Global Warming

Pollution is clearly a negative regardless of what a person's beliefs are regarding global warming. It has been found that air, water, and land pollution do lead to an increase in disease so why is there such a resistance to pollution controls. This increase in disease leads to an increase in health care costs which in turn affects us all via high insurance rates. A better environment not only makes the planet a nicer place to live it also makes it a healthier place to live. In turn, it also makes it a cheaper place to live due to decreased use of the health care system. Curious to hear viewpoints regarding these statements.

2007-10-19 15:28:25 · 7 answers · asked by chicago3200000 3

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml

2007-10-19 15:11:12 · 7 answers · asked by Life goes on... 6

Learned in grade school that tree breath in Co2 and expel O2. They also have a cooling effect on the land(Proof is when you walk in the park).
Sure slow down or stop the mass destruction of trees in the rainforest,(send them some fertilizer and knowledge) but what about in your own backyard? Asphalt is much hotter than tree shade and grass. We have been clearing and paving land for years. It is our fault too. Megahouses and no land around them.
Trees grow by themselves so low maintenance. It seems only logical.

2007-10-19 12:24:05 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous

In the 1970s they were telling us to fear an impending ice age. Now you have some that tell us it's unclear as to whether man has anything to do with the melting of the ice caps.

Also, the earth has gone through extreme temperature changes in the past, long before we had infrastructure of oil products, toxic emissions, cell phones, computers, televisions, PDAs, etc...

2007-10-19 11:33:07 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-19 10:13:22 · 14 answers · asked by PHOYT 1

Just like Dick Cheney conspired by staging 9/11 to make Halliburton all that money from the war, did Al Gore conspire to create an artifical drought in the southeast to promote his movie and concerts so he could sell a bunch of phony carbon offset credits through his shell corporation?

2007-10-19 08:45:44 · 9 answers · asked by thegubmint 7

A recent study by the University of Maryland (UMD) found that taking no action at all is the USA's most expensive policy option with regards to global warming.

The UMD report cites five key lessons:

1) Economic impacts of climate change will occur throughout the country.

2) Economic impacts will be unevenly distributed across regions and within the economy and society.

3) Negative climate impacts will outweigh benefits for most sectors that provide essential goods and services to society.

4) Climate change impacts will place immense strains on public sector budgets.

5) Secondary effects of climate impacts can include higher prices, reduced income, and job losses.

Story: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/climate411/48/the-most-expensive-solution-do-nothing.html

Report: http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/

You can also see a breakdown of economic impact by region (West, Southwest, Midwest, etc.) at the bottom of the second link.

Thoughts?

2007-10-19 06:42:55 · 10 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

It must be oxegen that kills carbon. I know a lot of trees help. But, is there a way we can massively produce oxegen or any gas that kills carbon? If there is such way, I wouldn't mind to be regulated by the government to pay for this gas. I even will do it voluntarily. I know my question is very stupid but just can't help wondering.

2007-10-19 05:18:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

Would it help or would it not work at all? Why?

2007-10-19 04:44:05 · 9 answers · asked by Master C 6

NOAA set out in August saying that there was a 85% chance of higher than average number of Hurricanes this year, raising the probably up from 75% in May. They called for 13-16 named storms, 7-9 Hurricanes, with 3-5 being major.

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane.shtml

Reality is there were 9 named storms, 4 hurricanes, 2 major.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/2007atlan.shtml

Or between 40%-60% error rate.

How could this be? There was an 85% chance that these numbers were right! The numbers were even raised because the scientists were so sure.

It make you wonder how accurate these same scientist are about the probably of global warming. I think you could get better results about what the climate will be like in 5 years just by flipping a coin.

No person can tell you with any certainty what the climate will be like in 5 years. It's all nothing more than a guess.

2007-10-19 04:33:12 · 16 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/packages.asp

For the record, I have NO affiliation whatsoever with it. I just ran across it and think it's the funniest thing I've seen in years.

2007-10-19 04:33:04 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Not all the weather problems are caused by global warming, but the media seems to think so. What about La Nina?

2007-10-19 04:20:45 · 9 answers · asked by Niceguy23 2

2007-10-19 02:31:39 · 12 answers · asked by ? 5

2007-10-19 02:25:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

Challenge:
"The problem is the environmentalist side where their definition of progress is regression of man's progress to before the industrial revolution."

Response:
If we don't limit growth, the regression will be forced on us.

The world is finite. If we allow unlimited population growth and development eventually resources will be depleted and the ability of the biosphere to regenerate itself will be diminished to the point where it will no longer function.

However you believe this came into being, it is the current unalterable state of affairs on this planet. You cannot change the laws of physics or violate the laws of thermodynamics. No matter how much you or I wish it were not so, how much you believe we can circumvent the limits, how much you believe some magic will save us before its too late, every bit of objective science only reinforces the fact that we are bound to and by the environment we live in.

Why not choose an alternative before its too late?

