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

12 answers

the earth is geneerally agreed to be one degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, i dont think there is any disagreement on that. there are a lot of misconceptions about what has happened because of this, or what has caused this.

one example is ice cap melting. it is generally agreed that the oceans would rise by about 200-250 feet if the ice caps melted completely. hype would tell you that the icebergs are all melting, or that nothing is happening. if the ice caps have melted, why are all coastal cities unchanged over the last 100 years? new york, la, sfo, miami, barcelona, rome, mumbai-look at pictures from 100 years ago and you will see that the water level is the same. in actuality, the oceans have risen 5 inches during that time, meaning that about 0.2% of the ice caps have melted in the last 100 years.

this is one example of using real facts to make decisions about what is true, there are many more. dont believe in lies by al gore. dont believe in lies by rush limbaugh. use your brain and look at facts to understand the world around you. also dont go based on anecdotal evidence like there were two typhoons in one week, or hurricane katrina, or any other anecdotal evidence, you must look at stastics over the long term to make real determinations.

co2 levels have increased from about 300 ppm to about 380 ppm over the last 100 years, all the data supports this, so we know that it has happened, what does it mean, and what have we done, if anything to cause this? what can we do to stop or prevent this? or do we even want to? or is it even possible?

also dont listen to propaganda like "any real scientist says this or says that", to say that "all scientists agree on this" is a lie, look at the facts. also dont listen to lies like "oil companies say this, so its not true", once again, look at statistics and facts.

my opinion is that our activities have caused the earth to warm faster than it would have if we werent around. it is also my opinion that there will be a nuclear bomb blast in an american city in the next decade. the effects of even one blast will be about 1000 times worse than the effects of the one degree increase in global temps and 5 inch rise in the oceans. if you think about saving the environment, we should raise the gas tax by about 5-10 dollars a gallon to stop paying people that want to kill us so much money. the price of using gasoline is really about $10/gallon in america, that money is paid through income tax to pay for things like roads, military, etc. we should stop subsidizing the use of gasoline.

2006-12-12 17:30:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Global warming is a term that people get confused with. That is due largely to the extravagant claims made for it.

A United Nations report due out next year will say that mankind has had less effect on global warming than previously supposed.
Whilst it predicts that temperatures will rise by up to 4.5 C during the next 100 years, this is significantly less than some of the Global Warming scaremongers have been predicting.

The IPCC has also been forced to halve its predictions for sea-level rise in the next hundred years from 34 in to 17 in.

There is concern in scientific circles about the modelling used and conclusions drawn. There is a great tendency to use absolute worse case scenarios as the starting point!!

Global Warming enthusiasts have distorted and grossly exaggerated figures. Such transparent wrongful data has harmed their cause substantially. The US government has actually cut back on related energy research and many people are seeing Global Warming as bunk.

But there is a real problem that is called Climate change. Most scientists in the field and most sensible people interested in the environment have recognised it for years.

Whilst the dire prediction of the Global Warmers are grossly exaggerated they do detract and distract from the real problems of the world climate. They have become the real problem and threat to the world!!!
It is time to ditch the discredited term ‘Global Warming’, recognise the term ‘Climate Change’ and get on with the problem of identifying, quantifying and seeking solutions. We need to curb carbon emissions, find new power sources and fuels, but most of all we need some good scientific research and honest and open minded debate.

2006-12-13 07:51:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

There is on main scientific issue with global warming and the resulting climate change. The warming trend is the average across the entire globe and amounts to at most 1 degree C per year. Climatological, that is a huge number. However, when you factor in instrument error, the resulting error is +/- 5 degrees C. This results in an average change of -4 degrees C to 9 degrees C, which makes an alarming difference. I think fears of global warming are more focused on the climatological changes we are seeing rather than the actual temp increase. Despite the fear of storms becoming more severe, there was actually a decrease in the number of severe storms out in the Great Plains USA, and no hurricane hit the mainland USA this year, despite predictions to the contrary. However, whether it is happening or not, there is no harm in working to reduce emmissions and other pollution.

2006-12-13 12:20:07 · answer #3 · answered by mandos_13 4 · 1 0

I don't think the argument is so much about global warming as what data to accept as correct. The flaw is that what ever data we have is at the oldest 110 to 120 years old.
This planet has been going thru cycles for Millions upon Millions of years, We simply don't know what is normal and what is caused by the effects of humans.
By the way, I'm old enough to remember in the early 70's when the wacko branch of environmentalist said, if we did not start doing as they said, we would not be alive (as a species) in the year 2000.
Oh, Yea, we should have flying cars by now too.

2006-12-13 01:49:33 · answer #4 · answered by Cleve T 3 · 1 0

Sure, it depends on the time frame you want to consider: last month (Nov) in Kasilof, Alaska the temperatures were 30-40 degrees F below normal (15 below zero, when average is +20). In the last 10,000 years we've been coming out of the last ice age, and the sun has been putting out more energy than ever recorded in human history. Would you like a bumper sticker that says "Alaskans FOR Global Warming"?

2006-12-13 02:03:54 · answer #5 · answered by alaskasourdoughman 3 · 0 0

well insulation works both ways. Not only would increased atmostphere prevent heat from escaping - it can in theory prevent the suns energy from reaching the surface - such is actual the theory of nuclear winter where the atmostphere after nuclear war is so thick with particulates the earth's average temperature plunges.

However this is also a bad thing and would be classified as global climate change - which is a better scientific term than global warming.

The only other thing i can think of, it not a counter to climate change, but dilution of the man's contributions to it when comparing emissions of volcanos - especially the possiblity of a super erruption from the volcanos such as the one under yellowstone national park. In which case, the we would face something like a nuclear winter in rapid fashion and make the climate change of the past century mere spit in a rainstorm.

2006-12-13 02:56:33 · answer #6 · answered by Kshaw5 3 · 0 1

It exists, but, not because of the stupid crap people are lead to believe, it been doing this for Thousands of years. Sometimes it Global Cooling, other times it Global Warming.

2006-12-13 01:37:37 · answer #7 · answered by Snaglefritz 7 · 1 0

Yes, there are some people who say this, but you have to go deep underground into tiny little caves to find them.
There are unfortunately lots of people repeating articles written by people who work for the oil companies. When ever you read such an article, follow the money.
There is lots of evevidence that global warming happens in cycles of 10 to 20 thousand years long. But this cycle is happening much to fast to be natural.
The evidence indicates that a degree or two difference is all it takes to melt a glacier.
So, the question isn't weather it can happen, the question is: what do we do about it?

2006-12-13 01:36:46 · answer #8 · answered by MechBob 4 · 1 2

first of all global warming absolutely exists... but, people who argue that human's don't contribute to global warming do so because the earth has experienced cycles of global warming before modern humans ever existed. think about how ice ages have come and gone since the beginning of the earth.

2006-12-13 01:46:16 · answer #9 · answered by cottermi 1 · 1 1

The evidence is that it does; glaciers are retreating. And it is established that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is increasing. But it is not established that the latter is the cause of the former, or whether it would make any sort of economic sense to try to do something about it. The earth's temperature has been changing throughout its history; remember the Ice Ages?

2006-12-13 01:32:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers