Science does not work on consensus. It deals with facts. Facts are facts and dont really care what people think?
2007-02-06 12:40:32 · 11 answers · asked by Tropical Weasel 3 in Environment
To answer a few misguided answers below........
#1. The only facts we have are a slight warming trend that fall well within the normal eb and flow of the climate.
#2. Most scientists dont agree with the "MYTH" that we are in trouble.
#3. The ones that subscribe to the "MYTH" are on the payroll to promote th e"MYTH".
$3. If you think anything in "an inconvienent truth" is true, you're being intellectually lazy, just like the book.
2007-02-06 16:01:23 · update #1
By definition, global warming is a myth.
Myth - A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable. This word originates from the Sanskrit word "Mithya"; with the same meaning
2007-02-06 12:46:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
"consensus" means that a majority of scientist agree with it. Global warming is a serious problem. If people do not address this problem the earth will be in very bad shape. People need to realize that humans can and are affecting the earth beyond repair. Yes the earth has lived through things like this before but do you know what happens?? ice age
btw if you have watched "an inconvienent truth" you will find there is plenty of proof.
2007-02-06 14:15:16 · answer #2 · answered by wulfgar_117 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
When thousands of scientists from around the world agree that global warming is happening and human caused - doesn't that make you wonder if they are right? Sorry but I really don't think they are just pulling everyones leg. I know it sucks, but thats what we get for polluting the Earth. The evidence is overwhelming.
Fact:
"For much of the past 20m years, the planet has been quite cool. An Australian team reports in Nature today that at the height of the last ice age, 21,000 years ago, sea levels were 135 metres lower than today, and the continents were covered by an extra 52m cubic kilometres of ice.
But carbon dioxide levels are rising swiftly because of fossil fuel burning and the clearing of the planet's forests, which in past aeons have taken carbon from the air and stored it, first as wood and then as coal. By 2100 the carbon dioxide levels will increase to match those last seen in the Eocene, 50m years ago. In those days, much of Europe was flooded, there were no ice caps, London was a steaming mangrove swamp and the average temperature of southern England was 25C. Today, the average temperature is 10C.
Professor Palmer said: "This does not necessarily mean we will recreate Eocene-type conditions. There are still too many unknowns involved in climate prediction. But the sweltering ice- free world of the Eocene does warn us of what might happen if a runaway greenhouse effect sets in."
Here are some PICTURES of global warming happening if the WORDS are not getting through!
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
2007-02-06 12:57:26 · answer #3 · answered by Thuja M 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's all politics not science. There are 15,000 scientist that dissagree with the "consensus". The simple facts do not support the claims. Global Warming removed a 1 mile thick layer of ice over what is now Chicago, do they want to put it back? 1000 years ago Vikings farmed in Greenland at locations which, after decades of "global warming" are still too cold to farm. Maybe if they had some Volvos to drive they could have kept Greenland warm enough to farm. But I doubt it.
2007-02-06 13:49:39 · answer #4 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Its not an important issue one way or the other. What is an important issue is stopping polution. That requires a little more understanding than is displayed in this report. There is no doubt humans have poluted the Earth and there is also no doubt it can be fixed if there is some effort to do so. Replacing oil is not a solution because oil is a natural storehouse of solar energy.
2007-02-06 12:50:26 · answer #5 · answered by jim m 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What bothers me is even if we err on the side of caution as some pointed out. Most of the pollution is coming from China and Russia. What are those scientists gonna do about that?
2007-02-06 13:05:44 · answer #6 · answered by sociald 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The earth has been around for millions of years and will be around for millions of years after we are gone. It can take care of itself. How can people say that we are a threat to the earth?
Ask the people of New Orleans if they feel like they are a threat to the Earth. Or the people of Indonesia who are being flooded out of their homes if they feel like they are a threat to the Earth. What about the hundreds of homes that were burned in wildfires everyear, I bet those people don't feel like they are a threat to the Earth.
Global Warming...lmao...
2007-02-06 12:47:42 · answer #7 · answered by picturekevin23 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I want to know why the average mean temperature data from 1940 to 1970 declined while CO2 levels were still increasing?
2007-02-06 12:44:49 · answer #8 · answered by Pi-Guy 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
BS. Science says whatever brings in the bucks.
2007-02-06 12:43:31 · answer #9 · answered by up y 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good point. Still, why err on the side of caution?
2007-02-06 12:43:02 · answer #10 · answered by Docta Jones 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