Global Warming

See the Politics section on this page:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Politics_of_Global_Warming

Surely, of all issues facing our society, this one should remain in the zone of political neutrality?

Yet why is it that the vast majority of people who oppose taking action against global warming, seem to be on the right of the political spectrum?

I am aware of the (rather short-sited and amoral) argument that to change anything in the economy could cost jobs and lead to an economic downturn. There may even be some truth in this argument in the immediate future.

However, the correct response to the "economic argument" should be to try to change the economy in order that it 'works with' these problems, should it not? To try to wish the problem away in order to be allowed to continue with an economic plan which was forged 20 years ago (in the Ragan years), seems rather short sited and stupid.

After all, the economy will only survive if we do.

2007-12-18 00:35:16 · 24 answers · asked by this account was hacked 2

Can we all burn a few more things because the UK is like the north pole at the moment, we could certainly do with some sunshine! I can barely play golf at the moment and the cold is really getting on my nerves. Anyone else agree? There is a limit to how long we can leave the engine on in our 4X4.

Not a joke!
Leave your engines on!! Do not recycle!! Waste electricity!!

2007-12-17 23:18:25 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Gore pays for his enormous carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company 's purpose is totake financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.
"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks

Algore is a fraudster. He has a huge financial interest in this company, so he is able to
1. Steal the rights to pollute, while no one else can. He has a license to pollute, in a literal and very real sense.
2. He is profiting from this.

So not only is he commiting fraud and violating regulations, he is gaining financially from it. He should be thrown in jail instantly. If he wants to save the planet, i'm sure his 6' x 9' jail cell has a very small carbon footprint.

2007-12-17 15:25:24 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

I recently read in a couple of articles that the ice is melting faster than anticipated and could be all melted within five (5) years. That means 2012, which is right around the corner. Should we take this prediction seriously and what can we do about it?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/343294_iced.html

2007-12-17 11:55:23 · 9 answers · asked by ? 4

Which three leaders at the Bali Summit had views against the kyoto protocol and therefore were singled out?

2007-12-17 11:47:50 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

do you think that it is not necessary to clean up pollution at all? athsma cases are at a record high, pollution puts heavy metals into our drinking water. conservation brings the cost of consumer goods down, or since you can afford what you need it does'nt matter to you?

2007-12-17 11:45:26 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

it was in the AP world Histry book. was he the 2nd caliph of the ummayad clan?

2007-12-17 11:22:32 · 3 answers · asked by newlex 2

2007-12-17 11:19:53 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous

I was just wondering if there are any holidays that are in place that are designed to tell people not only about Global Warming, but also about pollution? I know there is Earth Day, but I was thinking more along the lines where people do not use any electricity, cars, or anything like this. Would that be a good idea? Is there already something like this in place? Thanks.

2007-12-17 10:46:58 · 6 answers · asked by electrosmack1 5

I definately believe in global warming! I'm only 14 and have noticed its affects on people all over the world, what will happen to the animals, our homes, and our world! The huge hole in the ozone right above Antactica didn't just get there!

If you believe in global warming what do you think we should do to try and stop it?

If you don't belive in global warming, why? And how would you explain all the climate change in Antarctica and over other parts of the world?

2007-12-17 10:44:28 · 15 answers · asked by sweetart993 3

A recent paper by Douglass, Singer, Christy et al claimed that because the tropical troposphere is not warming as much as the AGW theory predicts, the warming is most likely due to natural causes.

Ignoring the flaws in the "natural causes" theories, let's examine their claims regarding this flaw in the theory. There are many issues with the measurement of the tropospheric temperature. Satellites and ballons all have biases which need to be corrected in order to accurately measure the tropospheric temperature.

RealClimate analyzes the paper and troposphere measurement and concludes:

"This...is a demonstration that there is no clear model-data discrepancy in tropical tropospheric trends once you take the systematic uncertainties in data and models seriously. Funnily enough, this is exactly the conclusion reached by a much better paper by P. Thorne and colleagues. Douglass et al's claim to the contrary is simply unsupportable."

How do you feel about Douglass et al's claims?

2007-12-17 09:51:49 · 7 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

"A study conducted by a team of Stanford researchers has drawn out a grim scenario of what is likely to befall land-bird species worldwide as average temperatures continue to rise"

"Using data from the latest IPCC summary report and a wide range of likely scenarios, Sekercioglu and his colleagues modeled changes to the elevational limits of the ranges of over 8,400 species; the worst-case scenario of a 6.4°C temperature uptick produced the 30% extinction projection."

"Of greatest concern is the authors' finding that each extra degree of warming will have increasingly disproportionate consequences: For example, if current temperatures were to rise by 1°C, we would likely see 100 extinctions; assuming temperatures were to rise by 5°C, however, an additional 1°C then would trigger a much larger number of extinctions, 300-500."

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/12/climate_change_land_bird_extinctions.php

What do you think of these scientists' grim conclusions?

2007-12-17 09:11:28 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

1. What are things that cause Global Warming except the Ozone layer?

2. Does a factory having smoke come out have to do with Global warming?? and how?

2007-12-17 08:25:56 · 10 answers · asked by UNKNOWN 2

if you dont have an oppinion of your own please dont send me a link.

2007-12-17 08:17:41 · 7 answers · asked by Ramble 3

They could just make it say what they want it to say

2007-12-17 08:04:23 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

i have looked at just about every book on amazon - please any suggestions of a book that will give a fair view of both sides of the debate.

2007-12-17 07:58:23 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

I dont b/c then we wouldnt have 3 snowstorms already.
State your opinion and tell me why you dont/do believe in Global Warming.

2007-12-17 07:53:14 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

Many use cold temperatures to prove global warming is real.

How can a contradiction prove something is true? Or how can you prove something is right with contradictions?

How much cold would be required before believers acknowledged that global warming is over?

Would you believe global warming is done if the ice caps cover New York City once again?

2007-12-17 07:43:40 · 5 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Reading some reports you get the impression that Hot days are proof that man made global warming is real, floods or droughts are proof that global warming is real, hurricanes or lack of hurricanes just prove global warming is man made, ice caps melting or growing are both caused by global warming, even cold temperatures are caused by global warming.

However when it is cold for a period of time it's called weather.

Is this just a convenient way of hiding the facts that the world is starting to cool down and there is no such thing as "global warming"?

2007-12-17 07:37:55 · 5 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

Here's the raw numbers from NASA's GISS for the USA (Yes the USA is part of the globe)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Where's the proof that the temperatures got warmer after 1998? I took the raw numbers, imported into Excel, and analyzed them.

It's clear that there isn't much difference between modern times and the 1930's.

Try it yourself. Please let me know if you see any difference today than in the past.

It's clear that others obfuscate their results by publishing graphs and not displaying raw numbers. This is done to hide how much massaging is done to the raw numbers.

2007-12-17 07:30:39 · 4 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

The number of questions along the lines of "it's snowing outside - what does that say about Al Gore's global warming hoax?" is truly astounding. Now we've even got such a question from the global warming section's "top answerer".

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AohAH2rljXuU7Cf0YRyYph4Fxgt.;_ylv=3?qid=20071217121117AAM93d9

So, if it snows in my backyard in December 2007, does that prove that global warming is over? If it's 100°F in my backyard in July 2008, does that mean global warming has started up again?

2007-12-17 07:21:39 · 12 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

We frequently hear the argument from skeptics that since 1998 was the warmest year on record (if you average all datasets; GISS has 2005 as the warmest), this means that global warming has "stalled."

An interesting discussion at the link below shows that with an artificial dataset, you can have a constant warming trend, and yet due to the year-to-year noise you can have a cooling trend from 1998-Present.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/#more-507

Of course, in the real data we have a warming trend from 1998-Present

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

But the point is that the 'global warming has stalled' argument is fundamentally flawed, based on the noise rather than the (warming) signal.

Do skeptics understand the difference between signal and noise? If so, do they admit that 1998 as the warmest year on record does not mean that global warming has "stalled"?

2007-12-17 07:17:13 · 2 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

With unpresidented levels of snow being dumped in the USA and Canada this winter, how much more wind, cold, and snow is reguired before we say global warming is over, and the globe is cooling down?

2007-12-17 07:11:17 · 15 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7

I agree with the fact that the temperature of the earth is rising.
However I do not agree that the cause is solely based on carbon emissions.

In response to: What could possibly reverse the effects of GW?
Boatman1 wrote:
"As an amateur Astronomer:

1. A change in the Sun cycle activity.
2. A change in cosmic rays impacting the upper atmosphere.
3. A change in the solar systems position in the Milky Way Galaxy-- as we rotate around at 220 kilometers per second and pass up and down through the central disk (every 66,000 years).
www.csupomona.edu/~jis/1999/kong.pdf
4. A change in solar wind speed and particle density.
and hundreds of other factors which we know very little about."

So are you going to sit there and say that hands down CO2 is the main cause or are you going to question and challenge those theories? There are so many variables that are not defined in this equation it would be foolish and naive to blindly put your faith into one simple cause.

2007-12-17 05:52:05 · 15 answers · asked by mattystolz 2

Why do people Worship Global Warming?

2007-12-17 05:33:21 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

So why do so many people pick on the oil companies. Banks make tons of money for doing nothing.

2007-12-17 05:30:43 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-17 04:50:04 · 19 answers · asked by Alycia [♥] 3

2007-12-17 03:52:45 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-17 01:44:57 · 12 answers · asked by Utkarsh 1

The Koyoto and Bali conferences are advocating a reduction of CO2 emissions to a level 40 percent less than in 1990, by 2020.
So here's my question to all sides, GW fearers and GWdoubters.

Let's have some hard numbers as to what the above means.

Population in 1990
Population in 2020
World's energy use from oil and coal in 1990.
Assuming no quality of life change for 1st world, and a slight increase in QOL for 3rd world, projected energy use in 2020.

Where do you get that energy at 40 % less output than in 1990? Coal and Oil power plants that are an almost science fiction like order of magnitude cleaner? Or, decommission x number of coal plants, and build 2x number of nuclear plants to
take up the slack?
7,000 3 Mile Island sized plants in the next 30 years? 10,000 wind farms the size that people don't want off the Mass coast? Just what are the numbers?
Post in a separate question so we can all see these answers..
Inquiring Minds Want to Know!

2007-12-17 01:25:06 · 6 answers · asked by yankee_sailor 7