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

2007-02-28 01:01:56 · 12 answers · asked by office_chixx 1 in Environment

12 answers

Sure, global warming is real. But Global Warming is a crock. What's the difference? Global Warming is hype trying to blame people for natural occurrances, while global warming is just the natural effect of variations in solar output and in the earth's orbit.

In fact, water vapor is a bigger greenhouse gas than CO2.

2007-02-28 01:14:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I believe the globe is warming. I am just not sure why. I don't trust the news media to tell us the facts because they are much to politically biased. I am 65 years old, and my father told me the oceans were rising about 3/4 inch a year due to warming when I was a child. I lived on the ocean. I also have studied some on the subject and know that just a few thousand years ago, Florida was under water, and then the earth cooling caused the oceans to recede. There seems to be a lot of evidence that the earth has warmed and cooled many times. I have seen little evidence to prove the theory of CO2 causing warming. Will continue to study. Need to learn more.

I do know we must listen to engineers and scientist, not news casters and actors that know little about anything. It is an important subject and we must deal with it. Would you listen to a biased idiot to tell you what to do about a desease in your body?

2007-02-28 09:31:51 · answer #2 · answered by GABY 7 · 0 0

Personally, I'm not sure. I'm leaning towards 'no', but there's more important things to consider than just that.

I think the key thing is, EVEN IF Al Gore is right, it's virtually impossible to solve the issue at hand. Even if all Americans did the right thing, we'd still be screwed because of developing nations, and the inefficient fuel burning methods they use.
Any one person's contribution to pollution, or lack thereof, makes virtually no difference in the grand scheme. Even one nation doing it's part isn't enough to matter.

AND, it's just not fair to expect China/India/Whatever other nation to have the same emission standards as the US.
Those countries deserve a shot at developing a healthy middle class-- and they must have industrialization to do so.

I think the thing we keep hitting on is that human activity is diametrically opposed to what the environmentalist movement wants us to do. Us humans have to live our lives, and so I think pollution is pretty inevitable. Given that this is the case, I think most suggested things ppl are supposed to do to 'save' the environment are pointless.
Simply being alive is the most wasteful thing. Nitpicking about the small things is largely a nuisance.

I just think that we ppl have MORE IMPORTANT, human issues to tackle before environmentalism.
Poverty and systematic inequalities still exist right here at home in the US. In Africa, there are multiple genocides going on.
I think environmentalism is a waste of the public's sympathy and attention, which could be better spent on those above issues.
/end rant/

2007-02-28 09:26:03 · answer #3 · answered by sisofphil 2 · 0 0

I guess, ultimately, that some might be worried that by admitting to the idea that the world is, currently, warming they are somehow promoting a response/philosophy to handling this "warming" that be poorly researched and simply a huge overblown concern focused on by the media/certain celebs.

It is interesting that here in Oregon, our previous Oregon Climatologist was fired right after he publish his refusal to sign on to a global warming publicity/political movement. His reason seamed VERY scientific: he hadn't seen enough evidence to support the idea that the actions of mankind were the main contributing factors to this discussion. He simply wanted more information before humping to a conclusion. After releasing this material, he was fired. Interesting, very interesting.

Kinda sad when politics keeps a scientist from research, forcing them to instead support the non-scientificly drawn opinion (that is an opinion that doesn't accept all the evidence) of a political campain, instead.

2007-02-28 09:15:19 · answer #4 · answered by kjjackal 2 · 1 0

What does 'belief' have to do with established scientific fact? The geological evidence is overwhelming concerning climate changes, Over the last few million years the Earth has been a *helluva* lot hotter (as well as cooler) than it is right now.

And a lot of those global climate swings occured *before* man ever appeared on the scene.

HTH ☺


Doug

2007-02-28 09:17:36 · answer #5 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0 0

Well it was recently proven that the earth's temp has increased a whopping 1 degree in the last 100 or so years.. Hardly anything to be worried about.

Whether that 1 degree is caused by humans is doubtful. IF you think it is - show me the science behind it all...

2007-02-28 09:06:23 · answer #6 · answered by hdcd33 2 · 0 0

Talk about global warming to those who had died this year of hypothermia in the northern states..

2007-02-28 09:10:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i sure hope so! especially since the poles are actually getting colder and denser in a prelude to another ice age. and guess what, no matter how much money you throw at a democrat, or how many liberals you vote into office, theres not a thing you can do about it either way.

2007-02-28 09:17:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

why shoudl i belive in it?

anymore than i shoudl believe that the earth is off its axis because there are to many fat people living in america ersus the rest of the world.

do you belive everything you hear?

2007-02-28 09:06:09 · answer #9 · answered by Hairy Monster 1 · 0 0

I don't. It a huge farce crated by the Liberal left enviromental loonies.

2007-02-28 09:10:06 · answer #10 · answered by Sane 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers