Global Warming

what do u thing. Do u believe Al Gore who thinks CO2 is raising the temp. or do u believe London reseachers who thinks the temp. is raising the CO2? Or do u believe in somethings else? Explain!

2007-06-10 15:09:55 · 12 answers · asked by Seismic Toss 1

Where is the common sense? The only way to change it, and even this would be a stretch, would be a super large-scale effort by all the nations of the world. We would have to eradicate factory farming, industrial pollution (which is growing at an alarming rate in countries like China, where industry is just beginning to take off), find alternative fuels and more.

And no one seems to realize that the climate of the earth has changed many times over it's life. We can change our lightbulbs all we want, but the real inconvenient truth is that it will do not one bit of good besides saving you a dollar or two on your electric bill. We can't control nature or God; we can just enjoy our lives while we're here and be prepared for the day it may all end.

2007-06-10 15:03:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Otherwise known as the new world order or globalization.

2007-06-10 14:12:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

This question is based on science so look at the actuall properties of CO2.

The students at the local High school did an experiment with some very interesting results. And just so you know their teacher is a proponent of global warming so there initial grade was not good, a "D". However when they appealed it to the school board the project was upped to an "A" after being reviewed by other teachers. Would that be considered peer review?

2007-06-10 14:10:22 · 9 answers · asked by jack_scar_action_hero 3

Argumentum ad Ignoratum doesn't just mean "Because we can't prove otherwise, it must exist". More like, "there is no use arguing opinion".

Can I PLEASE ask what logictics class said that? Argumentum ad Ignorantum is an Appeal to Ignorance... just...

Global Warming is a reality...
Did I deny that?

Tell us exactly how you are going to remove CO2 from the atmosphere without burning oil to do it?
Solar Power? How about a SP UAV? We've done it, we have CO2 scrubbers in spacecraft. Albeit this is an ineffiecent example, taking in air, compressing it, and running it thorough the filter isn't that far fetched.
Hell, we don't NEED fossil fuels to run the nation... all a man needs is a good horse and some land to live on.

And if you listen to Al Gore's propoganda, he specifically states we can reduce current emmissions well below our current line.

And why do people ask for my credentials first, ingenuity comes not in a bottle, but in the mind in which it was created.

2007-06-10 14:08:14 · 3 answers · asked by Merranvo 2

2007-06-10 13:55:20 · 4 answers · asked by step 2

GLOBAL WARMING---it's the 100-foot-tall gorilla that will eat your children and the sack lunches you prepared for them with such care and love. You hear a lot about it these days. Setting aside the question is it real or not, we Americans and as well as people in other industrialized nations are being asked to contribute ideas for "going green" and I think we can all feel some degree of social pressure being exerted for each one of us to make some personal sacrifices. Some of these ideas are sensible and will save people money as well as conserving energy. But what you never hear about as a solution to wasteful consumption can be summed up in just one word: *** QUALITY ***

I always have to laugh when I see some economics expert talking about "durable goods." What durable goods? American consumers are forced to buy cheap junk designed to fall apart 5 minutes after the warranty period ends.

I say it's time we brought respect back to the "Made In USA" label.

2007-06-10 13:36:20 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

First off if the ice caps melt that would be a good thing because that would open more farm land in the inaccesible areas of Siberia and Canada. People in Coastal cities such as on the coast of California could move inland. Another benefit to that is Nancy Pelosi would lose her District in Congress because Sodom and Gamorrah (OPPS!! San Francisco) would be under water. Eventually petroleum will run out and we will return to earlier times when life was slower. If you check Geologic History and the fossil record you will see that many places that are now deserts or tops of mountains were underwater before. So what if things shift again. For those Evolutionist that don't believe in the Bible, do you not trust the fossil record to record the climatic changes in the earth?

2007-06-10 13:26:31 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous

He believes that it's a natural order of things, which it is. But he doesn't believe that humans had anything to do with increasing the rate of global warming. He thinks Al Gore invented the theory of global warming. Believe me, he is serious. What kind of proof could I supply him with that you think he may accept? Once he told me that the top NASA scientists don't believe in global warming neither.

2007-06-10 13:17:53 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Let's use Solar Energy (since it's hotter than ever) and create gigantic air conditioners to cool off the earth, this way we'll use the sun's energy to fight the Sun itself.

Any supporters?

2007-06-10 12:58:41 · 7 answers · asked by Slick 5

First, I will make three definitions.
The Theory of Global Warming is the idea that carbon dioxide and flourochlorocarbon emissions cause an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Global Warming Propoganda are theories that believe since the Theory of Global Warming is practically confirmed... we are all gonna die. (Amongst other hypothetical situations)

Effects of Global Warming are scientifically confirmed effects, verifiable by repeating a scientific experiment (NOT Statistics), that result from increases in atmospheric temperature.

I want someone to give me Effects of Global Warming that can NOT be immediatly dismissed as Global Warming Propoganda. This means you have to find information from an accredited source that gives proof's that can be experimentally verified.

Also, Wikipedia is not an accredited source... nor is a fourm, news webpage, the BBC, climatecrisis.net, or any other questionable source.

2007-06-10 11:58:23 · 5 answers · asked by Merranvo 2

To people having an alternative explanation of global warming
Can you at least have the decency to make your explanations match each other? or at least your own from one post to the next ?

