What is the chance, in your opinion, that humans are responsible?
100% means there is NO doubt we are responsible, and 0% means there is NO way we are responsible.
BTW, you are extremely ignorant if you put either 95-100% or 0-5%. We aren't even 100% sure about the weather tomorrow, how can we be so sure about this?
I say there is about a 15-20% chance we are responsible.
2007-01-24 12:51:17 · 16 answers · asked by I STILL hate hippies 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I would say we are at least 10 % responsible for accelerating a cycle that was going to happen with us around or not , The Earth has gone through cycles like this over millions of years it has been proven through research , their has been a time of extreme heat and a time of extreme cold , lets be glad we are not in any of those cycles right now or we would not be on our computers speculating right now , yes we can improve the ways we do things when it comes to natural resources and pollution etc , but believe me Mother Earth is going to do what she wants , who are we to think we can stop her we cannot even cure the common cold . Think about that for a while .
2007-01-24 13:02:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that the warming of only 1degree over the last 100 years(thats the correct #..sorry if you thought it was more) is due to many different causes.
1) We are coming out of a mini ice age(1400-1860 approx) according to climate researchers. (btw it was warmer during the empire of Alexander than now)
2) The sun has increased in temp over the last 50 years.
3) We have produced more carbon dioxide.
2007-01-24 13:07:11 · answer #2 · answered by Mazlow01 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's amazing that there are still folks out there trying to deny human involvement with the environment. I mean, HELLO! WAKE UP! You are affecting your environment each and every day...just because you breathe!
YES. 100% YES. Humans are partly responsible for the earth's warming and 100% yes. we are more responsible for it than any other living entity on this planet.
But, it's not a clear-cut problem. Every action we take has a cause and effect and some of those effects may take many years for us to recognize and understand. So, you must follow the trail of evidence and when you do, you will see that ultimately human development and over population are to blame at the root.
2007-01-24 12:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by Monique D 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Take a look at this graph:
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/images/CO2-Temp.gif
During the period 1882-2002, the correlation coefficient between CO2 levels and the global temperature anomaly was .937. Since all CO2 above 280 ppm is anthropogenic, the chances are 94% that we're responsible.
2007-01-24 16:24:54 · answer #4 · answered by Keith P 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I want to know why one group of people want to stand up and act like its everybody elses fault before they jump on a plane and go to a convention about global warming. where they pull up in a limo with 30 vehicle police escort. I dont see global warming activist cutting back on there global warming causing habits so why should I. I think there is no way that we are responsible for global warming. I think the earth goes through stages. This is one of these stages. What are we suppose to do now anyway stop living? Global warming is a backroom liberal word to make the rest of us miserable. Clinton had to do something to keep Al Gore busy. The problem is Al took it seriously.
2007-01-24 13:15:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
"BTW, you are extremely ignorant if you put either 95-100% or 0-5%. We aren't even 100% sure about the weather tomorrow, how can we be so sure about this?"
how is that ignorant? why wouldn't it be significantly easier to predict the future in broad trends? the fact that you think that weather and climate are the same explains why you are so confused.
what do you think is causing it then? you acknowledge that it seems to be real, why isn't it us? there are more of us now than ever before, driving little combustion engines and there are more of us flying than ever before also. why wouldn't it have an effect?
btw... 94.9%
2007-01-24 12:59:36 · answer #6 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think there is a reasonable chance, I have no way of giving a percentage, but I do think that it is reasonable to assume that a species that can invent the hydrogen bomb and travel to the moon is capable of impacting the earth
really you have two choices, you can assume that we can do nothing about global warming, and just sit back and hope for the best, or you can assume that we are capable of doing something about global warming and try to do something about it
2007-01-24 12:59:50 · answer #7 · answered by Nick F 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i cant really put a statistic on it, though if you examine history warming and cooling cycles occur frequently. a warming cycle allowed the Vikings and later the King of Norway and Denmark to colonize Iceland and Greenland some of the most desolate icy places in the world with medieval technology. and then a cooling cycle came along and killed them all. this all ended just before the birth of our country
2007-01-24 12:59:06 · answer #8 · answered by ben s 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think its 1%. Its a huge planet that been here for billions of years. I have trouble believing that 150 years of industrialization is going to destroy the planet. It just isn't as fragile as liberals make it out to be. Life can survive in the damdest hostile places.
2007-01-24 13:05:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ok, so its getting a little warmer, we cannot even feed the hungry in our own country and you suggest we save an entire planet. People make me giggle at myself sometimes. We are so pretentious and arrogant to think that we could save a planet. what a hoot.
2007-01-24 13:51:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