GLOBAL WARMING MYTH #3
Some scientists say global warming is a problem; others say it isn't. The science is still being debated.
GLOBAL WARMING FACTS
We'll answer that one in a minute. But first, some context. If a politician wins an election by 90%, it's considered a blowout. If a baseball team wins a game 12-1, we say it wasn't even close.
The views of scientists on greenhouse gases, climate change, and the likely impacts are even more lopsided than the two examples above. The overwhelming consensus opinion is:
the earth is warming;
human activities are responsible;
left unchecked, the impact will be large, potentially catastrophic.
Early in 2005, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told representatives from 114 governments at an international conference that he believes the world has "already reached the level of dangerous concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and called for immediate and "very deep" cuts in the pollution if humanity is to survive.
His comments proved somewhat embarrassing to the Bush administration, which had pushed for the ouster of the previous chairman (climate-hawk Dr. Robert Watson) and installation of the less aggressive Dr. Pachauri, who was once described by former vice-president Al Gore as the "let's drag our feet" candidate.
Yet, somehow, climate change is portrayed in news reports as an area where scientists are still not sure. Folks—they are sure!
There is a very small but very vocal, well funded pack of global warming skeptics working strenuously to keep the public from clearly perceiving the issue. Many of these weenies are funded by the coal industry and Exxon-Mobil, both of whom stand to lose business if the use of coal and oil—the two primary sources of manmade carbon dioxide—is greatly curtailed. Ross Gelbspan, author of the book Boiling Point, comments that the lobbying efforts and dizzying scientific spin from the fossil fuel industry and their band of merry skeptics "have marginalized the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries ... in what is the largest and most rigorously peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history."
We must move past this idea that global warming science is still being debated. We must start implementing global warming solutions, and we must start now. By the time you'll be able to observe the global warming effects for yourself, it will be too late to avoid disaster. Remember, greenhouse gases stay up in the atmosphere for a long time, and combating the problem is a lot like trying to stop a huge cargo ship—even after you stop the engines, it takes a long time to get the ship to stop. If we don't take significant action within this decade, the deleterious effects of climate change may be unstoppable.
2006-08-01 16:20:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by ted_armentrout 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Well global warming maybe a myth - but not climate change. The more you research global warming the more you realize that it is just one symptom of climate change. The entire global climate is changing and the effects are different all over the world. Temperatures in the tropics will not increase very much but temperature in the arctic region can increase by as much as 10-degree Celsius. So an increase in global warming depends on where in the globe you are. Around the equator no real temperature changes but a lot more extreme weather patterns – storms and hurricanes.
The scientists can fight all they want about global warming and myth or fact, or argue that it is natural or man made, but it is a fact that much of the earth is experiencing some form of climate changes and this can lead to failure of the economy and safety concerns, with more storms, more floods, more droughts, more heat. If we are not ready when it happens the human population will be thinned out considerably.
Climate change is a fact and keep in mind that the atmosphere has a 10 year delay period, any improvements we make today will take 10 year to see. Talk CFC ban for example its been approx 10-15 since North America banned CFC and only now is the ozone showing signs of stability and possible self – repair.
So change you focus to climate change and not just global warming.
2006-08-02 04:46:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by smartypantsmbcanada 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
500 years ago the "experts" said the earth was flat; before that the "experts" believed in the geocentric structure of the universe. 40 years ago, after a number of record snow years, the “experts” warned of the inevitable coming ice age that would see glaciers extending from Canada as far south as St. Louis, wiping out cities like New York, Toronto and Chicago! I remember. I was there! That is what they taught the young “skulls full of mush” in the high-schools and colleges of my generation.
300 years ago the earth experienced global warming more severe than we experience today. Must have been too many man-made campfires. In a single eruption, Mt St. Helen's released the equivalent of a year's worth of man-made carbon emissions into the atmosphere – one volcano, a single eruption!
After years of research, Michael Crichton concluded that the evidence was greatly exaggerated and did not support the "experts" conclusions. So I would suggest that it is possible to use your brain, and to question the "experts" at the same time, particularly when their conclusions are based overwhelmingly upon computer models which are designed to presuppose the desired conclusions.
Since when have we placed so much confidence in the weather man, who cannot predict what will happen a few days from now with a great deal of certaintly, much less a year, 10-years or 100-years from now! Henny Penny lives on after more than 2500 years!
2016-01-30 13:55:06
·
answer #3
·
answered by Wildcat-93 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Myth.. Global mean temperatures fluctuate with the normal orbital cycles of the earth around our sun.. Humans have little influence over climate except perhaps with localized climate.
Solar cycles ebb and flow over 180,000 year period, we have been in fact exiting an interglacial period over the last 10-20,000 years and entering a period where our earth is moving closer in the orbit.
C02 cycles the crux of the global warming myth may be on the rise but volcanic activities, among other things produce far more C02 and SO2 by a factor of 10-2000 fold then does anything human. So in effect Al Gore's schizophrenic rantings are no more truth then Slick Willy saying "I didn't have sex with that woman.."
The communists that were essentially booted out of the USSR need to find a new movement to press forward their ideology. They found a ripe one in the environmental movement.
check out junkscience.com and read their view on Al Gore's mythical beast ManBearPig (Global warming)..
2006-08-01 16:49:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
No, it is not a myth, because of the city and the active of technology in twentieth century gave a lot of energy that raise the temperature high which known as greenhouse gases. They encircled around the planet as they are stopped the heat from escaping. The ozone holes allowed more sunrays to heat the world up and trap inside by the greenhouse gases.
2006-08-01 21:31:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Eve W 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The last time I checked almost all scientists are now in agreement that global warming is real. Even former skeptics have reformed. Just search on google.
2006-08-02 07:23:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by curiositykillsthecat 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Of course it is a freaking myth!!
Maybe the scientists are funded by ridiculous political honks--that makes MUCH more sense.
2006-08-01 16:30:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by quilt-babe 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is not a myth and energy companies have nothing to do with it. The discussion is what is causing the warming.
2006-08-01 16:17:46
·
answer #8
·
answered by gtoacp 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
it may be funnier if it became a goof on Hitler and not in basic terms an anti-technology rant per a ripped-off concept by somebody as blind to historic past and politics as they are of technology. different than the place technology ought to help his conflict device, Hitler became anti-technology. He banned Darwin's 'beginning place of Species', waged an marketing campaign against intellectuals and school professors, and his rules forced hundreds of scientists to flee the country. He could have been greater partial to Deniers and meteorologists than of climate technology or scientists. maximum comedians are incredibly clever. there's a reason you on no account hear approximately large technology-denying comedians. ===== edit -- The Hitler-fascist-card is previous and that i'm bored with its use (misuse) by idiots. working example, the term Islamo-fascist is an oxymoron (as is creation-technology) and its use is a symptom of societal-point stupidity, If it became another society, i could think of it became humorous. even though it is not another society - that's American society -and there is no longer something humorous approximately being forced to journey interior the fast bus. >>how come you lump deniers and meteorologists mutually<< John Coleman and Anthony Watts.
2016-10-01 09:09:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Erika 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Last Sunday night, a '60 Minutes' segment featured a government scientist by the name of Hanson, who has studied global warming for over thirty years. His research indicates that if we don't start doing something to curb this problem, within ten years it may be too late to do anything at all. Yet, Bush administration lawyers 'edit' every public speech he writes, and censor every public panel he addresses in an effort to downplay the seriousness of this catastrophic event. Why? Because the Bush administration doesn't want to 'offend' the OIL companies!
Now, a few people who have answered this question have made snide, obtuse remarks as if global warming is nothing to worry about. So, allow me to address those neanderthals: as a result of our industrial revolution in the past 150 years, we have helped accelerate the natural order of things. Global warming is a very serious problem, and if all the nations of the world don't start treating it seriously, the consequences will be grave.
I'll assume all the smart-aleck answers come from young punks who are stupid enough to think this Earth will never run out of its precious natural resources such as air, food, water, oil, coal, mineral ores, and forests.
Well, one day you young punks will (hopefully) grow up, get married, have children....and their children will have children. And THEIR children will have children. And at some point in time, a few generations down the road, that beautiful little baby that you bounced on your knee so proudly will become an adult. And YOUR descendant, that darling child, will suddenly be faced with devastating consequences of YOUR inaction and frivolous attitude toward preserving and protecting the delicate ecological balance between man, plants, and animals that allow all creatures to survive on this Earth as Nature intended.
So YOUR descendants might very well have to wear gas masks in order to breathe. They may not have clean drinking water. If the polar ice caps have melted, cities on both coasts of both major oceans will suffer catastrophic natural disasters, including horrendous hurricanes and phenomenal flooding.
If we continue to asphalt over all the rich farmland on Earth, just so we can have glitzy new shopping malls, conveniently-located WalMarts, and fancy new housing additions, farmers won't be able to grow crops. And (contrary to popular belief, food doesn't come from supermarkets), if farmers can't grow crops, there will be no food - and YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL DIE.
If we refuse to REturn, REuse, and REcycle, just because it's too inconvenient to take our cardboard, plastics, tin cans, glass, steel, newsprint, phone books, used cooking grease, asphalt and magazines to a recycling center, the Earth will eventually run out of its natural resources and YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL DIE.
If we allow oil companies to drill for OIL in our oceans, or in the caribou's migration paths, your descendants may not enjoy a simple tuna casserole because we will have disturbed the natural habitats for perpetuating the tuna fish in our seas. So what if interrupting the caribou's migration path affects a few thousand Eskimo tribes who depend on those animals for food, shelter and clothing? WE were more important - and WE needed cheap fuel for our $60,000 SUVs.
If we allow the rainforests to be chopped down so more grazing land is available for cattle, so McDonald's can raise more beef and sell us billions and billions of cheap hamburgers, we might inadvertently also lose a rare species of frog in the Amazon whose venom could have been a cure for breast cancer.
Now I have a proposition: for all you skeptics who claim global warming is a farce, why don't you send me ALL of your money? I guarantee you that I'll squander it as quickly and needlessly as I possibly can. After all, why even try to save any of it?
Apparently, that's your attitude toward our environment: even if there was an infinite abundance of all of Earth's natural resources, wouldn't it make sense to use them wisely instead of wasting them?
Global warming is NOT a myth. And, for all you arrogant punks out there who want to make light of it, think about this: while it may not directly impact on your life (depending on how old you are), it WILL definitely affect your DESCENDANTS. Your great grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren will not enjoy the quality of life you enjoyed, all because you were too pompous, too self-absorbed, too lazy, and too selfish to do anything about it when you had the chance. -RKO- 08/01/06
2006-08-01 16:57:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by -RKO- 7
·
0⤊
0⤋