Global Warming

I think if we didn't have them we would have no choice but to use an alternative. Thumbs up from me.

2007-12-06 05:13:59 · 19 answers · asked by daisydoormouse 2

Scientists are trying to fight global warming by changing animal flatulence.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178776/?GT1=10733

WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL!!

2007-12-06 05:12:23 · 17 answers · asked by credo quia est absurdum 7

That cold weather kills more people than warm weather. I recently read someone's YA!! saying that currently global warming is killing 150,000 people per year. How do you justify someone dying b/c of global warming? Here is an article that states colder weather/climate kills more people than warmer weather.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/h/summaries/samerhotvcold.jsp

This other article is about the heat wave of 2003 and how it is not related to global warming.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/01/31/european-heat-wave-2003-a-global-perspective/
What I'm saying is how do you know when a heat wave, flood, or other natural occurrences are caused by global warming. Also that maybe a little warmth is better than cooler temps as far as the rate of people dying from either warmer or cooler weather. Just b/c you find a trend, doesn't mean you can account every natural disaster on GW.

2007-12-06 04:52:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Skeptics are claiming that a bias in the surface temperature record is showing the current global warming to be twice as great as it is in reality:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhquGmoVDMhA48aHk4X1euwFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071206091050AANVmkW

Yet skeptics also say that because the surface is warming faster than the troposphere (which in reality is uncertain at this point), this indicates that humans are not causing the current warming.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AonNo_A3PONVoYUsuGksfKoFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071206091435AApSQPK

Well, here is the current data:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

One satellite measurement shows greater warming in the troposphere than the surface, the other shows less. However, if the surface temperature record is wrong, then the troposphere is certainly warming faster than the surface, which confirms that humans are causing the warming.

So which is really warming faster?

2007-12-06 04:51:19 · 5 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

"Skeptics" here often cite th British lawsuit about Gore's movie, saying that a British judge found nine mistakes.

That shows they didn't read the decision. The judge said four things were proven:

" 1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");

(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");

(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and

(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."

Can I assume everyone who quotes "the British judge" agrees with that? It's the most important part of his decision.

The movie won the lawsuit.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html

2007-12-06 02:48:18 · 7 answers · asked by Bob 7

so may people i meet and talk to say that global warming and climent change isnt happing wich is bull **** it makes me mad when people say there nothing we can do about whats done is done who cares. but i do i have a one year old son and i worry were our planet is heading not so much for me but him. when will people get there head out of the sand and start doing there bit to help...... how much prof do they need..... just look around and you will see it

2007-12-06 02:45:35 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-06 01:37:08 · 15 answers · asked by btbbt0987 1

give examples how it is NOT occurring!

2007-12-06 00:48:44 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-06 00:25:35 · 8 answers · asked by Mikira 5

What should the Temperature be today?
How much rain should we have?
How much snow?

Since GW is true then we should know the answers to these questions so we can get the climate back to where it needs to be.

Any scientist that doesn't know the answers to these questions woud not be a credible source. But this shouldn't happen because all scientists are in consensus, so that means they have all reviewed the data and will know these answers.

2007-12-05 23:04:12 · 12 answers · asked by Jack_Scar_Action_Hero 5

2007-12-05 19:17:02 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

Has it been warmer in past global climates than today? Yes it has.
Have atmospheric CO2 levels in the past been higher in than today? Yes it has.
Are climatologists aware of past climates? Oh yes, they are very well aware.
In fact the above information is spelled out clearly and completely in the IPCC report. Climatologists are not hiding any information from the public. It's published on the web free for all to read. There is no conspiracy to get your money, seize your SUV or make you wear a loin cloth, love beads, and flowers in your hair.

So deniers, taking the above information into account, why do you suppose climate change is different now? Why are you being warned of the dangers of global warming and being urged to find environmental friendly alternatives to fossil fuels?

2007-12-05 15:46:02 · 8 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

These articles are not helping the fake man made global warming movement

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=332977

2007-12-05 14:45:15 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have read that the single greatest contributing factor to global warming is methane gas, the majority of which is produced by decaying plant matter in asian rice paddies, not from the industrialized west. Is this true?? If so why isn't Gore & Co. demanding they develop alternative food sources???

2007-12-05 13:42:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I want both sides here. Who would rather see a wind farm or solar farm on the countryside?
OR
Who would rather see a couple nuclear power plants?

2007-12-05 13:31:57 · 6 answers · asked by John W 3

and will he put diapers on cows also >

2007-12-05 12:42:40 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Some of the smartest people in existence (climate scientists) are telling us that our reliance on fossil fuels is putting us on a path toward catastrophic results. Some of the less intelligent people claim that these scientists are either part of some elaborate scam or are complete idiots.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWwA7u27SODHeZEr2j6ctTsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071205150603AAtbJBq

The question is, will our species as a whole do enough to avoid the predicted catastrophic consequences, or will those who doubt the scientists be able to prevent such action. Will enough people be willing to take enough action and make sufficient sacrifices to meet the major greenhouse gas emissions cuts proposed by the scientists?

