Global Warming

The very instant that Al Gore was awarded a portion of the Nobel Peace Prize, the media began planning it's attack.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_warming/2007/10/17/41855.html

2007-10-18 02:09:46 · 13 answers · asked by Tomcat 5

http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/intro.html

If you have read this and you still art convinced that AGW is a significant and the most likely possible cause of the current global warming phenomena why not. I have read a plethora of data and hundreds of scientific journal articles but this explains it in a way that gets rid of the jargon and seems unbiased. Do you agree.

2007-10-18 00:34:00 · 6 answers · asked by smaccas 3

2007-10-17 23:48:38 · 9 answers · asked by hungchief 1

My point. We should be concerned about the environment for our own health.. not other species that may or may not be dying out anyways.. Of course I care about all animals. This is really just a conversation starter.

2007-10-17 23:45:08 · 15 answers · asked by Johnny Fresh 2

2007-10-17 23:15:13 · 7 answers · asked by jessica_elizabeth_brown 1

temperatures are believed to have been much higher than they are now and stayed that way for 3000 years...and what caused the high temperatures in Europe before the little ice age...

2007-10-17 23:04:20 · 10 answers · asked by turntable 6

To what extent do you think this is true
take into account:
Global warming, climate change, CO2 emissions, deforestation, irrigation and over fishing of the seas etc

2007-10-17 23:03:32 · 5 answers · asked by jessica_elizabeth_brown 1

Isn't it our grand parents, and great grandparents that should have been worried about this?

Look at all the grotesque excesses of America's 1950's (when it was perfectly socially acceptable to wear mink coats), etc..

Must of the blame lies on the industrial revolution. If we had started "green" then, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

Now it seems as if people are saying,"OK, be concerned. Go Green. Hurry Up." Ridiculous...

Why are we left with the burden of cleaning up their mess and wiping their "derrieres", when it could have been prevented.

Until corporate America cares about this issue, which the majority of them don't, nothing is going to change for the majority of us.

2007-10-17 20:44:21 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-10-17 15:59:45 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous

what are the 5 climate controls?

2007-10-17 14:48:25 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

I just thought about when a log is just sitting there, it's not creating heat, but when it's set aflame, it creates heat. Could global warming just be e=mc2? matter into thermal energy? Coal isn't heating up the planet just sitting there, now is it? btw we create about 2% CO2 as volcanoes do, so it's significant, but not super-significant. Think about us heating up the planet with over and over again since industrialization, for years and years. matter into heat energy.

2007-10-17 14:43:02 · 7 answers · asked by bryant s 4

2007-10-17 14:32:05 · 11 answers · asked by Miguel J 1

Misinformation, willful ignorance, unrestrained anger & hatred, silly answers. If it weren't for a handful of thoughtful, well-spoken regulars and the occasional breathe of fresh air from optimistic newcomers, I'd have given up on this forum months ago.

2007-10-17 14:05:19 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

For 30 days now the temperature has been consistently getting colder ALL OVER THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE!!!

Just two months ago temperatures REACHED TEMPERATURES OVER 100 DEGREES!!! But there's not a single location north of Mexico experiencing those temperatures today!!!

Write your congressman, phone President Bush! HOW WILL WE LIVE THROUGH THIS CRISIS!!!

Something has to be done AND FAST!

OH MY GOD, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2007-10-17 13:49:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

What evidence of global warming have you seen in your garden. One of my rhododendums is blooming now. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. Oct 17 2007
I have NEVER seen that before!!!

2007-10-17 13:34:38 · 6 answers · asked by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7

2007-10-17 12:03:42 · 8 answers · asked by Liz C 1

If so, Why?

2007-10-17 11:23:48 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous

If there is a need for security patrols or janitorial or maintenance work, surely motion sensors could be used to control the needed lighting. This is one area that I have never seen addressed by the "Al Gore" fan club or other global warming advocates.

2007-10-17 10:53:09 · 11 answers · asked by Confused_Employee 1

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10132007.html

The leftist Alexander Cockburn says that Al Gore's Nobel is as ridiculous as it would have been to give it to Geobels in 1938. Do you agree with him?

