Global Warming

most people believe in it... but i want some good arguments both for it and against it. ive seen al gore's movie but have not really seen anything disproving it.

ps- the reason im asking is cuz my bro insists it is not real. thats bc the only stuff he reads is the ones that say its fake. so how legitimate is this info?

*please no insults. yes, he's a bigot, i know but he's also family.

2007-07-31 18:27:25 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

You can never be too safe. Suppose global warming does turn out to be true...what will the future generations think of us? All it takes is very simple changes. Whay can't we all promote global awareness? Why must we remain so skeptical of the whole thing?

2007-07-31 14:33:17 · 43 answers · asked by Anonymous

Cattle and other domestic animals contribute not only carbon dioxide, but in the case of cattle, methane. Termites also produce methane.......so how much does all of this add up to?

2007-07-31 13:06:40 · 15 answers · asked by jeff h 1

someone out there has an answer...
my question is about polar ice caps and water displacement.
i understand that when water freezes it expands around four times in sizes/volume... how does this affect its weight?
if an ice cap has a volume and wieght when frozen and displaces the water in the ocean as it floats, what happens when it melts and that weight is lifted ? ?
is the actuall amount of water released from the frozen block equal/more or less than the amount of water the frozen mass displaces ?
what im trying to say is, when its frozen and sitting in the ocean it must have the same effect as when i sit in a half filled bath of water, the water or the oceans level must rise.... when it melts, is the actual amount of water released as much as the amount the frozen mass has displaced in the first place ?
im sure the scientists have cleared this one up long ago, but to me its an unanswered question.

2007-07-31 12:41:19 · 16 answers · asked by myzeneye 1

2007-07-31 10:00:47 · 13 answers · asked by not a lib 1

2007-07-31 09:15:36 · 16 answers · asked by holly 1

The future of Global Warming is uncertain. Perhaps Richard Lindzen is right, and natural sequestration processes will prevent significant warming. Phew!

Or perhaps the maximally pessimistic scenario is right: humans will continue to burn fossil fuels until they're all gone. In response, fast-acting positive feedback mechanisms will raise CO2 levels to 800 ppm over the next 500 years, raising average global temperatures by 35 C. Fortunately, there is not enough carbon on the Earth to turn us into Venus. The habitable zone will shrink to the Arctic and Antarctic. There will be many wars, and a few nuclear wars. But a few humans will successfully move far from the equator, and be able to defend themselves. They'll have technology, and breeder reactors. They'll farm in the winter and hunker down with air conditioning in the summer. After 10,000 years, it will all be over and new civilizations will emerge into a new, fossil-fuel-free world, with whatever species they've saved.

2007-07-31 09:04:09 · 15 answers · asked by cosmo 7

2007-07-31 08:40:28 · 17 answers · asked by omegaman 2

Catalytic conveters get rid of the poisonous gasses, yet they still pump out carbon dioxide. why don't they spend more money on making something to neutralise the CO2, like a second, different catlyitic converter, for CO2 instead of ofsetting everything or having conservative leaders ride a bicycle?

2007-07-31 08:36:11 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

IT'S EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!

2007-07-31 07:32:40 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd&Issue_id

How could ANY study in a peer reviewed journal come to any conclusion other than that Greenland is melting, and we're all going to drown tomorrow?

Obviously shills for Big Oil have somehow infiltrated these journals and allowed this horrifically shoddy study, based on (of all things) the FACTS, through to publication!

To arms, to arms, the Truth is coming!

2007-07-31 06:54:15 · 23 answers · asked by jbtascam 5

Greenland??? i.e. land of green...lol, it's not called whiteland...

2007-07-31 06:50:03 · 15 answers · asked by Steelhead 5

2007-07-31 06:35:20 · 5 answers · asked by jms043 7

Is "The Consensus" the new Oracle? After all, both are mystic entities who's words need to be properly "interpreted" to come to the right conclusion. If you don't believe in "The Consensus" or the Oracle, then you can't understand the message, as only true believers can see the light.

And If your interpretation of the Oracle, "The Consensus" is different, then you are just not smart enough to see the wisdom of the Oracle and must be removed from "The Consensus".

All must bow to "The Consensus" and give alms to insure the word of the Oracle is always true! And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.......

2007-07-31 05:37:24 · 5 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Isn't the left all about tolerance and diversity?

2007-07-31 04:57:32 · 14 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

To be fair, humans have occupied the planet for 200 000 years, and earth was created what, 4.6 Billion years ago by (what most think) a divine creator, or (and the rest believe) by a nebula cloud of gas and dust that the Sun and the eight other planets were formed. Are we really that short sighted to think that we can DESTROY it in a matter of years?????

2007-07-31 04:53:17 · 18 answers · asked by The Ideal Muggle 3

Deforestation is the primary contributor to rising CO2 levels. There's a great deal of science to support this & it isn't disputed. Even the IPCC knows it. The ONLY way we're going to reduce the rise in CO2 is to STOP deforestation NOW. So why don't we do it? Is it because governments, UN/EU & business won't earn big bucks & power from doing so?

