Global Warming

scientists say in 2012 there would be no ice in Arctic!!!!?

2007-12-17 00:19:21 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

The world's climate is constantly changing. What is so hard to believe and threatening about the possibility that the Earth is going through a warming trend? Their is hard evidence that the polar ice sheets are starting to melt.

2007-12-16 20:22:41 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

...or is he just in it for the profits from emissions trading and for the accolades?

2007-12-16 16:02:05 · 13 answers · asked by Martin L 5

Simple question, could anybody tell me what was achieved in Bali?, apart from a darned great carbon footprint and another meeting to be held in two years time.

2007-12-16 13:56:34 · 8 answers · asked by boy from bali 3

Sceptics and outright deniers, are you fighting against believing the science behind global warming simply because it's primarily Al Gore that is in the spotlight urging the American public to do something about it?

2007-12-16 13:04:09 · 11 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

What causes global warming? I need this information in 7th grade understanding. Any other information about global warming will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

2007-12-16 10:08:39 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-12-16 09:00:00 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous

I know that its the number one cause of global warming, but how?

2007-12-16 07:06:17 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous

I'm 26 years old have studied climatology and climate change in college and know little about it. Is it just a myth conconted by deniers or was it a genuine fear? More importantly did the theory achieve the backing of the overwhelming majority of the (qualified) scientific community?
I'm familiar with the concept of a nuclear winter but global cooling...I'm ignorant.
Constructive answers please. No politics.

2007-12-16 06:25:11 · 11 answers · asked by damienabbey 2

i mean we can use some equipment to use up the heat of the globe for other purposes and cosequently cool the world

2007-12-16 05:09:12 · 7 answers · asked by skeptical 1

I think Envirofundamentalists have finally stumbled upon a good definition of what is happening with our climate, by changing their nomenclature from "global warming" to "climate chaos".

Global warming implied that mankind was responsible for climate change, which is an impossibility. It is scientifically impossible to prove with accurate, reproducable results, which is a fundamental necessity of scientific theory, so it is entirely based on supposition and blind "faith" (even if there is a "consensus" of blind faith). And it goes directly against the scientific record of global warming cycles, that anyone can investigate using tree ring evidence that goes back for centuries and accurately measures global cooling and warming cycles.

Meanwhile, "climate chaos" by definition means something without organization or order, and that necessarilly means something that cannot be controlled nor influenced. In other words, they accept that man has nothing to do with it.

It is nature.

2007-12-16 01:39:16 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

I think it's a con to raise taxes personally!!
What do you think?

2007-12-16 01:30:10 · 32 answers · asked by Lady Monkey ! 4

OMG I cant believe this will we be taxed soon on how many Christmas lights we put up!!

2007-12-15 23:33:39 · 11 answers · asked by NIknak 3

and the Changes that our atmosphere underwent in the process? In a nut shell: The earth started off in a state of global warming with a toxic atmosphere; then through the process of photosynthesis the atmosphere was filtered and the structures of animal life evolved organs to breath and live in clean air. The earth at that point had become a carbon sink. Now through industrialisation and deforestation we are returning the earth once again into a carbon source. With our glut for cheap fossel fuels we are slowly returning the athmosphere into its primordial state with all the progressive repercussions in climate change etc.... In Just two hundred and fifty years since the industrial revolution we notice significant changes. Doesnt this tell us anything?

2007-12-15 20:50:29 · 10 answers · asked by ziffa 3

it needs a radical change of life style and a seachange in the way we do science and technology and the way our cities are constructed not to mention the reduction of the astronomical use of air travel. Is the average person today ready to make these radical changes within such a short time? Will politicians change their spots and bring about measures that curtail much of our western throw away consumerism and libertine lifestyles encouraged by the Gaming and entertainment industries ? Where are we?

2007-12-15 20:03:35 · 7 answers · asked by ziffa 3

With the overwhelming evidence of global warming, there remains many out there for whatever reason, be it uninformed, selfishness, or whatever reason, who refuse to accept the fact that the earth is warming thereby threatening the ecosystems and global economy of the planet. Sooner or later they are going to have to fall in line and live greener.
How do you think this will be done?

2007-12-15 14:34:21 · 16 answers · asked by Author Unknown 6

2007-12-15 13:05:52 · 20 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6

I was just curious what layer in the earth's atmosphere is slowly being dismantled. Is it the O-Zone layer, or..?

2007-12-15 12:24:18 · 13 answers · asked by emilytstrange 2

I love my new car it gets good gas mileage but i dont think that it its good enough how else can i help stop global warming

2007-12-15 11:54:37 · 17 answers · asked by Mrs. Taylor Lautner 1

Well I know I care for it but what do you do to help? Do you really care? if you answer this truly you might just get the best answer!

2007-12-15 11:47:07 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous

I’m going to condense this writing and let you fill in the gaps. Late in the movie Al Gore produced, he states that the world has 6 billion people and will eventually level off at 9 billion. Why not stem the growth now? He says that global warming is man made; weather it is or not doesn’t matter. Let’s forget global warming and focus on the real problem of population. We as the people of earth should maybe consider pushing the idea of replacing our selves, one person one child and no more, a married couple would have two children.

Everything that is manufactured is based on creature comforts. People think I’m nuts when I say creature comforts but figure it out. Power plants make electrical energy to support homes with lights, heat, cooking, washing, T.V. computers and the list goes on. Over fifty percent of all power produced in this country comes fossil fuel (Coal). All manufacturing requires electrical power to produce products like cars, T.V. building materials, soap, steel, copper on and on. We are the purchasers of these products; they are made for us so we will be more comfortable. Even food is a creature comfort. If you don’t think so try going without and see how comfortable you are. This is just one example; so use your mind and go beyond what I write.

Some people blame religion for the over population and I’m sure they contribute because of their attitude on birth control. Let’s get to those that benefit by the population growth, those that would want population growth and depend on it. Business and industry need more people to buy their products, so that they might become bigger and bigger, after all the stock holders want more dividends. Muslims are a problem they are polygamists so let’s let Big Al work with them. He’s been selling global warming, if he can do that he could cool down those polygamists.

Now, I’ve laid the ground work. What would happen if we started a downward spiral in the population? Would people become more important and valuable as workers? Would we need less government cronies, would they have to get a real job? The government would yell that they need more money for more roads, but what do we need more roads for with less people. The environment wouldn’t suffer because with less people there would be less traffic in the wilderness. A lot less fossil fuel would be needed (coal). It would be a slow process getting it all back to what the world once was. Is this a better idea than Al’s and the environmentalist’s idea to shut down the world so the flowers can grow? What good are the flowers if there isn’t anyone to enjoy them? I’m going to leave all the rest of my thoughts to you. Let’s hear what you think.

2007-12-15 09:41:13 · 12 answers · asked by Pumpkin 4

I want everyone's comment on how we will reduce the global warming and why? Are we doing it? When are we starting, if not doing it yet.

2007-12-15 07:41:23 · 24 answers · asked by Believer 2

Sometimes it's hard keeping up with the skeptics as they frequently change their line of argument.

Not so long back many global warming skeptics confidently proclaimed that the world was cooling and that they could prove it (2°C was a figure often quoted).

Then they announced that it was neither warming or cooling and that they could prove this too.

They then changed their collective minds again and adamantly stated the world was warming but it was entirely natural and that they again had proof.

Now we're seeing yet another shift with more and more skeptics stating that we are after all, affecting the climate but that it's a good thing.

So what do you think a common line of argument used by skeptics over the coming months might be?

Also, given that so many skeptics continually change their minds and regularly contradict themselves, doesn't this harm any credibility they or their arguments may have?

2007-12-15 07:24:53 · 12 answers · asked by Trevor 7

Is the sun getting hotter or colder, are people causing global warming, why would scientist hide the truth. Please explain your opinions to help me posses one.

2007-12-15 07:15:03 · 15 answers · asked by ★ 4

Do you think that the sun is getting hotter causing the earth to get warm. which means humans dont cause global warming..

And global warming is false

2007-12-15 07:01:55 · 30 answers · asked by ******** ****** 2

From the way the USA has been getting hammered by ice storms, and huge major Blizzards, are we sure that Global Warming isn't just a hoax??

Up here in Canada, weather is great ;0)

2007-12-15 06:55:28 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous

What arguments are there to proove the global warming is a true effect for the Earth and not just a temporary thing?

2007-12-15 06:08:27 · 13 answers · asked by iuoma 3

1) Solar output has remained unchanged over the past 30 years as global warming has accelerated rapidly.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aowwp0O1l0_wmAAH_iiL3t7ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071212090955AAzlZk8

2) We're in a cooling period of the Earth's orbital cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#The_future

3) Due to burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 (a greenhouse gas) has increased 37% since the Industrial Revolution.

4) As the AGW theory predicts and contrary to solar warming, the upper atmosphere is cooling as the lower atmosphere warms.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArWwA7u27SODHeZEr2j6ctTty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071214132604AA03azy

5) The current rate of warming is 20 times faster than when the planet naturally comes out of an ice age.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aht1AjBz5JKn89IGRLNT_.bty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071213135219AAMHjMA

I'm tired of political conspiracy arguments - explain these scientific facts if AGW is wrong.

2007-12-15 05:28:28 · 13 answers · asked by Dana1981 7

The Oregon Petition in it's present form is a petition organised by Professor Frederick Seitz essentially stating that global warming is natural and beneficial. The scientific community is well aware of it's existence and it's available online for easy downloading and printing (it has to be submitted by post).

There are at least 10 million eligible people in the US alone that can sign it, all a person needs is a BSc, MSc or PhD; it doesn't even need to be in a field related to any of the climate sciences.

Out of 10 million+ people (in the US alone) the sum total of approx 200 have signed it, why would such a minute proportion of educated people choose to sign the petition (0.02%)?

Pleae note, this is the revised Oregon Petition, not the original fraudulent one which was first raised in 1997.

2007-12-15 05:20:08 · 6 answers · asked by Trevor 7

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7145608.stm

2007-12-15 03:12:42 · 7 answers · asked by Mancloud 3