Global Warming

I've watched most of it in my sophmore HS class last year, and i thought it gives true reasons why its happening.. but i dont think were able to stop it, its gonna happen regardless, human beings just sparked it to go even faster then it would.

2007-12-19 02:25:29 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

What song do you think relate global warming or what genre would be good?

What pictures would reflect global warming?

I know the movie inconvenient truth with Al Gore, gives alot of info on global warming and americas role.

Any other things?

2007-12-19 01:55:13 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

IMO it doesnt exist as everything is cyclic and scientists on both sided make good points more for the scients who discount it.
I believe Al Gore has done a good marketing job in favor of Global warming to build himself up like how he 'invented the internet'?

2007-12-19 00:29:38 · 19 answers · asked by DyrtByrd 4

Sorry for all the questions and my ignorance :)
I only said it was nonsense because in the previous question, I am neutral. same again No wikipedia links its blocked
And I am thankful for all answers :)

2007-12-18 21:53:23 · 17 answers · asked by mac c 2

China and India want the economic development. The people of the USA want their gas-guzzling cars. How bad would climate change have to get before action was taken

2007-12-18 21:36:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

No wikipedia links, tis blocked :)
I know global warming is nonsense but i need all the help i can get for my case study.

2007-12-18 21:23:47 · 33 answers · asked by mac c 2

Every day we hear about Global Warming and it seems always to be attributed to humans. We hear how it is killing off species and so on. Scientists who disagree are called crazy and never given airtime.

Fact: Arctic is shrinking but the Antarctic is not, the ice is growing overall in the South Pole. This is a pattern which has occured for many thousands of years.

Fact: 8,000 years ago the North of Scotland was under 300m of ice (300 m!!). Where did it all go? Well the earth warmed up and it melted. just a natural event which has happened 5 times we know of.

Fact: The amount of CO2 in the atmoshere in 1600 was 0.01% less than it is now. Human contribution to global warming does exist but it is VASTLY over stated by the bean eating, sandle wearing brigade.

Fact: In 1955 Polar bears on WWF endangerd list. 2007 25,000 P bears and still on list?? They increased 5 fold! Not in danger.

Global warming in not affected by humans. It is natural event.

2007-12-18 20:18:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

some people say that global warming is a fraud and stuff so i was just wondering why you say that and what is the logic behind that because i haven't heard of your viewpoint much.

2007-12-18 14:57:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

There is usually a simple fix for mankind's problems. So, it may be possible to fix our planet's climate problems with simple solutions. It could be one of these, below. Which one could be the Magic Solution to climate crisis?


1) Forest Saving Device that saves every household $250/yr.
http://tw.video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1611853

2) Become a Vegan, like Albert Einstein suggest
http://choices.cs.uiuc.edu/~f-kon/vegetarian.html

3) 200-Mile Diet
http://www.changeeverything.ca/climate_change_expert_keep_the_hummer_forget_the_kiwi

4) Free Recycled Battery Electric Vehicles
The world's cheapest vehicle to operate
http://www.livevideo.com/video/5527AAE3BEFF4905B94C24E11C0270C6/a-lawmaker-is-surprised-by-ele.aspx

What do you think?

2007-12-18 14:42:48 · 21 answers · asked by Climate Angel 1

More CO2 in atmosphere helps increased global temp. and granted, some land will be lost to sea. But it also fosters the growth of healthy vegitation. Studies found that precisely high vegitation due to high CO2 is the cause for large bodies of the dinasours.

So, it is good to have global warming!??

2007-12-18 12:55:03 · 13 answers · asked by Raju 2

2007-12-18 12:44:25 · 4 answers · asked by anonymous 1

"National Review (the most prestigious conservative magazine) published a cover story calling on conservatives to shake off denial and get into the climate policy debate"

"(from Republicans for Environmental Protection) The consensus of almost all climate scientists is that global warming is already happening, that human actions are causing it, and that it will cause major problems for our planet."

http://www.rep.org/news/GEvol5/ge5.1_globalwarming.html

These people aren't running for anything:

"Pat Robertson (very conservative Christian leader) 'It is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to do something on fossil fuels.”

"I believe there is now more than enough evidence of climate change to warrant an immediate and comprehensive - but considered - response. Anyone who disagrees is, in my view, still in denial."

Ford Motor Company CEO William Clay Ford, Jr.

2007-12-18 10:55:34 · 13 answers · asked by Bob 7

People seem to think 1 degree C is not a significant increase. No one is looking at it from a point of view that takes into account the fact that proportionally this is a large increase. 1 degree in 100 years sounds small. 6.8% in 100 years is significant. Its not like we wont notice it.

2007-12-18 10:42:50 · 4 answers · asked by smaccas 3

I have trouble buying it....because growing up the "Hole in The Ozone Layer" was the big theory and now it's become "Global Warming"....

Not a big Gore fan either maybe thats why...

I like the Gaia Hypothesis though....

2007-12-18 10:31:59 · 14 answers · asked by stroberocksluv 1

Check it out. Channel 4 not only says it's wrong.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

They post links to legitimate sources of information. They have a way to "ask a scientist". His bio:

Professor John F B Mitchell OBE FRS is Met Office Director of Climate Science. He gained a BSc honours degree in applied mathematics in 1970 and a PhD in theoretical physics in 1973, both from Queen's University, Belfast.

In 1978, he took charge of the climate change group in what is now the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Change. He is a leading expert in climatic effects of increases in greenhouse gases and related pollutants.

