Global Warming

THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
THEY BROKE IT LET THEM FIX IT!!!
WHAT HAPPEN TO GLOBAL COOLING IN THE SEVENTIES?
"KICK YOUR GOVERNMENT IN THE BALLS!!!"
MOOAB SILENTIO
VI VA LA ANTI_INTERNET

2007-06-25 05:48:39 · 5 answers · asked by www.anti_internet 1

Mr Gore argues that if he had made it to the White House, he would have been able to use the office as a "bully pulpit" to achieve change.

Man, did we ever dodge a bullet!!

http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2701314.ece

2007-06-25 05:23:29 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

hello, can someone explain to me. isnt global warming a cycle? i mean everyone says humans are doing it, but i heard that its gonna be extrememly hot and then an ice age. i dont see the connection.

2007-06-25 03:38:47 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous

The text of the petition read as follows:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

If these people are all in the oil and gas business, do they just not care about the planet that they live on?

2007-06-25 03:15:18 · 11 answers · asked by Larry 4

Too much pollution
Too little pollution
Cows passing gas
farming the land
smokers
Driving SUVs
Now worms
http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=63227

This is why I don't buy into any more because each week there is another source and they have to keep modifing the models.

Yet is Al Gore says so I am to believe it?

The debate is still open for those who are thinking.

2007-06-25 03:03:42 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

i think we messed up the earth...along the line do u think the next few decades r gonna be weather disasters?

2007-06-25 02:15:27 · 13 answers · asked by reifguy 6

several thousand years ago ice sheets streched from north pole to equator, how many internal-combustion engines did neanderthal man produce? 300 years ago the thames used to freeze over to such an extent that 'frost fairs' could be held upon it- how many air miles did they clock up.
when was the hole in the ozone layer discovered?when instruments were developed to identify and measure it, so who knowswhat it's dimensions should be
it's all part of the earths natural cycle and one of the biggest influences is the seas natural changing currents

2007-06-25 01:13:40 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

ok, i asked if sending a liquid nitrogen missle into to ice caps would freeze them and thus end the crazy theory about global warming

but aparently that wouldn't work - see my other questions to find out why...

but how about this - if the ice caps melt then theres to much water - then the world becomes submerged and all that

so what if a pipe was built to pump all this unwanted water into space, that way we could drive 4x4s all day and not worry - what do you think

2007-06-25 00:22:47 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-24 23:24:27 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

The UN fostered global warming scheme seems to be "heating" up again. For me I see it as a legitimized panhandling scheme for the "beligerent beggers" of the UN elitist global politicians. Their quest for GW taxation(money), treaties(power) is just another way for them to make a grand living at being unproductive. Next thing they'll try getting into your bedroom, then try to tax you for watching the show. Anybody else seeing what I'm seeing???

2007-06-24 22:33:40 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

Fact: CO2 occupies 0.035% of the atmosphere. If it doubled it would only be 0.07%. We can all live with that. 99.9% of all the world’s CO2 is at ground level or below, 71% being dissolved in the oceans.

2007-06-24 16:43:26 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-24 16:22:46 · 7 answers · asked by RingMaster 2

EHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH??????????????????????????????????????????????????????niggazuz????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2007-06-24 16:11:03 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

...if you're really concerned about CO2 emissions and the environment then shouldn't something be done to decrease the world's reliance on beef?

http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/A0701E00.htm

2007-06-24 15:56:03 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Britain and northwestern Europe, which have same latitude with Alaska, is much warmer from the Gulf Stream, and as warm as Pacific coast from other flow of sea water.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=3975

2007-06-24 15:42:37 · 1 answers · asked by toodd 4

Considering the amount of money Exxon-Mobile dumps into creating the perception of scientific dispute about man-made global warming, such as

JunkScience.com, where peer-reviewed papers are deemed "junk science" and corporate-sponsored studies are deemed "sound science".

The Oregon Petition which was circulated to tens of thousands of people with any degree, along with a "review" of climate science written by a Christian fundamentalist with no climate science background, and signed by 17,000 people based on that "review", most signees having no background in climate science. Yet it is cited as a petition signed by 17,000 climate scientists.

People like Rush Limbaugh who flunked out of college and has no science background whatsoever and yet has a rapt audience who treat his opinions as fact.

All the BS on the internet claiming that soda pop, water vapor, solar variations, volcanoes, etc. are the primary cause.

When people want to believe this misinformation, how do you combat it?

2007-06-24 11:16:18 · 27 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

A 'coalition' (TASCC) was the first corporate-funded group to claim that global clmiate change wasn't happening. They were funded by Phillip Morris.

JunkScience.com was started to depict peer-reviewed scientific papers which connected secondhand smoke to lung cancer as "junk science" and corporate-sponsored "findings" that they weren't linked as "sound science". JunkScience.com does the same for global warming peer-reviewed and corporate-sponsored papers. It also equates environmentalists to Nazis, fascists, and communists, and is one of the main sources used by global warming skeptics.