2007-10-17 09:58:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have posted a straw poll in Religion and spirituality as to the nature of existence of Global Warming.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071016125218AA1V8dP&cp=1

Among Athiests, 'man made' GW was 12 to 2 'natural cycle

Among the religious 'man made' GW was 9 to 7 'natural cycle'

For those of you have followed the link and are good at addition, there were 'spoilt papers'.

Now you know, !00%, undeniable, proven, fact...

Just to make it a question, what do you think?

2007-10-17 09:45:06 · 7 answers · asked by John Sol 4

Concerning GW, do you think you are more optimistic than the "average joe"? I consider myself average; and I can get very pessimistic about GW. Sometimes I wish I didn't know anything about it.

2007-10-17 09:33:24 · 10 answers · asked by anybody 3

The BBC article shows a graph of neutrons / hour (cosmic ray counts). This graph indicates that the peak from 1975 to the peak at 1997 shows a decline of 100 neutrons / hour. Since Cosmic ray neutrons are inversely proportional to solar activity, it indicates that the SUN has been growing stronger since 1976 not weaker. To simplify this the SUN's magentic field grew stronger and shielded the Solar System from galactic cosmic ray's, which lead to a decline in cosmic ray neutron counts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm

The ACRIM composite data supports this fact as well.

http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%20Observatory/earth_obs_fig26.pdf
.
.

2007-10-17 09:32:16 · 8 answers · asked by Tomcat 5

I have been reading the report and it seems to me to be something of a breakthrough for reasonable assessment of climate change.

I mean it says that it is very likely that most of the observed global increase in temperature in the latter half of the twentieth century is due to the anthroprogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

This seems for the first time, they want climatologists to stop blaming the temperate rises in the first half of the 20'th century on CO2 emmissions.

Even sceptics such as myself would agree that changing the contents of the atmosphere would have some effect on climate (not necessarily a large one). Apparently what the IPPC has determined is that the amount of temperature increase caused by human activity over a 50 year period is 90% likely to have exceded 0.3 degrees celcius.

The expectations of the report is for a 2 degree increase in global temperatures over the next 100 years which is lowest end of most global warming predictions.

2007-10-17 08:57:21 · 7 answers · asked by Ben O 6

The biggest and most influential group of global warming doubters is American conservatives. Gradually more and more Republicans have come around to acknowledging that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming. Gingrich and McCain and Bush are some prominent examples.

Now it appears that all of the 2008 Republican presidential nominees (with the fence-sitting exception of Fred Thompson) have acknowledged this reality as well.

"The debate among the Republican presidential nominees is largely not about whether people are warming the planet, but about how to deal with it. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/us/politics/17climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

It appears that finally even most of the Republican Party is coming around to face the scientific reality.

Does this mean we nearing the end of having to convince people that humans are the primary cause of the current warming? Will it soon become accepted by almost everybody?

2007-10-17 07:29:27 · 18 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

I am concerned about these people.

2007-10-17 07:14:36 · 4 answers · asked by anybody 3

Science is not science until the study has been reproduced by other researchers. The peer-review process only weeds out obvious errors but does not reproduce the study and cannot weed out more subtle errors or efforts to defraud.

If a scientist does not archive his data or provide supplemental data to other researchers who request it, then he is trying to contravene the testability requirement of the scientific method. This is not science but pseudoscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Global warming climate scientists are trying their best to prevent Stephen McIntyre from auditing their science. McIntyre has found several errors and is the one who broke Michael Mann's Hockey Stick.
See http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

Now Malcolm Hughes at the University of Arizona has attempted to block McIntyre's IP address from accessing their website.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2208#comments

What are they trying to hide?

2007-10-17 06:25:26 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

hence the name,, is it going back to the way it once was,green,, what does this say about global warming

2007-10-17 05:29:56 · 18 answers · asked by MR MOM USMC RETIRED 3

I am not going to accuse him of being paid to take on a brief. But to my mind there are remarkable similarities in his presentation of the case against man made global warming to that of a very talented lawyer defending someone who 'is as guilty as a puppy on a carpet beside a pile of poo' (Blackadder - British TV comedy)

Any comments - good natured please as Mr Jello always is.

2007-10-17 04:35:17 · 3 answers · asked by Robert A 5

2007-10-17 04:33:57 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

Proof yes this is fact or no this is not fact so far all so called proof on the yes is hyperthetical & not fact or can any one prove to me there is proof beyond any dought

2007-10-17 03:09:22 · 14 answers · asked by david p 3