I don't know, but I believe we need to worry about what we can control to help the environment..unless you can put a sun shade around the earth I can't see how you can debate something that we can't control.
2006-10-31 09:52:48
·
answer #1
·
answered by Hi 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that the debate is on whether we can continue as we are presently doing rather than the sun. We reduce oxygen producing forests by cutting them back for our own purposes, and use carbon dioxide producing machines on a grand scale. these two factors create more of one of the greenhouse gases (co2).
The solar flares are so far from us and are spread out from a sphere (the sun) that we really are not seriously effected by them.
Protecting the Earth is something that we might be able to accomplish when we put our heads together.
2006-11-01 02:06:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by hambri7 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
We live in a world that is contained within envelopes, ellipses, spheres. This is like living in a glass house.
We are suffering a 5 deg Cel. increase in temp annually and growing exponentially.
The sun is an essential part of life. It's rays and heat though essential are also being affected by our careless use of carbon.
Our glass house is now essentially a hothouse. Hence the previously trendy word for the current problem, "Greenhouse Effect".
Liberal thinkers who advocate urgent action to abide by the Kyoto protocols are offering hope for a breath of fresh air for future generations.
Not so the ostrich like head in the sand red-neck denials in support of exploitative stocktrading profit hungry corporations that abuse manufacturing ethics by rejecting the evidence, bribing governments with electioneering and war profit funds.
Climate change is not alarmist. It is real.
To ignore the evidence would be stupid.
No point denying it but, the fast food Texan George W Shrub, Russia's, ex-KGB policeman Vladimir Putin and the faceless Communist Chinese leadership are three dominant world players who are bowing down before mindless profit making 'Daddy Warbucks" cartels for their own power play gains.
There are others of course, including North Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and to varying estents but still Right Wing bloody minded Romania and most former Soviet countries, and to a lesser degree Australia. Not that degree matters. These countries are all culpable.
.
2006-11-01 09:33:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Solange B 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The "sun cycle" you mention is about 11.3 years.
It does vary alittle, (+ or minus several months).
However, the warming trend now extant, has come on because of man's pollution activities, (nothing to do w/ sunspot cycles you mention.)
One perfect example of why earth warming is "for real", one only has to examine the effects on Mt Kilamanjaro over the last 50-100years.
2006-11-01 10:55:13
·
answer #4
·
answered by charly 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hmm, I've never heard of solar flare increase, but I believe you anyway. Still, as scary as flares potentially are, I don't think that's any reason to *ignore* environmental issues. Hmm. Let me think of a good analogy (assuming solar flares are more dangerous....)
If you had two diseases...brain cancer (symbolizing solar flares) and strep throat (symbolizing global warming)...of course you'd want to keep an eye on the cancer, but you'd also want to treat the strep throat, since it can kill you if you let it.
Am I making any sense?
2006-10-24 13:20:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by harpy 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
facts such as that are never part of the global warming discussion because the liberals are too busy trying to blame it on suv's and george bush.
2006-10-31 22:45:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by polyesterfred 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think God has control of all things so I'm not worried in the least.
2006-11-01 09:51:07
·
answer #7
·
answered by greylady 6
·
0⤊
0⤋