The same strategies of misinformation are used by both Phillip Morris and Exxon-Mobile-funded groups.

So do GW skeptics know or care that they're on the side of the tobacco companies?

2007-06-24 10:42:19 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Drifting icebergs are "ecological hotspots" that enable the surrounding waters to absorb an increased volume of carbon dioxide, a study suggests.

US scientists found that minerals released from the melting ice triggered blooms of CO2-absorbing phytoplankton.

These microscopic plants were then eaten by krill (shrimp-like organisms), whose waste material containing the carbon sank to the ocean floor.

The findings are published in the online journal Science Express.

The study, carried out in the Southern Ocean's Weddell Sea in December 2005, has helped researchers understand the impact of free-floating icebergs on the marine environment.

Read Article here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6227724.stm

The earth couldn't possibly take care of itself...it would of never made it this far without save the world freaks. Oh, EcoFreak Wonder Twins - what would we do without you?!?!? Oh, I know, live in peace and adapt to the earth instead of trying to make the earth adapt to us

2007-06-24 10:23:43 · 16 answers · asked by karadansu 3

2007-06-24 08:31:20 · 19 answers · asked by skateboardboi 5

im am really sensitive when it comes to death and the world is gonna end. Is the world really gonna end in 2012 cause the mayan calander says it will !? WHAT DO U THINK WILL HAPPEN?

2007-06-24 08:28:16 · 20 answers · asked by ~♥*DAnCA*♥*FOreVa*♥~ 2

My sister think Global warming is going to ahppen, will it or wont it?

2007-06-24 08:01:38 · 11 answers · asked by Seckledust 2

A machine that sucks polluted air in and filters it and blows it back out as clean O2. If we could build machines like this and place them all over the world. They need to be very very huge big machine that has to filter thousands of tons of air a day. This will not only slow down the global warming but it will also reverse it at the same time. Giving us a whole new world clean of all polluted air. So, if we build them, will they work?

2007-06-24 07:49:12 · 15 answers · asked by roaldliang 1

This is for a debate, my opposition says global warming isn't that big of a deal...But is it? Who is contributing to it? Why is it happening? Where is the evidence? What happens if we do nothing? Why have humans in general waited so long to actually see the problems? When did global warming become such a big deal? WHAT CAN WE DO?

2007-06-24 06:01:23 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

i afried of global warming! if what im watchin is true than we will all die in 2012. i'l almost be 19. i need some major comforting!

2007-06-24 05:58:41 · 19 answers · asked by monkkeytheblue 1

2007-06-24 05:02:01 · 19 answers · asked by itsnot4girls 2

I heard that the polar icecaps will melt and increase the rise in sea levels, putting london underwater.

2007-06-24 04:30:39 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

something like driving less or switching to energy efficient lightbulbs or start recycling more or switch to green power? I am interested to know what people think - are we apathetic?

2007-06-23 16:27:21 · 17 answers · asked by robot love 2

If the ice caps melt, that will leave more surface area covered in water which will evaporate faster because of the increased temperatures. the evaporation will form into clouds which will block the sunlight from getting through, thus lowering the air temperature, and causing the moisture to fall as snow, cooling the surface even more so that the surface water will freeze and reflect too much sunlight back into space causing the temperatures to plunge. Am I right in this supposition?

2007-06-23 12:12:00 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

A common argument made by GW skeptics is that the planet has only warmed 1 degree C over the past century (0.6 degrees in the past 50 years), and that's not a big deal.

A study by Dr. Perry of the UK Meteorological Office found that a further 2.1 degree C rise will expose between 2.3 and 3 billion people (35-50% of the world's population) to water shortages.

2 degree warming will cause 97% of the world's coral reefs to bleach (die) which will have many negative consequences.

Researchers on 5 continents found that if temperatures rise to the average IPCC estimate (~3.6 deg. C over the century), 15-37% of the world's species will be 'committed to extinction' by 2050.

http://reference.aol.com/globalwarming/_a/scientists-approve-global-warming-report/20070406133809990001

Considering how much damage a 2 degree warming will cause, how can you argue that a 1 degree warming is trivial?

2007-06-23 12:05:17 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

In 2004 an article in Science magazine discussed a study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

Benny Peiser attempted to replicate the study, and found 34 articles that "reject or doubt" the consensus view--that is, 3% rather than the 0% that Oreskes found in her sample. Only 1 of those papers actually rejected the consensus, and it was an editorial, not a research paper.

Another guy did a similar small study of 25 papers to verify the claims, and found 20% explicitly endorsed, 84% explicitly or implicitly endorsed, 16% were neutral, and none rejected the consensus position.

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

Since no research papers rejected the 'consensus', how is that not a consensus?

2007-06-23 11:43:58 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7