2007-10-19 01:32:02 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just don't get it. This whole global warming debate has been going on and on and no matter what, nothing we can do can keep the sun from getting hotter. So why do we keep fighting with the other nations and people to 'go green'? Sure, going green is great and has no major downside, but continuing to put blame on other people for global warming is getting us no where.

Al Gore is such a hypocrit, too. He blames us for wasting resources when he's the one with the huge mansion using 80 times more natural gas than the average american.

So why do we continue to blame humans? Why do we continue to believe that we have caused the earth to rise in temperature? In the 70's, when CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than they are now, the temperatures were declining, almost showing signs that we could fall into another small ice age like in the 1700s.

I think its time for us to move on from this debate. Just ask Mars, even their ice cap is shrinking each year :( poor Mars.

2007-10-18 20:40:10 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

If Global Warming is such an imminent threat and we need to do everything to combat that why is the primary Global Warming Activist Al Gore doing nothing?

I'm all for recycling and changing lightbulbs and doing what I can here but he's asking us to walk to work and things like that but he's not even trying to live up to the standards he's demanding of us.

He takes a private jet(which puts out 4x the carbon emissions of normal aircraft) and his home uses 10x the energy of any other home in his state?

I'm not trying to be a basher here I'm simply just not understanding how someone can preach so hard about something to everyone else and do nothing in his own life?

2007-10-18 19:06:30 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-18 18:33:38 · 7 answers · asked by Johnny w 2

I'm watching Futurama right now. Mom made a new robot that runs off of the pollutions the current robots emit. (Sorry if you don't watch Futurama, but I'm sure you get the idea).

Anyway, is it at all possible for something to be made that runs off of pollution..Like Carbon Dioxide or something?

Just curious.

2007-10-18 16:17:10 · 8 answers · asked by A 5

The list below is about sustainability, so why does GW skeptism excuse you from taking environmental action on them?

*Reducing consumption of material goods
*Using cleanest most efficient source of energy to meet needs
*Changing to no till methods of farming prevent soil oxidation
*Stopping consuming products that leads to deforestation
*Reduce consumption of animals/products
*Avoiding products conataining CFS or HCFCs

2007-10-18 13:56:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Did the idiot who came up with this idea think that because we no longer would need to keep our milk in the fridge we could switch the fridge off?

2007-10-18 11:06:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

What would be the different approaches of liberals and conservatives (or a middle way)?

2007-10-18 10:49:50 · 17 answers · asked by Robert A 5

I need to answer this for a class for school.

2007-10-18 10:16:38 · 17 answers · asked by The Doctor 1

I am working on an article for the school newspaper and I need to research on how the light rail system reduces pollution, besides oviously getting more cars off the road. It would help if someone with expertise on the subject would help.

2007-10-18 07:56:47 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

I really want to know whether there is any future for pure environmental science graduates in the field. If there is please specify.

2007-10-18 07:56:08 · 6 answers · asked by JILI 1

Why get a prius? The area around the mine where the nickle is got is a dead zone, plus it gets shipped to three different countries before comming to the US. SO if this so called man made global warming was real, then getting a prius is doing more damage than just getting lets say a hummer or a big suv.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800912/posts

2007-10-18 06:57:43 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

filters the size of super markets , who nos we may save the planet before.A sanami bolama comes and sends us with the fishes. here we go, what do you think chossen one

2007-10-18 06:34:16 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Ban all drive-thrus. Make the fatties get out of their cars to get that supersized Big Mac combo, thereby 1) reducing the amount of exhaust pumped into the air at all those McDonald's and 2) getting people off of their fat a_sses and burn a few more calories.

No more bank drive thrus, no more fast food drive thrus, no more liquor store drive thrus, no more drug store drive thrus, no more dry cleaner drive thrus. Get the hell out of the car and walk a little and save the environment while you're at it.

2007-10-18 05:13:30 · 10 answers · asked by thegubmint 7

Countries that import a major portion of their oil consumption should try to mostly eliminate oil imports in 20 years.

Using a major effort, public and private, to develop and deploy nuclear, solar, and wind power plants for electricity. And to develop and deploy vehicles indirectly powered by those plants, using batteries or fuel cells.

I know some here disagree about global warming. But this goal also addresses the rising price of oil, and undesirable economic dependence on Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Iran. 3 of the 4 top oil exporters.

Could we come together on that? Or not?

2007-10-18 04:39:04 · 14 answers · asked by Bob 7

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1133

Note how many times Stossel has gotten simple, easily checkable facts wrong. Facts that any serious journalist would have checked by a staff person.

"Stossel's errors are often so obvious that one wonders how they could have ended up on the air."

He is an extremely biased commentator, not a reporter.

"Stossel reported only the most extreme numbers in the study, and ignored the report's caveats about uncertainty--fishy techniques that most journalists probably couldn't get away with."

"All of this was available to Stossel months before his report, but the factually inaccurate segment made it on the air."

"Stories that put environmentalism in a bad light seem irresistable to Stossel."

2007-10-18 03:41:32 · 9 answers · asked by Bob 7