- It´s all due to the Sun
- It´s all due to the volcanoes
- It´s all due to us breathing
- It´s all due to the CO2 released from oceans
- It´s all errors of measurements
- It´s all due to the CO2 contained in soda drinks

Please send me further youtube links ! I would like so much to know everything about the topic within 5mn...

2007-06-10 11:44:38 · 9 answers · asked by NLBNLB 6

It is a "waste of energy" for water bottles to be made, filled with water, and then transported (water is heavy).

And are they avoiding eating vegetables grown in foreign countries? It is a "waste of energy" to transport food from other countries.

Also, have global warming theorists stopped hiring people to do their housework? It is a "waste of energy" for someone to drive to their homes to mow their lawns or clean their bathrooms. That is especially true, if the worker is an undocumented worker since undocumented workers are creating millions of new families in the U.S.. A family living in the U.S. uses over 100 times more energy than a family living in rural Mesxico.

2007-06-10 09:36:23 · 12 answers · asked by a bush family member 7

like how its "global climate change" not just global warming

i commend those who are fighting global warming, but thats not exaclty all thats happening, there are some places that are going to get cooler, or stay near the same temperature, but they will start getting droughts or floods. and to the people who don't even believe in global warming, can you at least agree that it can't be good that we keep putting all these pollutants into the air, water, and everywhere else, along with using up our unrenewable resources?

and could Answers please change the category?

2007-06-10 07:13:30 · 14 answers · asked by amber 3

Ref: Today's Observer Magazine - The Ethical Issue 2007

2007-06-10 06:51:38 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

I noticed that Nancy Pelosi is concerned about Global Warming. Is she concerned about nuclear fallout from an Israeli-Iran nuclear war after we withdraw from Iraq as all the Democrat politicians want? Is she concerned about the mass destruction of human life after we leave Iraq? Is she concerned about ethics by allowing a corrupt polictician in her party to have an important position in Congress?

2007-06-10 06:24:51 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Specifically, did Barringer meteor, Rotmistrovka, Ternovka and many others http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlcat34p2/Craters.htm
relate to increase in carbon dioxide?

2007-06-10 05:18:57 · 6 answers · asked by toodd 4

2007-06-10 04:00:07 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-10 03:59:02 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-06-10 03:55:37 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

If our government would offer a tax deduction for the planting of fruit trees we could realize very quickly some great benefits:
1. Trees produce oxygen and reduce C02.
2.. The produce could be issued by the government to welfare families thereby reducing the amount each family would need to be paid. This would result in lessening the burden on tax payers.
3. The excess could bring in revenue via export.
Note: Israel set up a national fund for donations for planting fruit trees---the result was the planting of 200 million trees, and export revenues in excess of 500 million dollars.
This would be cost effective, environmentally beneficial and increase revenue. And very easy to implement. The workers could be paid by means of anticipated revenues from exports. What do you think?

2007-06-10 03:44:37 · 7 answers · asked by Lover of God 3

This is something I think is overlooked in the 'global warming' argument and I think it has a BIG, HUGE factor in the earth being hotter. The earth is hotter, right now....but as all things, it'll pass. The sun is hot. When the sun breaths, and it doesn't breath like we do, think expanding and contrasting over a big span of years, the earth is effected. It gets hotter. And when it contrast again it'll get colder and people will be preaching about another ice age. (P.S. no matter what I say I'm always gonna be wrong, huh?)

2007-06-10 03:41:21 · 8 answers · asked by Taran Wanderer 4

hi everybody, I have a diagram that shows the global warming effects of CO2, H2O and the NOX. and as I see, the CO2 effect is decreasing as the altitude increase until 11 km.
what is the reason of this ?
have a nice day...

2007-06-10 01:52:33 · 6 answers · asked by Enis T 2

Of course there are many exceptions.... but.... in general, there are two types of people. Those on the left and those on the right. Those on the left believe humans were created out of natural selection, and that the planet is getting warmer, threatening life. On the right, they believe God created life and the planet is not getting warmer.
So why is it that those who believe in "survival of the fittest" are so concerned about creatures who won't survive due to an increase in heat? Isn't that a contradiction? Forget what the cause of it is, just the reaction.

2007-06-09 22:45:44 · 9 answers · asked by sakotgrimes 4

2007-06-09 22:35:34 · 22 answers · asked by invalid chromosome 2

2007-06-09 20:44:28 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just wondered why America being a super power was not leading the world in the fight to cut greenhouse gases. I am not anti-American and I am very sure that a vast number of Americans wonder why their government doesnt do more.

2007-06-09 20:34:18 · 18 answers · asked by randyandy_uk 3

2007-06-09 20:20:04 · 3 answers · asked by TD Euwaite? 6

Is global warming a lot of hype or is it a big threat?
What are the views on both sides?

2007-06-09 16:57:47 · 18 answers · asked by mikewz82 1

I know from my study of agriculture and economics (my degree is in agricultural economics) that any variable input results in diminishing returns when input is added at a higher and higher level. Has anyone studied atmospheric co2 in this manner? In agriculture, which is a natural science, if any variable (such as water or nitrogen) results in diminishing returns when added at higher and higher levels. I have received the same results in econometric models when variables are added when building econometric models. My hypothesis is that increasing levels of atmospheric co2 will result in global cooling not global warming. Any comments? Any research in this area?

2007-06-09 12:15:04 · 6 answers · asked by bobby_burk 1