Global Warming

Which airline emits the most? how much is this?

2007-11-21 05:04:09 · 2 answers · asked by Yvanfm 1

by walking alittle more, less driving an everything, IF AMERICA WOULD STOP FOR ATLEAST SOME TIME FOR ALITTLE SO CAN GET ALOT OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE..

AND YOU CHRISTIANS, THAT DONT BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING..... YOU BETTER START BELEIVING IN SOMETHING,

2007-11-21 05:03:18 · 19 answers · asked by Ronnie E 1

I'm not accusing anyone with this question, but it's quite easy to get away with lying on Y!A. You just say 'James Hansen is a known liar and psychopath who was admitted to an insane asylum for 10 years.' A person who knows little about James Hansen reads this, and how is he to know whether it's a truth or lie?

Certainly it's possible to make a stronger argument by providing links to evidence to support one's argument, but sometimes it's hard to tell who's telling the truth and who's lying. Frequently we see questions asking "how do I know who to listen to?" or "how do I know which graph is correct?".

Y!A has very little moderation. As long as you don't break their rules, they don't care what you say, and lying is not against their rules.

However, this is supposed to be a place where people learn by asking questions. By not moderating lies (by having an expert patrol each section, for example), Y!A is allowing misinformation to spread.

Is this an appropriate format?

2007-11-21 04:29:39 · 19 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

let me know if anyone has any research or article on it.

2007-11-21 02:05:51 · 23 answers · asked by Reena J 1

Every few days a news item tells us that climate change is "worse than previously thought".

http://news.google.co.uk/archivesearch?hl=en&ned=uk&ie=UTF-8&q=climate+change+%22previously+thought%22

2007-11-21 00:47:50 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

In an interview, Al Gore said "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it (global warming) is..."
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

Now we learn the UN has been practicing the same thing regarding HIV research.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html

We have seen a great deal of alarmism coming out of the UN's IPCC panel recently. Do you think the UN is exaggerating global warming facts also?

2007-11-21 00:09:21 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

do you think government will ever make changes to help against global warming ??
do you thik doomsday december 2012 is the point of no return

2007-11-20 19:44:51 · 22 answers · asked by toolmanpei06 2

Using eco-friendly energy can be expensive.In what way can we go green without ending up in the red(financially)?

2007-11-20 17:44:16 · 13 answers · asked by Nerdy Guy 3

For the global warming sceptics here. Do you honestly believe Al Gore is a climate scientist? I see here a lot of Al Gore said this and Al Gore said that, but come on we know he isn't a climate scientist, he's just the messenger. Why do you doubt the scientists behind Gore's message?

2007-11-20 16:56:57 · 9 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

Do you think it is going to happen? What are some of the signs?

2007-11-20 16:05:28 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Polar bears are losing their homes! The ice is melting! We need to act now, and I need ideas of how to! How do I stop it and spread the message??

2007-11-20 14:46:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I saw on another comment forum a guy who said he saw on TV some old stumps in Greenland, dated 7000 years go, just melting through the ice.

He said this was shown to prove global warming is so bad all the old ice is going also.

Now, I am wrong to say that this really proves a natural global warming ending 7000 years ago with the trees of an ancient forest killed by the cold, and thus showing natural global warming even farther back, far enough before that a large forest had time to become established and grow up...a natural warm cycle warmer and longer than the present?

Does this mean that the present cycle is man-made, as he claimed, and was not refuted, or does it mean what we have now is something that has happened before, and probably more so, since it was warm enough long enough to grow large trees in forest. Means the ice had to be gone, pretty much, for a forest to grow. And since it is only beginning to melt out, probably was hotter than now when it was growing.

2007-11-20 13:44:57 · 3 answers · asked by looey323 4

and you are you persuaded to believe that way?

2007-11-20 12:32:28 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Study after study has disputed global warming. Even the IPCC's own scientist have come out and said the hype around AGW is unfounded. Why do people to continue to use this lame answer as evidence of AGW?
Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar-UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007. "Has explained the cooling of the Southern Hemisphere" Aug 6,2007
Dr. Jim Renwick-a top UN IPCC scientist. Admits climate models do not account for half the variability in nature, thus are unreliable.
Dr Vincent Gray-IPCC reviewer and expert reviewer on every IPCC report going back to 1990. "The claims of the IPCC are dangerous and unscientific nonsense." April 10,2007
Dr. Hendrick Tennekes-meteoroligist and scientific pioneer in developement of numerical weather prediction and former director of Netherlands Royal Natl Meteorlogical Inst. Compared scientist who promote models to unlicensed "software "engineers" feb 28, 2007.

2007-11-20 12:15:29 · 6 answers · asked by CrazyConservative 5

The most recent skeptical expert I've seen cited is Bob Carter. He's a geologist who's been making false claims, like that the planet stopped warming in 1998.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AmU4KeCLjjgGxqOM58WLBbDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071120154053AA1oNnq&show=7#profile-info-SZALV1ubaa

There have been many others. John Coleman (meteorologist), Tim Ball (geographer - some background in paleoclimatology), William Gray (meteorologist), Reid Bryson (meteorologist), Tim Patterson (geologist), etc.

This strikes me as interesting. Many meteorologists do not study climate science, and geologists basically study the history of climate science (paleoclimatology). While weather and paleoclimatology are critical to climate science, they only make up a part of the information necessary to understand it. Also important is modern climate data.

What do you think about the large number antrhopogenic global warming skeptic 'experts' who are meteorologists and geologists?

2007-11-20 11:05:37 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

to pay higher taxes?
more government control?

in order to "stop" global warming?

2007-11-20 10:43:01 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Many people in the world believe Global Warming is real. But what if it's not? What if Global Warming ended back in 1998?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

You decide.

2007-11-20 10:40:53 · 11 answers · asked by Van 2

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11192007.shtml

2007-11-20 10:24:42 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I recently noticed a question in which a global warming doubter chose the answer of a global warming denier as 'best answer'. The answer said:

"Global warming believers like the Reverend Dr. Hansen have admitted to exaggerating global warming claims to "make people more aware" of the "problems" of "global warming"."

Now, this answer is a flat-out lie. Of course, Dr. Hansen is not a reverend, nor has he ever admitted to exaggerating global warming claims (because he has never done so). However, the question asker thought that this was an amazing revalation - one of the foremost climate scientists had admitted to exaggerating claims!

Not to name names, but at least one global warming denier often resorts to outright lies such as this one. My question is, why would you lie so aggregiously? Are you taking the chance that nobody will fact check your claims, as basically happened in this situation? Do you simply have no regard for factual information? What's the motivation?

2007-11-20 10:16:25 · 8 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

there messy already then what man serious

2007-11-20 09:21:11 · 4 answers · asked by Michael A 2

The USA is the biggest roadblock to international action against global warming at the moment.

In 2009 we will have a president who acknowledges that humans are the primary cause of the current warming and that we need to do something about it. Every Democratic nominee has said so, as have Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee. The only other nominee with a remote shot at winning is Thompson, who's basically a fence-sitter on the issue (as he is with most issues).

Once we elect a president who acknowledges this reality, do you think the USA will finally lead the way in forming an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gases? Or do you think we'll continue to pay the issue lipservice while failing to take any kind of meaningful action?

2007-11-20 08:31:45 · 18 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

Judging by several recent posts in the global warming section, it appears some people are unwilling to acknowledge that, whilst small in quantity, atmospheric carbon dioxide is capable of affecting our climate.

To these people I would ask: If CO2 (and the other greenhouse gases) are incapable of affecting the climate then how do you explain natural warming?

If you have ever used the argument that climate change is natural then please explain how you isolate this claim from any association with the heat retentive ability of the atmosphere.

If you accept natural warming, then by default you have to accept unnatural (human) warming - it's caused by one and the same thing.

If you do not accept natural warming then please explain how our planet has a moderated temperature (33°C above that if were there no greenhouse effect).

2007-11-20 08:08:17 · 7 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Give me one arrogant answer to this. Call me names. Say whatever you want. Why not check the credibility of your sources when you read articles first and get back to me.

2007-11-20 08:04:23 · 5 answers · asked by Pink Panther 4

Is it arrogant to say that we are too small to have an impact on global climate change when the top scientific organizations (AAAS and NAS) say we are? Moreover, are they (AAAS and NAS) wrong when they say that we can help slow it by immediate action? (cutting CO2 emissions?)
How many of you even care to take a look at the mechanics of global climate change before you even form a belief? I think it's worth looking more into. Wouldn't you say?

2007-11-20 07:24:55 · 10 answers · asked by Pink Panther 4

I thought this question was very clear:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AufuW0IrMWoiVUFwuT78HxYFxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071120090849AAHZCzv

But apparently I have to spell it out.

Many people have argued that because atmospheric carbon dioxide is at what sounds like very low levels (387 parts per million, or 0.0387%), it can't be responsible for the current global warming. There's been another agument that CO2 isn't a pollutant becase it's plant food, but I'll ignore that one because it's irrelevant.

My analogy was that arsenic is toxic to humans at 10 parts per billion (or 0.000001%). You could make the same argument with any number of molecules. Copper is essential to most living things, but toxic at concentrations of around 3,000 ppm (0.3%).

The point is that concentration doesn't tell you anything about an molecule's effect, unless you know more about the molecule, such as its toxicity or its global warming potential.

Can we agree on this?

2007-11-20 06:53:01 · 11 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

RealClimate has ties to Environmental Media Services, Fenton Communications and Al Gore. They make claims that tend to mislead and then censor any debate.

For example, they claim the NAS panel supported Michael Mann (one of their contributors) in the controversy with Stephen McIntyre over the Hockey Stick. Not true.

While the panel was polite to Mann, the NAS panel supported McIntyre on all the important points of science.

Mann claimed that his method was robust and not dependent on any one data set. McIntyre showed that his results were dependent on the bristlecone pine series and that when this series was taken out of the PC1, it yielded no hockey stick. The Wegman Report agreed. McIntyre further claimed the bristlecone pine series was not a temperature proxy. The NAS panel agreed with McIntyre that strip bark bristlecone pine series should not be used in temperature reconstructions.
Read page 52.

Download the NAS report free
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

2007-11-20 06:38:50 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Yea I know this doesn't make much sense, but somehow believers see the logic in these arguments.

Wouldn't it be easier to just tell us what the climate is going to be like next month instead of specious arguments?

After all, we know the output of co2, we know the impact co2 has on the climate, so we should be able to forecast the amount of warming for any level of co2.

2007-11-20 06:09:11 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/

2007-11-20 06:00:21 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why not stick with facts?

But instead of facts people who don't believe exactly the same as they do are for:
- Putting arsenic into drinking water
- Clear cutting rain forest
- Killing children, polar bears, and penguins
- Burning forest and homes
- Melting ice caps
- Pro all forms of pollution
- Littering
and so on and so forth....

Why not say:
"At current levels of man made co2 emissions, the global temperature will increase 0.2DegC next month."

If global warming was real and measurable, and predictable, this shouldn't be a problem.

These arguments by intimidation convince me there's nothing to this scam called "global warming"

2007-11-20 05:57:01 · 5 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Isn't this a preposterous claim? Most things are harmful to human health at different levels. Even oxygen can kill people at high levels, as oxygen is very corrosive. This is why deep divers use exotic blends of air.

Isn't the claim that if you don't believe in global warming like they do, then you're for polluting the planet, putting arsenic in drinking water, killing children, burning down forests, chopping down the rain forest, melting ice caps, killing polar bears and penguins, ect.....?

Isn't this just a desperate move from someone who can't win a scientific debate with facts?

Just tell us if it will be warmer or colder next month and how you came to that conclusion to show us how wrong us skeptics are instead of arguing by intimidation.

2007-11-20 04:48:31 · 7 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7