Climate changes: a lot of nonsense or are our grand children actually facing a global Venice around year 2080?

Answer 1

It's not a lot of nonsense. The latest UN report came from scientists (who were not paid for their input) in over 135 countries while, in the meantime, Exxon is offering $10,000 to scientists willing to DISprove global warming. That's got to tell you something.

Answer 2

The way I see it there is enough evidence to show that the climate is changing, even the evil president has conceded that global warming is an issue. Now the debate is surrounding if changing our ways will change the over all effect of this natural occurrence. I think it would. I look at it, if I am wrong there is not a problem. We need to stop or cut down on polluting the planet, that is a good thing. If I am right, then maybe our grand baby's, or great grand babies will not face the extreme calamity's of what could occur. Lets err on the side of safety, as opposed to the kids inheriting the end of the world as we know it.

Answer 3

So the perfect arguments so a strategies were unsubstantiated & beside the point (3% declare) and inaccurate & many cases debunked (800 year lag). it really is enormously unhappy. to take care of the latter (again!), interior the previous there has been a lag between temp and CO2 will improve. it really is because CO2 isn't the in common words reason for international warming. even as there is yet another reason, it would want to steer on to a CO2 improve which will improve the international warming. although, the actual incontrovertible truth that CO2 isn't the accepted reason for international warming does no longer recommend that CO2 can't be the accepted reason. that is a logical and medical fallacy. Any contributor to international warming might want to be the accepted reason less than the nicely proper situations. for that reason, human beings burning huge quantities of fossil fuels is making CO2 the accepted reason. There are then feedbacks together with an improve in atmospheric water vapor which also make a contribution to international warming for this reason of our greenhouse gas emission forcings. Sorry i did not answer your question Trevor, because i am going to't! obviously neither can everyone else. i love the "because i do not trust it" solutions. Now it really is credible!

Answer 4

I could go on about it for ages but suffice to say, we have a beautiful planet here, lets stop destroying it. Polar ice caps are melting, glaciers are shrinking and sea levels are rising. Main problem will be the fresh water from the northern ice fields melting into the Atlantic, stopping circulation of warm water coming up from the Gulf, this will give northern Europe a climate like Alaska, and bring on an ice age. Sounds daft but global warming can and will bring on an ice age!? (It took me a while to get my head round it too) The earth has had Ice caps waxing and waning ever since it stopped being a molten blob, so we cant stop it happening but we can slow it down. More importantly we can stop it from getting so bad that it doesn't naturally reverse.

Answer 5

the Bush administration has decided not to fight the IPCC's substantive scientific conclusions, though Washington's response to the draft does churlishly complain about its "focus on the negative effects of climate change." Back in the day, the administration wouldn't have stopped there. Vice President Dick Cheney would have wasted no time designating all 2,500 IPCC scientists as enemy combatants and shipping them off to Guantanamo.

What caused the policy shift? November's GOP electoral drubbing? Increasing anxiety within the corporate community about the economic impact of climate change? Growing alarm within the military and intelligence communities about the national security impact of global warming?

Whatever the cause, the shift is good news. But don't get too excited because there's bad news too. The administration's grudging admission that maybe, just maybe, there's something to this global warming stuff doesn't mean it is actually going to back a mandatory cap on carbon emissions, which most experts say would be needed to seriously reduce global warming.

Instead, the administration has its own cunning plan to combat global warming. As the president suggested in his State of the Union message, we'll try to shift to alternative energy sources that produce fewer carbon emissions. But if that doesn't work, we'll turn to our secret weapon: We'll reduce the amount of sunlight that hits the Earth by shining giant mirrors back at the sun.

The administration is reportedly lobbying the U.N. panel to include in its report criticisms of the mandatory emissions caps imposed by the Kyoto Protocol (which the White House still hates). And the administration wants to add language noting that space mirrors and other techniques for "modifying solar radiance" could provide "insurance" against global warming. Keep the emissions, deploy the tin foil hats!

The idea is not completely bananas. Some scientists are researching alternative global climate control methods, ranging from the deployment of lots of shiny balloons to the giant space mirrors apparently now favored by the administration. The logic: Just as nomads in the scalding desert wear white robes to reflect the sun's heat away from them, the whole Earth could essentially don a reflective garment to keep from getting too hot. If the mirrors could be constantly adjusted, it would be like having a global thermostat.

But as the IPCC's draft report noted, these technologies are "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects." You don't have to be a sci-fi buff to imagine some of those: more space crud, bad stuff happening elsewhere in the galaxy when we start beaming more light up or, creepiest of all, deliberate climate change induced in some regions as a method of political control. (Imagine Cheney controlling the world's thermostat!)

Answer 6

I don't have the expertise in this area to say it is nonsense or not nonsense. However the people who do have the expertise in this area are saying by the year2080 there will be water shortages etc.
I would listen to a person who has a degree on this matter before I listen to a person who has a political science degree.

Answer 7

As a scientist who has published on long-term global climate change, and one of the last (10 years ago) to concede that anthropogenic effects are significantly altering the climate system, I can only tell you that we (almost every climate research scientist in the world) honestly believe it is real and serious.

The anti-warming side is now entirely occupied by either political partisan hacks or scientists that are out of their element and being paid by the partisan political hacks. Two of the most vicious attack dogs (funded by Exxon), McIntyre and McKitrick, have tried (and failed) to discredit me and several colleagues personally. McIntyre’s personal slam site is here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

(trust me, I’m mentioned by name on many of his pages – and never let it be said that I did not give the devil his due).

Answer 8

I don't think its very safe to choose a particular set of results shown on the T.V. and react to them. Why trust any information from any media source designed to influence public opinion. There is just as much research to support any opinion one way or the other...? Sensationalised research in the media is a recent phenomenon, how long is it since we discovered fire. Our existence is but a pinprick in the existence of this planet I think they will be fitting catalytic converters on volcanoes next...?

Answer 9

I'd be moving inland or to higher land ASAP.


PS dstr Great answer to read, but why would you build mirrors, when you can actually harness the sun's energy through solar panels? (Oh that's right, China leads the world in developing that technology.) The mirror idea is simply ludicrous, sort of like the current US administration.

Answer 10

Not nonsense.We cant disagree with all the men in white coats.We should be acting now to try to limit the damage and the USA and China need a kick up the ***