Global Warming

We are witnessing global warming: rising temperatures, glaciers and poles melting, more hurricanes, animals not being able to thrive, etc.

How come some people say it's all a lie? Come on, these are facts!

We're not talking about the cause here, but about global warming being a reality.

2007-09-12 07:04:31 · 18 answers · asked by Belindita 5

Dr. Lomborg believes its dangers have been hyped, he agrees that global warming is real and will do more harm than good. He advocates a carbon tax and a treaty forcing nations to budget hefty increases for research into low-carbon energy technologies.

But the best strategy, he says, is to make the rest of the world as rich as New York, so that people elsewhere can afford to do things like shore up their coastlines and buy air conditioners. He calls Kyoto-style treaties to cut greenhouse-gas emissions a mistake because they cost too much and do too little too late. Even if the United States were to join in the Kyoto treaty, he notes, the cuts in emissions would merely postpone the projected rise in sea level by four years: from 2100 to 2104.

“We could spend all that money to cut emissions and end up with more land flooded next century because people would be poorer,” Dr. Lomborg said as we surveyed Manhattan’s expanded shoreline. “Wealth is a more important factor than sea-level

2007-09-12 06:07:08 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

at least any good consecuence of global warmming?

2007-09-12 05:02:00 · 14 answers · asked by e22ef 3

2007-09-12 04:43:47 · 27 answers · asked by Belindita 5

I was debating with Bob regarding this question, but, bizarrely, the question got suddenly deleted.

So, let’s continue it here…

I said that the MWP was anything up to 4°C warmer than today.

Bob replied “your claim that we were 4 C warmer then is made up denier nonsense.” And then gave a link to ten studies.

I would respond to that with…

For a start, what I actually said was “anything up to 4°C warmer” not “we were 4°C warmer” – not the same thing at all.

Made up denier nonsense? That's simply not true. co2science lists over 30 studies that suggest the MWP was warmer than today’s temperatures. (See… http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/mwp/qualitative.jsp ) That’s 3 times as many as your “ten studies”.

2007-09-12 03:50:54 · 21 answers · asked by amancalledchuda 4

will the government give us back all the extra taxes we paid to combat it. Like Petrol tax increases, flight surcharges etc.
And where is all the revenue gained from these "stealth" taxes going? Does is go on cheaper more convenient, safer public transport? I can probably answer this myself when I stop crying with laughter..................

2007-09-12 03:41:03 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has reached a landmark lawsuit settlement with San Bernardino County involving the extent to which the County’s environmental impact report for its General Plan update should address impacts on climate change. This is the first time any California jurisdiction has entered into a legally binding agreement to look at the overall impact of its planning on global warming.

The agreement solidifies climate change as an impact to be addressed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review documents. Significant impacts to oak woodlands must be addressed in CEQA green house gas reviews because oak impacts uniquely combine carbon capture and carbon emission issues.

Very disappointing that I didn't see this in the general media. But I'm a huge fan of oak woodland, and was impressed with the ruling. What do you think, and how can we build on this?

2007-09-12 02:54:53 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous

how is this piece of news being used by various organs of our society?

2007-09-11 23:40:59 · 7 answers · asked by shreevani s 1

sumarta is indonessa

2007-09-11 21:17:06 · 1 answers · asked by tallulah e 1

who else thinks its a good idea to fight global warming?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070911/pl_afp/lifestylefranceustransportcycling_070911150625

2007-09-11 18:20:03 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous

Is the Scientific Method Being Comprimised by Politics?

2007-09-11 15:32:18 · 21 answers · asked by Tom Clark 2

according to critics, how successsful will these measures be?

2007-09-11 13:44:09 · 7 answers · asked by tealimesky 2

a. energy cycle
b. food web
c. food chain

2007-09-11 11:41:28 · 3 answers · asked by Gee 1

Was at a party, this past w/e. And a bunch of "high class" know it alls were upset with me. Why? because they cannot see how I cannot see that "Global Warming cue to pollution is a FACT!" Why are people such "followers of the media?
There are so many factors that effect our planets' temperature
more so than pollution: ie/ Solar flares (frequency highest in the last 15-18 years). Volcanos. Methane released by decay and by animals (agriculture or natural).

My question: Why do people assume that when a 'scientist' or group of scientists get together state that Global Warming due to Human's emmissions is FACT. People are convinced and don't challenge their integrity?

Imagine... North America, Europe or Asia (all or each zone on its own), full of trees.... say 2000 years ago. The bio mass... methane, carbon due to wild fires, decay, water vapour... all natural green house gases.... ADD them all up.... you have more if not the same amount of emissions!?!

2007-09-11 10:02:55 · 13 answers · asked by movngfwd 6

i want to know what is happening to earth. what will global warming cause in the years to come? will there be an apocalypse? is it anything similar to the movie, "the day after tomorrow?"

2007-09-11 09:16:26 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous

Many of us do. But it's pushed in our faces. Where is the evidence anyway?

2007-09-11 08:36:01 · 21 answers · asked by Caduceus of Hermes 3

I'm kinda concerened cuz i don't want to destroy this planet... also the pollution is Killing a lot of species...what can i do out of my everyday life to at least make a difference? Stuff like reduce energy and whatever.

dont YOU want to save this planet too?

2007-09-11 08:10:38 · 9 answers · asked by Because I wanna know 3

The first person to bring global warming to the mainstream was Al Gore yet he himself pollutes as much if not more than most people out there. Do people realize that even if everyone in the world waas to go eco it still cannot reverse the inevitable?

2007-09-11 07:25:11 · 24 answers · asked by jonathanrovillard 2

i wanted to know what is the difference between greenhouse effect and global warming. And pls compare them both

2007-09-11 04:52:51 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

Can i plz get some answers against this opinion??

2007-09-11 04:34:02 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous

I was reading http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/education/factsheets/what.html. Seeing as power plants emit so much water vapour, is the emissions worse than carbon emissions?

2007-09-11 03:35:00 · 11 answers · asked by youspinmerightround 2

2007-09-11 02:03:32 · 20 answers · asked by Mary M 1

It's a very simplistic answer to a problem that may not even exist. Does anyone realise where our oxygen really comes from?

2007-09-10 20:47:09 · 15 answers · asked by fyzer 4

When driving my car all over the place at night (besides wasting gas), does this still cause air pollution? Or does all of the exhaust just fall on the ground or something
THANKS!

2007-09-10 20:39:10 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

are releasing into the atmosphere? They say that one cargo ship puts out as much pollution per trip across the ocean that 350,000 vehicles do, anyone have any ideas on how to eliminate this pollution from the cargo ships?

Thank you in advance for your answers!

2007-09-10 18:44:10 · 6 answers · asked by liquidfire 3

Is it because there are many here trying to shut down serious discussion of this topic?

2007-09-10 10:28:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-09-10 10:17:42 · 19 answers · asked by the swede 2

Should international efforts focus on reducing the causes/effects of global warming? Why?

2007-09-10 09:40:15 · 11 answers · asked by sunbird 1

This to me seems more feasable than hydrogen or solar power. Burning alcohol would take minimal changes to engines that can burn gasoline and is inherently cleaner burning. Any CO2 or H20 that is emitted will get reabsorbed when new plants are grown to produce more alchohol. It would be a closed system. No extra carbon will be added to the system this way, as opposed to it being pumed from the ground like it is now.

2007-09-10 09:32:16 · 9 answers · asked by LG 7

My question is this. We had the MWP, about 800 years ago, plus/minus, a good global warmup, even melting the Greenland icecap to a significant extent.

I have yet to see anything published on what part of the reported vast and sudden buildup of CO2 is the delayed CO2 from the MWP, and how much longer this delayed CO2 is expected to continue to come up out of the oceans.

Is there anybody who will comment on this, and maybe cite scientific proofs that a significant part of our present CO2 buildup is or is not related to the delayed CO2 release from the MWP, and therefore is not under man's control at all?

Or a proof that the MWP warming is the one that did NOT release CO2, delayed by hundreds of years, like every other one has in the history of many global warming/cooling cycles?

Anyone care to tackle this, with some reliable citations? And traceable papers? And the President of GM is not in my mind a reliable scientist!

2007-09-10 09:21:00 · 8 answers · asked by looey323 4