English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Its gonna be in the 60's this week instead of being in the 40's.
Isn't global warming great?

2006-11-21 12:55:48 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

21 answers

Yes, I burned some Styrofoam today and chopped down a tree for fire wood!

2006-11-21 13:05:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 3

Global warming will also melt the ice caps. You like having your home 100 ft underwater too?

Sometimes a little (even a teeny tiny bit) of knowledge coupled with common sense goes a long way Einstein.

2006-11-21 23:58:03 · answer #2 · answered by Well 5 · 1 1

Seriously, the earth is far too cold. Fresh water is wasted as ice, fertile land is frozen and useless. We should divert any melt into pipelines. We should cause global warming on purpose. Nature is the enemy of man, its balance is not in our favor. Respecting nature's way is nothing but superstition.

2006-11-21 21:09:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Yes I do to. I have figured out where the ocean will come up to after the ice melts.and have bought land here in South Carolina. and will make a fortune selling ocean front property which is now farmland . and I think nuclear war will be great also.the business opportunity's will be great.

2006-11-21 21:02:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

yes in another 100 years.. what few ancestors who are left will look back on this time in history and will hold people like you in great contempt.

Controlling global warming is not like the other battles (dirty water, smog) that environmentalists have taken on, and mostly won, over the years. Carbon dioxide, a.k.a. CO2, or just "carbon" for short, is not a conventional pollutant. It's tasteless, colorless, odorless. Unlike carbon monoxide, which is what kills you if you leave your car running in the garage, CO2 doesn't do anything to the human body directly. It does its damage in the lower atmosphere by holding in heat that would otherwise escape out to space. And even more unfortunate, there's no easy way to get rid of it, no catalytic converter you can stick on your tailpipe, no scrubber you can fit to your smokestack. To reduce the amount of CO2 pouring into the atmosphere means dramatically reducing the amount of fossil fuel being consumed. Which means changing the underpinning of the planet's entire economy and altering our most ingrained personal habits. Even under the best scenarios, this will involve something more like a revolution than a technical fix.

You would think the Europeans would have had a harder time making reductions; after all, they were already fairly energy-efficient, thanks to decades of high taxes on coal and oil. Their low-hanging fruit had long since been plucked. For the United States, there were loads of relatively easy fixes. We could have quickly reduced our emissions by trimming the number of SUVs on the road, for instance, while the French were already in Peugeots. However, in certain ways, America was more firmly locked into coal and oil than our European peers: sprawling suburbs, oversized houses, abandoned rail lines. We had the single hardest habit to break, which was thinking of energy as something cheap. This staggering inertia meant that even when our leaders had some interest in controlling energy use, they faced a real challenge. Al Gore wrote a book insisting that the future of civilization itself depended on battling global warming; during his eight years as vice president, Americans increased their carbon emissions by 15 percent.

What makes the battle harder still is the tangibility gap between benefits and costs. Everyone is, in the long run, better off if the planet doesn't burn to a crisp. But in any given year the payoff for shifting away from fossil fuel is incremental and essentially invisible. The costs, however, are concentrated: If you own a coal mine, an oil well, or an assembly line churning out gas-guzzlers, you have a very strong incentive for making sure no one starts charging you for emitting carbon.

2006-11-21 21:00:06 · answer #5 · answered by dstr 6 · 1 4

Yeah, it's so freezing...

Rain and sleet has fell at a balmy heat of 30F today all day...


Maybe it's reverse global warming,

Global freezing... ice age...

Next summer, a new global warming...

Another inconvenient truth by Al-Gore, the inventor of the internet himself.

2006-11-21 21:10:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Agappae 5 · 5 1

No, it isn't. It disrupts the natural balance, meaning that, unlike your totally flawed "parody" of global warming, not only are summers hotter than usual, but winters are colder than usual. But I'm sure you knew that.

2006-11-21 21:26:33 · answer #7 · answered by Huey Freeman 5 · 0 2

This fortunate anomaly aside, I'm afraid you're wrong and that we're plagued with just minor temperature changes indefinitely; damn it!

2006-11-21 21:21:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Sure, but we're not having any of its effects over here. It is COLD. Probably going to snow soon.

2006-11-21 20:59:43 · answer #9 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1 1

I HELLBENT think it is good for me since I do not have to buy an extra blanket this winter.

2006-11-21 21:30:12 · answer #10 · answered by HELLBENT 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers