Current Events - May 2007

what does the name mean, whats the difference between them?

2007-05-27 12:16:56 · 3 answers · asked by king_art_thegreat 2

America is the richest nation in the world. Yet millions are uninsured because companies will not allow them to receive the care they need or they can't afford it.

2007-05-27 10:06:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

why are the u.s. still in iraq?
what are we accomplishing?
You know when we us the u.s. had a civil war NOOOOBODY came to help us so why in the hell should we help other nations fight their civil war!!!

2007-05-27 09:56:54 · 2 answers · asked by Anonymous

Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Scientists in this section conclude that natural causes are likely more to blame than human activities for the observed rising temperatures.
• Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [9]) (See also [10], [11], [12])
• Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[13] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [14]
• David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[15]
• Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [16].
• Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [17])
• George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [18])
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [19])
• William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[20]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [21]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[22])
• Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[23]
• Zbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "The atmospheric temperature variations do not follow the changes in the concentrations of CO2 ... climate change fluctuations comes ... from cosmic radiation." (21st Century Science & Technology, Winter 2003-2004, p. 52-65 [24])
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [25])
• Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [26])
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[27]
• Tim Patterson [28], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [29]
• Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[30]]
• Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [31])
• Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [32]
• Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." (Christian Science Monitor, April 22, 2005) [33] "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it.", NCPA Study No. 279, Sep. 2005 [34]. “It’s not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists.” (CBC's Denial machine @ 19:23 - Google Video Link)
• Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]here's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. The bottom line is that if these variations are indeed proven true, then, yes, natural climate fluctuations could be a dominant factor in the recent warming. In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed." (Harvard University Gazette, 24 April 2003 [35])
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London: "...the myth is starting to implode. ... Serious new research at The Max Planck Institute has indicated that the sun is a far more significant factor..." (Global Warming as Myth [36])
• Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth’s surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover." [37]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa: "At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model ..., and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. ... Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favours celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate on most time scales, but time will be the final judge." (In J. Veizer, "Celestial climate driver: a perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle", Geoscience Canada, March, 2005. [38], [39])
[edit] Believe cause of global warming is unknown
Scientists in this section conclude it is too early to ascribe any principal cause to the observed rising temperatures, man-made or natural.
• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks: "Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that “most” of the present warming (+0.7°C/100 years) is due to the greenhouse effect."[40]
• Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris): "The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content." (Translation from the original French version in L'Express, May 10, 2006 [41])
• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr., retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist, past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming: "So if you multiply the total contribution 3.6 by the man-made portion of it, 3.2, you find out that the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 to the the global greenhouse effect is 0.117 percent, roughly 0.12 percent, that's like 12c in $100." "'It's miniscule ... it's nothing,'". [42]
• Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and a professor of geography at Arizona State University: "[I]t is very likely that the recent upward trend [in global surface temperature] is very real and that the upward signal is greater than any noise introduced from uncertainties in the record. However, the general error is most likely to be in the warming direction, with a maximum possible (though unlikely) value of 0.3 °C. ... At this moment in time we know only that: (1) Global surface temperatures have risen in recent decades. (2) Mid-tropospheric temperatures have warmed little over the same period. (3) This difference is not consistent with predictions from numerical climate models." (George C. Marshall Institute, Policy Outlook, September 2003[43])
• Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland: "There is evidence of global warming. ... But warming does not confirm that carbon dioxide is causing it. Climate is always warming or cooling. There are natural variability theories of warming. To support the argument that carbon dioxide is causing it, the evidence would have to distinguish between human-caused and natural warming. This has not been done." (The New Zealand Herald, May 9, 2006 [44])
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma: "The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria." (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, December 6, 2006 [45])
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred Sloane Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachussetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences: "We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future." [46] "[T]here has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed." (San Francisco Examiner, July 12, 2006 [47] and in Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)
• Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville: "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy, April 17, 2006 [48])

Still convinced that this new religon is right?

2007-05-27 08:56:54 · 15 answers · asked by Jack 3

they sound really mean and scary..i think im really worried they are gonna get me...not!!!cyber threats really get me scared

2007-05-27 08:49:10 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous

I asked them if they think he has her? And if not, then apart from using Madeliene's disappearance for their own personal gain at getting to see the Pope, why were they going?

Do you think I'll get a reply back?

2007-05-27 06:23:30 · 41 answers · asked by Anonymous

Seems to me, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.
People want us to step up and be the awesome country that we are by helping other countries out and ****, but then when we try to liberate another country, people get pissed like we should mind our buisiness or somthing.
Maybe people just love to hate America. I don't like people who hate America, especially the ones that still call themselves Americans.

2007-05-27 06:22:53 · 7 answers · asked by mg 2

2007-05-27 06:17:33 · 5 answers · asked by Jacks036 5

They know now that they should'nt have left their kids alone but why all the hatred towards them for having media attention? The more coverage they get of little Madeleine the better & hopefully the sooner she will be found.
I've read ridiculous comments on here saying the parents are milking all the publicity & care more about which celebrity will back them next & how much money they have made through their daughters disappearence. Thats just nonsense!
& those who say if it were me "I'd be breaking down on the news" How the hell do you know until you have had your child abducted? Just because they're not crying morning, noon & night doesn't mean they're not dying inside, they're just trying to stay positive & if their daughter is found dead, God forbid, then they will fall to pieces. I think they're doing a great job of keeping things 'normal' for the sake of their other kids!
Instead of slating them, just thank God its not your child! All you 'perfect' parents out there!

2007-05-27 06:07:37 · 28 answers · asked by ShesElectric 3

When did the German people realize Hitler was leading them down that path? How long would it take the American people to realize this?

2007-05-27 05:55:51 · 9 answers · asked by tony cola 2

Considering it was George Bush who started the war in Iraq. He is responcible for its soldiers conduct for better or worse. The atrocities commited by some usa troops is well documented. Hence the large number of mentally ill soldiers returning home and the many that have commited suicide. The men and woman who serve im sure dont go there to murder innocent people but because of the stress of urban warefare its taking its toll on them. Bring the troops home!! Why doesnt Bush go lead a night patrol hell patton was riding a sherman through france and germany in 44and 45 and he was 64. Bush is a coward has everyone else do his dirty work.

2007-05-27 05:52:08 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous

I assume the Primary Care Trusts that the McCanns work for are still paying them their £250,000 a year combined salaries on compassionate leave? Nice. Quite a gravy train of First Class traval and 24/7 hotel room service. Not forgetting the odd trip out for a tapas. Best get a baby-sitter, though. "To lose one child, Mrs. McCann, may be regarded as misfortune....". Innit.

2007-05-27 04:54:10 · 4 answers · asked by Alexius I 2

Does he have the brains to solve any of these country problems? If you believe he does please name one problem he has fixed. I think the bird got it right the other day.

2007-05-27 02:41:43 · 9 answers · asked by sendittojeff 6

2007-05-27 02:39:11 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous

whats there to welcome, a alleged sighting that could be any boby, if people seen anything, they would have surely contacted the police, by now, the police were forced into realeasing the stament, by pressure from the parents,not because the police tought the alleged sighting was a valid one.the only thing the alleged sighting has accomplished by being released is that it has sent focus in another direction, who would want to send this investagation, in the wrong direction.

2007-05-27 00:53:21 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

Could American news repoters be taken hostage by palestinian extremist groups like Hamas, Fatah etc in Golan?
Would the U.S comply to these gruops becuz of the hostage situation and not attack the groups?

2007-05-27 00:17:57 · 2 answers · asked by childish knack 1

I dont , how they gonna police it?

I wont stop smoking if I dont want and I will light up when I want.

Good luck UK goverment.

2007-05-26 23:34:21 · 43 answers · asked by Anonymous

Have celebrities learnt nothing from Paris??
http://au.news.yahoo.com/070527/11/13ky6...

2007-05-26 23:02:06 · 3 answers · asked by blahblahblah 5

The peolpe in America today dont learn from history.

2007-05-26 22:39:02 · 20 answers · asked by comicbookdrawer 1

Just wondered whether anybody pulled through afterwards?

2007-05-26 21:34:54 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous

I have been living in mainland China for almost 4 years now. Each night on the TV news are stories about the Chinese government sending the premier or president with a large delegation to a different African country each week to offer them tons of money in exchange for agreement with the "one China" policy (no independence for Taiwan or Tibet). They have secured agreements with more than 20 countries so far and many more visits are on the itinerary for the near future. At the same time, China is building their military at an alarming rate (4o percent per year) amid protests from western countries. Can we expect an invasion of Taiwan soon?

2007-05-26 19:20:28 · 6 answers · asked by SilverTonguedDevil 7

2007-05-26 17:37:44 · 16 answers · asked by medcenman 5

2007-05-26 17:36:53 · 10 answers · asked by medcenman 5

2007-05-26 17:29:46 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous

2007-05-26 17:23:45 · 12 answers · asked by Neo 1

Your birthright is to think and say what resides in your heart. A cultural War is raging across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts and speech are mandated.... Some refer to it as Political Correctness......You must be the change you wish to see in the World...

2007-05-26 16:17:54 · 5 answers · asked by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7

In Iraq

2007-05-26 15:28:35 · 9 answers · asked by belmount1970 1

Good for them.
At least one country is still seeing sense through all this Liberal BS propaganda and is still considering the well being of their citizens and way of life. I wish I was an American right now.

I am sure the US government does not buy into all this cra.p any more than I or many people like me do. There is a wealth of very credible scientific evidence out there produced by highly qualified scientists and climatologists discrediting the current theories on CO2 and Global Warming being completely ignored or rubbished by the current agenda. Some of the scientists and climatologists are even being attacked or threatened personally.

Just how far does this have to go and how extreme do the left wing liberal environmentalists have to get before the rest of us wake up and smell the coffee? I am convinced before long we will see a form of terrorism in the name of ‘climate change’

2007-05-26 12:49:48 · 6 answers · asked by Jack 3

about why it is that people have not returned to New Orleans after Katrina?

2007-05-26 11:52:58 · 7 answers · asked by InstantMagic 2

just and opinion

2007-05-26 11:27:39 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous