If there is no debate, and there is a consensus in the scientific community isn't it a waste of money to keep trying to prove Global Warming. So should we end all of the funding?
2007-03-07 12:10:17 · 8 answers · asked by sfavorite711 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
But their IS a debate. In particular, what humanity's role in global warming is, what man-made pollution's significance is compared to, say, volcano blasts
Don't let the church of environmentalism and it's high priest (Al Gore) convince you that global ecological-based fascism is the remedy for the world's ills.
2007-03-07 12:19:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What funding? If you took a look at precisely what was being funded it would probably answer your question. Are they funding a study of solutions, perhaps? Looking at how much is a natural cycle and how much is human contribution? Are they considering clean up efforts or weather alteration? Perhaps they will have to evacuate some places that are erroding and flooding. Just because some facts are known and we have a basic understanding doesn't mean there isn't alot more to learn and even more important...it hasn't been dealt with yet. Just because you don't understand it that doesn't make it wrong. They understand alot of things that others don't. That's their field.
2007-03-07 12:16:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
LOL...It DOES take one hell of a large form of religion to purchase the guy made international warming hoax, so which you have gotten a element. yet they DO violate the form. scottso...there are 3 sorts of lies. Lies, damn lies and records. - Mark Twain. That huge form is SO exaggerated that it somewhat is hilarious. ninety seven% of climatologists in all probability agreed that the temperature replaced into growing to be, yet they are chop up tremendously plenty down the middle on no remember if human beings have any important result. and a large form of have come out to disclose the lies and exaggerations of alarmists. they have additionally uncovered the reality that the international temperatures have been occurring for the final 10 years...for this reason the term "international warming" has been replaced to "international climate substitute"....the alarmists be responsive to this too. And if there replaced into plenty consensus between climatologists, why have been there 1500 emails approximately the thank you to control or cover the real numbers simply by fact they did not help the claims that human beings are impacting international temperatures? Bob Rat...why can we consult with guy made international warming and evolution as a faith? simply by fact we see that they are concerns of religion. as a remember of actuality they require plenty greater faith than the religion in a much better potential. And as for the "Obama / messiah" assessment, it somewhat is the liberals who have been raising him to this way of pedestal. Faking faints in his presence, pertaining to HIM AS A SAVIOR, and getting a heat feeling working up your legs whilst he spoke are why we see many liberals as seeing him as their messiah.
2016-10-17 12:46:32 · answer #3 · answered by rosen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"""in 10 years they will be the biggest polluters ever !!!!""
Alpha, China already is the biggest polluter. 16 of the top 25 polluted cities in the world are in China.
Kyoto was a big flop. It excused developing countries like china and india and others from having to participate in reducing the pollution.
2007-03-07 12:22:06 · answer #4 · answered by sociald 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It will take the entire world to make the difference.....the entire planet has never been on the same channel yet...on ANY issue !! It ain't going to start now...look at China alone...in 10 years they will be the biggest polluters ever !!!!
2007-03-07 12:16:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not all of the funding...we will still have to keep track of it to see how it is progressing or regressing depending on how the world decides to deal with it. We still do not know what all the the reprocussions will be from this.
2007-03-07 12:17:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because if Al Gore cannot collect on his "investment" he won't be able to pay his energy bills on his 4 houses!
2007-03-07 12:16:12 · answer #7 · answered by Matt 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
so the U.S. government can turn around and say to the world ..
"yeh we are the biggest abusers of our planet... ... but we spent x number of million dollars last year researching how we do it"
just an opinion ..
2007-03-07 12:14:56 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