PLEASE at least read the Independent Newspaper article below - it's the best piece on the subject I've read so far & is very well written. There's also a link to the IPCC's Special Report on this subject - it's very long, but if you have time & the will to read it it's very illuminating (& scary). The IPCC report states that at present rates our terrestrial CO2 sink will rapidly decline over the next 20 years & will be gone within 50 years - this means no more CO2 will be absorbed by the Earth. Plus that even with reforestation it takes 99 years for the land to function properly again as a CO2 sink... (cont)...

2007-07-31 03:31:28 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why Global Warming is called a theory, rather than an hypothesis? Does anybody in this section understand that it if it is a theory it places the burden of proof on them to explain all the observable facts AND predict some observations that Global Warming doesn't, so they can be tested? Or is it all about flaming and repetition?

2007-07-31 03:25:06 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

One keeps hearing that "The Consensus" of scientist believe that man is causing climate warming. Who chose these people as voting members of "The Consensus" anyway? (Remember a consensus is 50% +1) and why do we believe that if 50%+1 of a group thinks something is real, that it must be true?

Why ignore the thousands of scientist who state that man has no influence over the climate? On what scientific basis do you choose to believe one group over another? Or do you just know in your heart that one side is right, and believe them because it makes you feel good emotionally? Is your emotions scientifically sound?

Science does not need a consensus to determine what the facts are. Science needs just one man who can prove he is right. No, the only group that needs a consensus is politics.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/090307warminghoax.htm

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

2007-07-31 03:16:26 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

They said Maldives will dissapear from earth surface "decades ago" nothing happened. What do you think?

2007-07-31 03:07:12 · 13 answers · asked by gentleman 5

We have floods and it's all down to GW, then the sun comes out and again it's GW. Whatever the weateher condition people blame it on GW!

Is GW now just a excuse to moan about the weather?

2007-07-31 00:30:55 · 31 answers · asked by Anonymous

(A) A consensus of several thousand nerdy Climatologists and Scientists, or (B) A scientifically illiterate administration that has rejected basic science when it doesn't suit their political agenda?

Choice (A) consists of numerous Nobel Laureates; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; Joint science academies’ statement 2007, 2005, 2001; National Research Council, 2001; American Meteorological Society; American Geophysical Union; American Institute of Physics; American Astronomical Society; Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006; American Association for the Advancement of Science; Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London; Geological Society of America; American Chemical Society whereas Choice (B) consists of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and George W. Bush.

2007-07-30 16:10:28 · 28 answers · asked by The ~Muffin~ Man 6

My teacher said that she would give 10 extra credit points to someone in our class if they could prove that global warming isn't all due to human impact. I've done some moderate research but I still need more facts and key ideas.

2007-07-30 15:19:24 · 22 answers · asked by Yue C 2

I noticed this article in my reading, and wondered if anything came of it. Does anybody know?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2620

2007-07-30 14:22:22 · 8 answers · asked by Insanity 5

Did you know that Co2 is a greenhouse gas primarily blamed for causing global warming? I am sure you knew that. So far you've been told that combustion from cars, jets, and power generating plants cause Co2 to be released into the atmosphere. I am sure you knew that as well! But did you know that carbonated soda drinks like Coke and Pepsi also release billions of pounds of Co2 into the atmosphere EACH DAY? What do you think carbonates the freaking drink? Every time you see those little bubbles coming up in your soda, you are contributing to the destruction of our planet.

www.justanibble.com

2007-07-30 11:58:49 · 11 answers · asked by Sebastian F 2

2007-07-30 11:31:26 · 18 answers · asked by RP McMurphy 4

This would be the maximum day temperature where you live.

2007-07-30 10:35:11 · 12 answers · asked by baypointmike 3

Personally, I believe in global warming. But if you don't (which is your opinion and I respect it), shouldn't we, from your point of view, take extra measures to keep it from happening? I believe that it is already happening and that we should make changes to keep it from getting worse. What do you think?

Please tell me your reasons for believing/not believing in global warming. Can I have honest answers this time and not answers that shoot my question down?

2007-07-30 10:21:08 · 19 answers · asked by ? 3

There are some who feel we(humankind) have altered our planet, and those who say have had no impact.
The question is, should we not err on the side of caution, before this planet is possibly damaged?
We catorigize hurricanes, tornadoes as 5, or less, and earthquakes as 10 or less, but can we be assured that the planet can't come up with a 14 on either?
I've seen the Rocky Mountains, and I'm certain that their appearance was a very disruptive event.
The recent floods and droughts may or may not be a warning, but what is the alternative if we make a wrong move, some other home?

2007-07-30 09:57:57 · 12 answers · asked by dse_mess 2

There was a dramatic case of global warming about 15,000 years ago during glacial retreat. Many ecosystems were displaced or destroyed and and sea level rose dramatically. This is just one instance over the last billion years or so. Climate is always changing and who is to say our current one is best for humans? The problem is that our society has developed with the assumption of no change. I promise climate will change someday, and dramatically, no matter the cause. How would we be reacting if global warming was proven to be nature-based? And if global warming is universally bad, is global cooling universally good?

We need to be focusing on long-term planning to adjust to it, not the cause. Fire away, alarmists...

2007-07-30 09:38:51 · 13 answers · asked by John D 1