Or are we smart enough to invent the technology to advance our society while unknowingly putting it on a dangerous path, but not smart enough to get off that path once we realize where it's headed?

2007-12-05 10:35:48 · 20 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Please explain why. Also, if you have any ideas about helping our earth, then please suggest them. I will be giving the best answer to anyone who explains the question and gives some ideas.

2007-12-05 10:09:23 · 9 answers · asked by horse person 2

how many do you think or do you know there is.

2007-12-05 10:07:32 · 9 answers · asked by meana 1

For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."

A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

"A lot of us scientists think the problem needs a lot more serious attention than it's getting and the remedies have to be a lot more radical," said Richard Seager, a scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/health/story/211636.html

So if you think global warming isn't a threat to humans caused by humans, how do you know more about the subject than climate scientists? What kind of education and research experience do you have?

If you think there's significant debate among the scientific community, how do you explan this petition?

Can you finally admit that you're denying the facts and reality?

2007-12-05 10:05:14 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I spend a lot of time out doors and in the past years i have noticed that the self proclaimed protectors of the environment IE: the supposed "environmentalist's" that i have had the misfortune to meet seem to have been the bigger polluters and litterers.

Example: A couple of years ago I was camping in the Wilderness area in central Arizona. A group of environmentalist were camping near by. When they vaicated their campsite after a few days they left garbage and litter everywhere. They also destroyed the spring that I many small animals were getting water from, by thowing garbage, rocks and I think fecies into it.

I wish I could say that these people were not the norm of what I have met but I can't. I have gone to a few get togethers because they seemed like causes i supported. A few cleanup partys and that sort of thing. These things usually turned out to be rallys to convince people of global warming.(and i won't mention the mess these people left behind)

2007-12-05 09:36:52 · 4 answers · asked by Jack_Scar_Action_Hero 5

Irrespective of who generates more CO2 & CH4 gases, do you think we need to find ways to recycle these gases?" Due to the limitations of the Q-box, I had to pose the headline Q rather than this, the fully worded Q: "Irrespective of who generates more CO2 & CH4 gases, do you think we need to find ways to recycle these gases to ameliorate or reduce the adverse changes to local climates by Global Warming(GW) from the greenhouse effects of these gases in higher atmospheric concentrations?"

2007-12-05 07:19:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

Please point out to me these "changes", because I don't see the "catastrophic" changes happening. At least not any that are caused by Carbon Dioxide. I see alot people raising the alarm but I don't see any fire. How can you expect people to to change their lifestyle and give up freedoms to prevent something scientists themselves are not 100% confident is occuring?

2007-12-05 06:39:47 · 23 answers · asked by bigdmizer 2

To meet the new guidelines in California for Co2 reduction, the following methods would NOT be enough: Remove all automobiles from the highways and park them. Remove all trucks from the highways and park them. Close all businesses down. The fact is that California is nearly as 'Green' as green can be. But the news now point to California as a cuplrit in global warming. Yes we put out 1% of worldwide Co2. So what do all these global warming scientists expect? A few more fluorescent light bulbs? What do they expect can reasonably be done?

2007-12-05 06:39:01 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Here's part of today's story from AP:

"For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."

A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The appeal from scientists follows a petition last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases.
"It's a grave crisis, and we need to do something real fast," said petition signer Jeff Severinghaus, a geosciences professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif. "I think the stakes are way way too high to be playing around."

The unprecedented petition includes scientists from more than 25 countries.

2007-12-05 06:30:14 · 16 answers · asked by Candy 5

Cars are becoming cheaper and cheaper and in 10 years they're going to be twice as many. So be prepared to answer this question.

2007-12-05 05:55:04 · 14 answers · asked by MAROBU 5

Scientists in the BBC’s series “The Planet Earth” claim that current world population is twice what its ecosystem can sustain and remain in balance.

Could a world apocalypse reduce world population by 50% or more, and solve this crisis?

(Is this the unspoken Bush-Cheney plan? Clear out the world's population making way for corporate America to re-colonize the empire?)

2007-12-05 05:30:42 · 7 answers · asked by Wave 4

Please give yes or no answer and party affiliation if you wish. Keep them cars a running.

2007-12-05 04:48:28 · 12 answers · asked by somanyquestions 4

Sorry if this sounds bad but I am so incredibly fed up with upper class people who drive big cars, live in big power-consuming houses telling me all the time about how I should reduce my carbon emissions and mind my carbon footprint. It's almost become a fashion statement which is trendy to follow - is anyone else getting fed up with it or do you think it's great?

2007-12-05 03:55:29 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

.
Yes, the earth is experiences change! and we need to be ready for that change and work on WHAT can WE change?. We CAN seriously clean up of air quality. Money is the bait used to reel me in to want to change. Money talks. I've seemed to have heard that before. Gee pay me and I'll promise not to cut down my tree.
On the other side it's the love of money that doesn't want change. Look at the Oil Companies. What are they going to do when we decide to change to using fuels made from grain?

2007-12-05 03:49:18 · 5 answers · asked by mary b 1