English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1) Whats more important? The temp going up a whole 7/10ths of a degree because of the industrial age OR creating material, technology, and jobs for our country? Some how I don't see you working on daddy's farm til you die at the age of 40 bc we didn't have the technology to save your life from something as stupid as an off the wall infection.

2) If some scientists clam its the first time in history that we are having a climate stage change and its way too soon, Where are the whackos that claimed a climate cooling in the 70s? And if you don't count that... being that no one was alive to accurately document and geological era studies of our earth are theoretical at best, How do scientist really know what a climate stage time line really is?

2007-02-25 15:49:42 · 17 answers · asked by TJ815 4 in Politics & Government Politics

3) Where do you work? a business building, restaurant, walmart,...? All those places take tons more energy up in seconds then my little kia rio takes to travel to school. I guess you must not care about the environment unless your place of work runs on nothing but solar power!

2007-02-25 15:50:32 · update #1

17 answers

The problem is these people are sheep... they hear somebody say "global warming! Global warming!" And they instantly start screaming "WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE"

The fact is global warming and cooling is a natural cycle that has been going on far longer than humans have been industrialized (in fact HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of years longer). But this theory assumes that we can get accurate projections based on a few years of data, which is insane. It's this kind of junk science that led to the "revelation" that were going into another ice age a few decades ago.

I'm all for renewable energy and less pollution, but going off and shredding our economy on some half-baked theory is idiotic. We'll do more damage to ourselves than a few tenths of a degree more warmth will ever manage.

2007-02-25 16:24:20 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

of direction international warming is actual. the outcomes finally would be a super sort of island countries and coastal cities will finally be underwater. Deserts will strengthen, the some distance north and lots south would be warmer and there will be no summer season ice. of course, considering that we are having a chillier than time-honored wintry climate interior the U. S. that sounds like data to the uninformed that international warming is a lie, yet those self same human beings brush aside the well-liked summers in historic previous as in basic terms a version interior the conventional climate varieties. Too undesirable you will not be able to have it the two procedures. the actual data is the shrinking summer season ice fields, and that's extremely actual.

2016-10-16 12:19:41 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Global warming is a FANTASY. It's February 26 and it's cold and its been cold since like November. What happened to global cooling? The fact is maybe the Earth is supposed to get warmer in certain years and colder during other years. When it comes to pollution causing an o-zone hole or whatever, China pollutes more than anyone on Earth because they have no laws to govern their factories and how much they pollute. But STILL, even WHEN China pollutes a lot and people become sick and come up with medical conditions like similar to lung cancer, it still doesn't get hotter over there.

Oh yes and to just let you people know, almost all that so called pollution in California is really crossing the ocean and really coming from CHINA! So it doesn't matter if you people in CA just stand still for the next 10 years with nothing running, no cars, businesses or whatever, the air pollution is never going to go away unless China stops polluting.

2007-02-25 16:25:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

Whoooa there, now. Starting with thae addition.. People need jobs!! Most people can't choose and "qualify" their potential employers all that readily. We all CAN readily vote our principals at the cash register.

Now, back to the beginning. It is ludicrous for people to be sneering back and forth over this issue. Most of us don't have a damn clue, certainly not from firsthand knowledge. We listen to the arguments of those who have more knowledge in the field, and they do not reach consensus.

The best the rest of us can do read up on both "sides" and extrapolate and infer as best we can from what we do know. We have to rely on the physical basics and numbers that exist. With these, can you or can you not create simulated global warming in a lab? What percentage of the time? What other factors might be relevant? Most of us can't / don't devote that much research into forming our opinions!!

As far as all the talk about first time this happened, record numbers of this or that, that is probably exploitation propaganda and really of not much value, so much of it being speculative to a large extent.

What's more important? 7/10 of 1 degree or progress??
First of all, they are NOT mutually exclusive. And then, it is comparing short term POSSIBILITES against long term
POSSIBILITIES.

It comes down to a philosophy. Either I am going to buy flourescent bulbs because they cannot possbly do as much harm to the living planet as incandescent bulbs do; or, I'm not going to pay $4.50 for one damn light bulb.

2007-02-25 16:25:50 · answer #4 · answered by and_y_knot 6 · 2 0

After a cooling period began in 1945, and continued for two decades Global Cooling was a grave concern for the Liberal set.

In 1966 Cesare Emiliani predicted that "a new glaciation will begin within a few thousand years."

By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near"

An April 28, 1975 Newsweek article titled "The Cooling World," decried "the evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it." The Newsweek article incouraged "simple measures of stockpiling food". The article ended by claiming that "The longer the planners (politicians) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Personally Manbearpig scares me more than Global Warming, but thank God we have Al Gore to save us from him. I mean he won an ACADEMY AWARD tonight!!! Now we have to take him seriously just like Ben Affleck. LOL...


http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycle...

2007-02-25 15:59:23 · answer #5 · answered by Nationalist 4 · 3 1

For your information, 7/10ths of a degree increase in global temperature at the same time the Earth is experiencing a warming trend on it's own will have an enormous impact upon major industry.

Since most industrial cities are located near water, the melting of land-borne ice will raise the average sea level and flood those same areas. If companies need to move their factories, the cost of their products will increase along with the natural rise in cost of living. Are you prepared to foot the bill for that?

Don't get confused by those that warn of global warming and those that warn of global cooling. If either come to fruition, (I believe it's warming up), there will be a gradual phase of change that will affect weather in all areas of the planet.

In the extreme, warm climates will get warmer and some will get cooler, and cold climates will get cooler while some will get warmer. The entire system is adjusting itself whether we are here or not. But the fact that we are contributing to it certainly isn't helping things.

I fail to understand the purpose of any debate when there is a crisis on our hands.

2007-02-25 16:02:06 · answer #6 · answered by Awesome Bill 7 · 2 3

1) I've gotta admit, the first is more important to me. No I didn't work on a farm, but I'm not selfish enough to put my own needs ahead of our planet. We don't have to harm our economy anyway, that's a myth.

2)Scientists have ways of determining what the temperature was up to 650,000(I think) years ago, based on ice samples. Don't understand exactly how yet, but it has something to do with measuring oxygen isotopes.

2007-02-25 15:59:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

Ask Al Gore....he is flying around the world burning jet fuel like it is a never ending resource....gee, I don't think my SUV emits anywhere near the greenhouse gasses as his private jet does. Oh, and the glaciers on the polar ice cap is actuall larger now, than it was in 1940 for all you liberal nut jobs.

2007-02-25 16:19:30 · answer #8 · answered by JR 4 · 3 2

I say some of them think that 7/10ths of a degree is worth having the US revert to an agrarian society, let population centers collapse, and we all live on small farms or communes until we die and early death after a life of toiling misery in the fields.

2007-02-25 15:53:43 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Pibb 3 · 4 4

I've never heard any scientist say its the first time in history. They just said we are speeding it up and making it more severe. The fact that the temp rises 7/10th a degree isn't' important its the fact that sea levels are rising so all of you on the coast won't have a home. The weather is becoming more violent and the environment is being destroyed.

2007-02-25 15:55:17 · answer #10 · answered by jwk227 3 · 2 7

fedest.com, questions and answers