Global Warming

How do the people who believe in global warming respond to these specific criticisms?

1. The overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide is produced by natural sources, rather than humans. Therefore it's unlikely that human made carbon dioxide is creating global warming. Termites alone create more carbon dioxide than humans.

2. Similar to number 1, a single volcanic eruption releases several times more carbon dioxide than humans release in an entire year. But the world has survived countless volcanic eruptions throughout time.

3. Climate models that allegedly predict global warming are unreliable. If you input data from the past and try to get them to predict the present conditions, they're unable to do it accurately.

4. Similar to number 3, climate models can't even predict whether or not it will rain next week. Claiming that they can predict small changes in temperature decades in the future is ridiculous.

2007-07-17 11:03:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is there any reliable study that shows how many scientists believe in global warming? I've heard some people who believe in global warming say that all scientists believe in it. And I've heard some people who don't believe in global warming say that most scientists don't believe in it. I'm not looking for propaganda. Are there any studies that are accepted by both sides?

2007-07-17 11:02:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Our increasing pressure on life living this planet into existance has been either impeded or exemplified by our knowing race.
My question is which of these aspects do you think global warming is cused by?
-The putting of harmful or synthetic substaces into ecosystems that obviously suffer longer than we do, being of smaller size, like carbon emissions or oils and chemical bases from our drainage?
-The pulling of grass or livestock away from an otherwise healthy cycle in our ecosystem, that is the ploughed fields and tulips by the gallon inclusive, all with greater carbon footprints than the species had before, and making them a center for our communication and social wealth, which is all inventors, farmers, scientists and others' purposes could only have been by changing all advantageous species place?

Guess they were afraid of true fear in living a healthy ecosensible simple existance...

2007-07-17 10:00:48 · 11 answers · asked by Jon M 2

Warm-ING would imply that it keeps getting warmer - - the hottest year on record was 1998.

It's been about nine years now folks.

The whole thing's been going on now for only about 120 years.

So, it warmed for 111 years, it has plateaued since...... I don't know, I wouldn't give it more than a few more years, five tops, before there's a clear pattern there.

2007-07-17 09:59:12 · 8 answers · asked by truthisback 3

I have been reading up on the issue of global warming and this is what I have found: two issues which seem to be confused or overlapped.

Global warming like global cooling is part of nature and has occurred throughout the history of the planet. The last time was the global cooling that included the glaciers of 15,000 years ago.

Pollution, caused by humans affects the atmosphere, but is not the cause of global warming. Pollution needs to be stopped also for the sake of the planet, but it will not stop global warming.

Global warming and global cooling are part of nature and are cyclical.

What do you think?

2007-07-17 09:57:11 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why can't we just reduce our personal energy footprints because it is just the right thing to do? Do we really need to waste as much as we do?

There are other benefits beside reducing global warming (which no one agrees on anyway). How about: pollution, acid rain, health considerations, wasted natural resources, etc...

2007-07-17 08:57:07 · 19 answers · asked by xxx 3

to that person who ever said i sound like im 10 im 12

2007-07-17 07:45:24 · 6 answers · asked by mybabe 1

i am terrified of what the world will come to....is it all true?? Is the world really going to come to an end in 50 years............................all you ppl out there who smoke plz plz stop!!

2007-07-17 07:34:17 · 21 answers · asked by mybabe 1

I read that oxygen breathing creatures who exhale carbon dioxide are the major source. By my calculations mammals contribute four-sevenths of the co2 and fossil fuels contribute about three sevenths. If the population growth is as great as predicted over the next fifty years we could still be in trouble even if there was NO fossil fuel source.

2007-07-17 07:32:13 · 9 answers · asked by gerlad m 2

I think the envirofascists are trying to put an end to evolution by stopping global warming.

2007-07-17 07:02:30 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Do you think it is good science to create the hockey stick chart using different sets of data? The first section is from tree ring data that shows a cooling trend. The last section is from thermometers in urban areas and shows a sharp increase in temperatures. Is this good science? Did this go through peer review? What would that chart look like if it used only tree ring data?

2007-07-17 06:51:51 · 8 answers · asked by areallthenamestaken 4

I think the answer is easy.