He's a leading member of the IPCC.

His answer, of course, is that the movie is flat wrong and global warming is mostly caused by us.

They've done everything short of suing Durkin for fraud. Or posting the savage criticism of the movie from the British press.

2007-12-18 09:20:53 · 5 answers · asked by Bob 7

what do u think about global warming? now im not looking for a huge anwser here but if you could just tell me whether or not you think that humans are causing it and list only 5 facts why you think that...then i'll be able to somehow find a way to make my decision on what i think.

2007-12-18 08:55:47 · 21 answers · asked by Haley 3

2007-12-18 08:17:51 · 1 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-18 07:42:03 · 7 answers · asked by sierrasurfer3 2

2007-12-18 06:59:08 · 10 answers · asked by Jose Nelson Climate Kid 1

2007-12-18 06:50:41 · 8 answers · asked by Citizen 3

http://www.iceagenow.com/New_Study_Explodes_Human_Global_Warming_Story.htm

2007-12-18 06:47:26 · 11 answers · asked by willow 6

Then you cannot say the temperature is warming or cooling right?? That the global temperature is at a stale mate. I've heard a few arguments that the global mean is cooling and that the global mean is still warming. I feel it is at a stale mate and that temperature is not cooling or warming just relaxing and waiting to see what move it wants to make next. Any suggestions as to why the global temps have stalled??

2007-12-18 06:04:53 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Why should anyone assume that NASA, NOAA, and the EPA are pure scientific organizations that provide us with unadulterated objective science?

These are gvmt departments who need to play politics with the politicians in Washington DC to get the funding that they need, as they are not funded by any other source.

With the democrats currently in control of the purse strings, would NASA, NOAA, and the EPA be able to get the funding they seek if the data they find contradicts with the political goals of the democrat party?

Or do they have to get in line and use their funding to insure the data matches the dogma of the majority party to insure future funding?

2007-12-18 05:58:03 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

2007-12-18 05:45:54 · 13 answers · asked by KuntaKinte 1

A global warming denier recently criticized me for using this plot:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

He claimed the graph "starts at anomalously low points. We have risen about as much above the norm as it started below the norm. You have to ask why start the graph at a point so far below the norm unless your purpose is to try to deceive rather than inform."

The plot clearly states on the vertical axis that it sets the zero point at the mean of 1901-2000 temperatures, then plots the temperature each year in relation to that average. There's nothing deceptive about it - this is a standard practice.

The denier then concludes that my source is biased.

Do you think he's right and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is biased based on this graph?

2007-12-18 05:42:11 · 7 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."

Anyone else notice that the year 2012 is coming up with a greater frequency for the prediction of doom and gloom associated with "global warming"?

Why do you think this is?

Could this be that the Mayans, Nostradamus, and Biblical References all point to 2012 as the end of the world?

Are the "warmers" piggy-backing on this next fear of pending apocalypse?

Or maybe the "warmers" don't want the end of the world fears to upstage global warming and push warming out of the headlines?

What are your thoughts?

2007-12-18 05:06:26 · 8 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Besides the fact that the famous "Hockey Stick Graph" has been proven to be a complete fraud, and was not even based on real temperature readings, (it was based on tree ring data in one forest in one small part of the US) has anyone actually looked at these graphs closely?

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

1932 warmer than 1934

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/USHCN.2005vs1999.lrg.gif

1934 cooler than 1931 but warmer than 1932

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

1934 cooler than 1931 or 1932

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

1934 is only warmer than 1930. All after are warmer.

These graphs not only contradict the recent NASA revelation that 1934 was the hottest year on record, they contradict each other!!

Why is the artic ice a "Global" indicator, but the antartic ice is only a "Local" phenomenon?

Where is the science now?http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-03-04-1.html

2007-12-18 05:05:35 · 7 answers · asked by wizard8100@sbcglobal.net 5

"...One way to get a sense of geologic time is to compare it to a motion picture. A movie is projected at a rate of 32 frames per second - each image is flashed on the screen for only 1/32 of a second, giving the illusion of continuous motion. But suppose that each frame represented 100 years...

If we were able to show the movie on a standard projector, each 100 years would flash by in 1/32 of a second. It would take only 1/16 of a second to go back to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The 2,000-year-old Christian era would be on screen for ¾ of a second. A section showing all time back to the last major ice age would only be less than seven seconds long... And to view a movie entitled "The Complete Story of Earth, from Its Birth to Modern Civilization" you would have to spend sixteen days in the theater, without even a popcorn break between reels."

http://www.nipissingu.ca/faculty/ingridb/geology/geologic_time.htm

2007-12-18 05:01:50 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

Hillman, senior fellow emeritus at the Policy Studies Institute, says carbon rationing is the only way to ensure that the world avoids the worst effects of climate change. And he says that the problems caused by burning fossil fuels are so serious that governments might have to implement rationing against the will of the people.

"When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it," he says. "This has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzY1ZTQ4OWU0ZmY4ZjBkODZiOTc1OGY4ODRkNGM3NjM=

Do you agree with Mr. Hillman's position that democracy needs to be limited for the good of all?

And/or do you believe that Mr. Hillman's statements are the goal of the UN and other government bodies?

2007-12-18 03:46:05 · 12 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

oh and by the way, wasn't it mr. greenjeans himself not thirty years ago telling us we were all going to freeze to death due to global cooling?

methinks he might want to consider a sequel to his farce of a movie...

2007-12-18 03:40:10 · 6 answers · asked by darwinman 5