I can't believe so many of you think global warming is a myth concocted by liberals. Either you are not aware of the melting of glaciers and polar ice caps, or you are wearing blinders. Which is it? [ < THE QUESTION] What is debatable is the extent to which human activity is contributing to global warming. Certainly natural forces and climatic cycles are at work, but it would be moronic to conclude that the burning of 80 million barrels of oil plus 20 million tons of coal per day has no effect on the atmosphere, an envelope of gas less than 100 miles thick.
And don't get me started again on overpopulation. Besides the issues of global warming, pollution, and species extinction, there is the matter of poverty and territorial conflict. I can't stand "conservatives" who are smug about these serious problems. The natural world needs to be conserved!
2006-12-20 16:08:01 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
CO2 is 30% higher than it has been for 650,000 years. Methane is 130% greater. These are two of the main pollutants humans put into the atmosphere in excess, and they are two of the primary greenhouse gases.
Look at the 'hockeystick', which shows a dramatic warming since 1950 after a fairly stable climate for 1000 years. In fact, the 10 hottest years in recorded history have all happened since 1990, with 2005 being the hottest.
(see links below)
How's that for proof of man's fault in this? There is ample proof, any real scientist will tell you that.
There has NEVER been an article doubting man's influence on global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal. A recent study of almost 1000 proved that.
Yes, the earth naturally heats and cools, but the rate and amount we are warming now is unprecedented in the recent geologic past. We are doing this, and we must stop it. This is not some political statement or rhetoric. This is science trying to educate a crass, ignorant public of the damage they are doing. The magnitude of temperature increase ALREADY is about 10x that of the 'little ice age' of the middle ages, and rate and amount are only going up.
Just to be clear, glacial and interglacial cycles are mainly controlled by astronomical fluctuations, but we have a detailed record of the last 7 cycles, and what the climate and CO2 is doing now is way different and extreme. The rate of increase is much higher than in the past AND the value itself is much higher.
HI CO2:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
HOCKEY STICK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm
General climate stuff:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3897061.stm
2006-12-21 03:44:23 · answer #1 · answered by QFL 24-7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anyone who looks at global warming with a critical eye knows that it is far from "proven." There are plenty of doubters out there, including in the scientific community. But they are ignored and we are told that scientists are in consensus about it. Never mind that it's a lie, but since when has consensus in science actually meant a damn?
Science is about proof and evidence. There was a time when the consensus was that the earth was flat. There was a time when the consensus was that the heavens revolved around the earth. There was a time when the consensus said that man will never fly. Scientific proof has proved these wrong.
Just in the last couple of weeks, the UN has revised downwards by 25% it's estimations of global sea level rise due to global warming.
The earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles, including periods warmer than now, even before man had much of a footprint on this planet. Especially between 1100 and 1300. Somehow, nature, and man, survived just fine.
Don't fall for all the global warming doom and gloom stories. Man has been predicting environmental doom for decades. Remember Erlich's Population Bomb. The world was supposed to be plunged into worldwide famine back in the 80's. Billions were supposed to die off because the planet could not sustain us. Did it happen?
No less than 4 times in the past century has the media sounded the alarm about climate change. First it was global cooling, then global warming, then cooling again, now warming again. Do you sense a pattern here? We go through cooling and warming cycles, and the media jumps on it and tries to scare the hell out of us. The global termperature has been cooling since 1998. In about 10-15 more years, the alarmist media will notice that we are going through another cooling cycle, and sound the alarm again about global cooling.
2006-12-21 18:02:12 · answer #2 · answered by Uncle Pennybags 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While I would definitely agree entirely with the content of your editorial, I must take issue with the tone, particularly when you put "conservatives" in scare quotes. This is getting to be the second common misuse of scare quotes, after emphasis (as in "Get your 'fresh' meat here"); to say "I don't agree with this". Let's get one thing straight: conservatives almost always *are* conservatives, no matter how objectionable, so it's not correct to bracket them with quotes as if they're frauds. (This is a lot like when people use such phrases as "the *so-called* War on Drugs", when what they really mean to say is something like "the costly, over-punishing War on Drugs" — it really is a war, not that war is necessarily a good thing.)
In terms of answering the question, all I can say (as a non-conservative) is that there's a certain postmodern presence in dialogue in the US which allows even the most extensive sceintific evidence to count for nothing when it's not absolutely, completely, indisputably certain. Of course this is the case for global warming just as much as for, say, the germ theory of disease (constantly being reworked to include new findings), but some just won't stop until they reach rigid, law-like certainty (a resource which happens to be plentiful in such places as holy scripture, among elsewhere).
2006-12-21 00:24:14 · answer #3 · answered by lenoxus 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Look, I won't get you started again on overpopulation, so why don't you go get a life or something. If you wish we can start taking volunteers to reduce human population to that of the Stone Age and go back to being a hunter/gatherer society. Since you are so concerned, I expect you will lead the pack to give up your life for the benefit of the Earth.
2006-12-21 14:52:53 · answer #4 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My hat is off to you! Very well put. It seems there are entirely to many ignorant people in today's society who refuse to look beyond the incredibly small worlds they have built for themselves to see what is happening around them. Global warming is happening folks, whether you choose to believe it or not. It's a natural process that is being tweaked by our consumption of things like fossil fuels.
As far as overpopulation: mother nature will take care of that. AIDS may be nature's way of reversing population growth. Studies are already showing that population growth in the sub-sahara has leveled off due to AIDS related deaths. In the next couple of years that population will begin to decline. If it is happening in Africa, it will eventually happen globally.
This planet is all we have. There are no others for us to run to in the event this one fails. And believe me when I say that the earth will survive with or without humans, and she would probably rather be without us.
2006-12-21 00:23:41 · answer #5 · answered by ? 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
What I dont understand is, if polar ice caps are melting causing are winters to be warmer, summers to be hotter, and soon enough great masses of land will be covered by large amounts of unneeded salt water..Even though over population is causing us to run down our lakes, our fresh water is almost gone...Why cant they figure out a way to transfer salt water from the melting ice caps into fresh water for us to drink?Balance it out and skip global warming... I understand that there is a massive hole in our ozone layer but if they can put a man on the moon, cant they figure out a way to patch up our ozone with some sort of a synthetic ozone... just until we figure out a better scenerio for our problems in the world..
2006-12-21 00:22:06 · answer #6 · answered by happy2BAlive!! 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Global warming IS. And, conservative people- ARE. But the sad reality is, that neither of these ongoing natural disasters- is going to go away- any time soon. So rather than get your panties in a "bunch" about what you can't do anything about, get out there & DO whatever you can- to CONSERVE whatever you're able. Time is short... -& the choices are YOURS...
2006-12-21 00:23:42 · answer #7 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What about the natural world is endanger from Human Kind? The Earth will continue with or without us. If we continue to harm the Earth as we have been doing for the past 200 years, then we will eventually use up all of the resources that this Earth has. We will become extint. Oil will be used up. Thier is a finite reserve of Fossil Fuels in this planet. Once those are used up, they are gone forever. Humans must find sustainable means to support ourselves. Over geological time, the Earth shall recover from any damage we are capable of inflicting. We may not be so lucky. In the end, the Earth will be destroyed. In time the Sun will go super nova and destroy half the planets in our solar system. Their is nothing any conservative or liberal can do about that. So, we are all living on borrowed time --- even the Earth. It only makes sence that humans do all we can to bring about sustainable resources. Solar electric, Hydro power, Geothermal, Wind energy, Tidal energy just to name a few. They will take time and resources to develop. Economics dictated that these resources must be developed. an investment in Solar Electric Pannels pays for itself over 3-7 years time with free electric energy for 40 years lifespan. Geothermal takes a bit longer to pay for itself to recoupe the cost, but provides low cost heating and cooling with extremely limited damage to the environment. Coupled together, Solar and Geothermal provide nearly zero cost heating, cooling and electrical power. The initial costs of such systems has to come down to be economically viable for the average person. It woudl help if it were mandated by law on all new construction to include Solar Electric on the roof and Geothermal heating and air conditioning. This would spurn competition and lower initial costs for such systems in a relatively short period of time. Both Conservatives and Liberals shoudl be able to agree that this would have far reaching benifits to our envirnment and to our economies. The short term costs woudl be high, but they woudl quickly be reduced.
2006-12-21 01:30:23 · answer #8 · answered by daddyspanksalot 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't know. Perhaps you live on the North Pole, Santa Claus, and are witnessing glaciers melt as I type?
2006-12-21 00:17:02 · answer #9 · answered by dlfield 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Isn't it wonderful to have warmer winters? It's not a myth, so enjoy it.
2006-12-21 00:11:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