1.) Wahtever depth the sea will rise , dig that depth out of the sea floor

2.) Let all the big armies show off their missles to dig that hole

3.) Purify salt water so its clean, and spray it on the desert

4.) why dont we design a way so we can live underwater instead of space

does anyone agree ??????

2007-07-17 06:49:49 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

we are doing a geography project on it and need to do a survey. Thanks :)

2007-07-17 05:49:18 · 27 answers · asked by mikey b 1

Wouldn't the global warming people have a stronger argument if they predicted the climate temps 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years and 10 years from now? Instead of just saying it's warming, trust us?

If they know the cause, if they know the quantity of co2, if they so trust the computer models, then prediction should be easy, and accurate.

I doubt any "global warming" believer would actually come out and make a prediction like this. I know they can't do it. There is no science that can predict the future, and they will look just as foolish as the people who have told us that global warming will cause more and more intense hurricanes.

2007-07-17 05:42:53 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

2007-07-17 05:36:46 · 24 answers · asked by xX Cat Xx 1

I want to start a petition against it's construction but don't know where to find information on how it can harm people in the locality and also future genterations....it has also mentioned that it will be holding medical waste...also whats the best way to get petitions signed...post or go door to door?

2007-07-17 05:02:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

or didn't leave my water running?
what does it do to the enviremnt?

2007-07-17 04:48:59 · 5 answers · asked by hawthorne_heights_421 2

2007-07-17 04:43:00 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

I belive the megnetic field is becomeing weaker,

2007-07-17 04:37:36 · 8 answers · asked by langton 1

at the moment I believe it is high,

2007-07-17 04:14:25 · 11 answers · asked by langton 1

the answer should be in favor of the question

2007-07-17 02:39:11 · 14 answers · asked by SUGANDH 1

2007-07-16 18:51:25 · 5 answers · asked by Temuri 1

And how much have you reduced it?

You can use this calculator: http://web.conservation.org/xp/CIWEB/programs/climatechange/carboncalculator.xml

2007-07-16 17:45:19 · 15 answers · asked by Engineer 6

We all know that the earth goes through cycles of temperatures of about 32 degrees from its highest point to its lowest, plus humans arn't the main cause of CO2, so is it just a great fundraising tool then, or what?? And where does Al Gore fit in to all this???

2007-07-16 16:30:46 · 19 answers · asked by william8_5 3

It said that greenland was all green when the vikings arrived
the planet goes in cicles, and nothing we do can cool it . and Al gorre has no hard fact. whats up, is this all some ones agenda.?

2007-07-16 15:03:20 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

In the graph here

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/carbonDioxideLevels.jpg

you can see that carbon dioxide would go up and down even without humans (though humans make it worse).

My question: why did carbon dioxide go up naturally in the past, and why are the rises so much steeper than the falls??

Any link which gives some precise theories, or your theory much appreciated...

2007-07-16 14:52:58 · 11 answers · asked by okei 4

2007-07-16 14:44:26 · 9 answers · asked by doorrag 1

He says that ordinary people need to change the way that they live, but ordinary people don't drive 100,000 dollar cars and they don't take private jets all over the world eather. So does anyone else say that this dude is crazy?

2007-07-16 14:43:19 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous

Even if most Americans don't believe in Global Warming, shouldn't we still try to decrease our CO2 emissions? The average American generates 15,000 pounds of CO2! Kind of gross when you think about it.

2007-07-16 14:04:17 · 8 answers · asked by Skepticalist 5

There was an earthquake in Japan this morning which caused damage to a nuclear power plant there. The Associated Press article included this statement:

"The quake triggered a fire in an electrical transformer and also caused a leak of radioactive water at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant, the world's largest in terms of electricity output.

The leak was not announced until the evening, many hours after the quake. That fed fresh concerns about the safety of Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the quake-prone country's electricity and have suffered a long string of accidents and cover-ups."

I've noticed a number of posts here and comments elsewhere saying the only answer to global warming is nuclear power. But to me that seems like leaping from the frying pan into the fire. Have people already forgotten Chernobyl and Three Mile Island? Everyone says "It's safer now." Then what happened in Japan?

2007-07-16 11:17:10 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous