Bob from above says "I could do a thousand of these. Compare the prestige of these people with that of the critics. The well-funded propaganda campaign to deny global warming is finally running out of gas."
Since when has PRESTIGE determined correctness? I could compile a list of PRESTIGIOUS people saying idiotic fallacies... would that make it correct?
2007-01-28 18:49:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by motz39baseball 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
stoping global warming doesn;t mean u have to go back to the ice age..
this is unstopable, think about it we cannot even archive inner peace, let alone world peace, if u cannot link minor groups with common traits together for an act, how can U STOP this Huge mother nature progress of global warming ?
just like the old saying WE WILL EAT OURSELFS TO THE GRAVES... lets Crandle all the way..
2007-01-28 21:12:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Vu 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Here's a sample group of pretty influential and powerful people who do.
"The science of global warming is clear. We know enough to act now. We must act now."
James Rogers, CEO of Charlotte-based Duke Energy.
"The overwhelming majority of atmospheric scientists around the world and our own National Academy of Sciences are in essential agreement on the facts of global warming and the significant contribution of human activity to that trend."
Russell E. Train, former environmental official under Presidents Nixon and Ford
"Global warming is already starting, and there's going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse."
James Hansen, Ph.D. climate scientist, NASA
"By mid-century, millions more poor children around the world are likely to face displacement, malnourishment, disease and even starvation unless all countries take action now to slow global warming."
Michael Oppenheimer, professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University
"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late. The science is clear. The global warming debate is over."
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, Governor, California
"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."
John McCain, Republican, Senator, Arizona
"These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment - and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
President George Bush, Republican
I could do a thousand of these. Compare the prestige of these people with that of the critics. The well-funded propaganda campaign to deny global warming is finally running out of gas.
2007-01-28 18:12:34
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bob 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
BUT we all need to stop alot of stuff to do that.
Electricity
Cars
Modern life in general
I want to stop the warming too
(and do all I can to be good to the world)
but how can we and have all we have as well??
not many are willing to give up our luxury items.
Lets all turn off our computers and read a book but only in daylight, no you can use solar garden lights, bring them in, and put on an extra blanket and socks and turn off the heater.........
2007-01-28 18:16:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Yo Mum Mum 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ahhh..... But do you know *what* is causing Global Warming? If you do (and you can prove it) there's probably a Nobel Prize in your future. But, so far, the best atmospheric and meterological scientists on the Planet can't agree what's causing it, or if it's even happening.
And here's a couple of hints:
Al ('I invented the Internet') Gore is *not* in that league. Not even close ☺
The radiant output of the Sun has increased a bit over the last 100 years or so. Think that might have something to do with it? And, if it does, we can always count on Al ('I invented the Internet') Gore to devise some really brilliant solution. Maybe shoot a few rockets full of water into the Sun to 'cool it down' ☺
Doug
2007-01-28 18:08:54
·
answer #5
·
answered by doug_donaghue 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
According to the data gathered over the last 112 years by NOAA the average temperature of all the reporting stations in the United States is increasing by 2.16% per century. Again, according to data gathered by NOAA over the last 48 years, the average concentration of CO2 on the slopes of Mauna Loa at about 14,000 ft elevation is increasing by 4.14% per decade. The respective exponential functions are:
T = 34.82*1.0002138^t and C = 310.45*1.00406^(t-1958)
Given the common variable t, it is possible to equate the two relations as follows:
ln(T) = ln(34.82) + tln(1.0002138)
t = (ln(T) - ln(34.82)/ln(1.0002138)
t = (ln(C) - ln(310.45)/ln(1.00406) + 1958
If you work it through, you can get a function that gives T in terms of C. You might have noted by now that the two growth factors differ by an order of magnitude. That can be interpreted to mean that it requires a large change in CO2 concentrations to effect a rather small change in average temperature.
2007-01-28 21:01:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Helmut 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Do something about it like take the bus or walk instead of driving your car.
2007-01-28 18:09:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
we can individually do what we can such as ellectric, hybrid cars, solar powe, etc. but millions have to do the same and I don't think it will happen, not until we are forced to do so, not by the government but by situations.
2007-01-28 18:11:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bring it on! It's 15F outside.
2007-01-28 18:09:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by nemesis_318 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
I'm also with you, Bro!
2007-01-28 20:57:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by 75345 2
·
0⤊
0⤋