting the planet in such a negative way. But what else can we do besides the obvious like recycling, saving energy, and not polluting????? Please help our earth before it's too late!!!!

2007-08-09 02:00:13 · 19 answers · asked by camaroredride 2

2007-08-08 23:05:43 · 8 answers · asked by TrajedyinMotion 4

2007-08-08 19:38:10 · 17 answers · asked by 144 IQ 1

2007-08-08 16:04:30 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

with all the global warming and runing out of our rescourses how long do you think human will survive?

2007-08-08 15:39:30 · 27 answers · asked by Anonymous

Im scottish and this defo aint a midgie.it identical to all the yahoo images of male mosquito with the feathery sensors and stuff. have we always had mosquitos but we just dnt notice it?iv seen plenty of female ones but when i was abroad.just strange to get them in a house in scotlands west coast dont u think?if anyone knows about mozzies in the uk then give me some usefull info pls, cheers

2007-08-08 15:38:52 · 10 answers · asked by crocky 3

I'm assuming by the posts that most here are rather young. Why are so many of you spewing Big Oil propaganda denying global warming? These fat cats are going to be dead in 20 years while they leave you a life of misery and pain from global warming. Are you really that gullible and stupid to fall for their profit driven agenda that would ruin your life?

2007-08-08 15:35:47 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous