The sun is producing more heat and therefore you ice caps are melting. Just changing our fuels isn't going ot solve the sun problem.
But you appear to enjoy the warm weather.
2007-04-06 06:13:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by az 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Why?
Is that not obvious?
Bush and Family got their money mostly through Oil dealings.
He argues it's too much of a financial burden for the United States to endure to switch fuel sources or cap emissions, but the real reason is he's an oil man. However what Bush forgets is it's a burden that HAS to be done, whether now, in 10 years, 20 years, it is going to have to be done to regardless.
On a side Note: ElDude or ElDouche whatever your name is, where do you get your facts and numbers from? 100 years to see the effect? Looks like you need to take a math lesson. Reduction in the % of CO2 and other O3 reducing agents in the atmosphere would reduce in proportion to the % of effect that global warming has. Everything is not black and white, but rather there is a huge grey area. Eldouche " Polar bears die and so do squirrels and nice peoples well trained dogs when they run in front of cars." The question was not IF they are dying the question was more along the lines WHY. However, since you somehow related people's dogs getting run over by cars to global warming merely just goes to show just how much of a dolt you are.
2007-04-06 05:46:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by jay k 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't know. He probably figures Al Gore is on it so, it's pretty much a closed case. I would like to know why this question is highlighted and placed at the top of the list when it's just 2 minutes old and still not answers? Any idea how that happens?
FYI Global Warming, if the entire world stopped living the way it did it will still take well over 100 years to see any effect on the 'global warming' Its a trend that outdates any sort of record keeping on trends. Calm down. Polar bears die and so do squirrels and nice peoples well trained dogs when they run in front of cars. Global warming isn't going to keep them safe.
2007-04-06 05:42:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by eldude 5
·
3⤊
2⤋
He is not. Changing daylight savings times will save more energy than any other policy to date. The Democrats don't want to give him any credit for anything.
The truth is that the science behind all the global warming studies is far from sound. The far left environmentalists advocate spending trillions on a hunch. These same people are all over him for spending billions on a hunch in Iraq that was pretty well validated around the world at the time.
Watch this video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2663847011110488414&q=Michael++on+Charlie+Rose
The second half will shed some perspective on his viewpoint.
Recycling is good but spending trillions of dollars to reenginer our industry on a hunch is just plain stupid.
2007-04-06 05:48:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by u goin down 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Polar bears are dying.... is that really your argument against global warming? If you know anything about "nature" you would understand that species becoming extinct because of climate changes is something that has been occurring since life began on this planet. The Earth has been warming up and cooling off since the beginning and will continue to do so regardless of our actions. There are better reasons to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels than "global warming".
2007-04-06 05:43:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ryan F 5
·
5⤊
1⤋
You're kidding, right? It's because acknowledging the problem is not conducive to corporate profit or making the moguls fatter cats than they already are. The longer big business and big oil companies can pollute the environment, the bigger the bonuses they receive and the larger the golden parachutes they can give themselves when they retire, much like Exxon-Mobil's last chairman and CEO, Lee Raymond, who received the equivalent of $400 million when he retired a couple of years ago. Besides, Dubya and Company were put in power by big business and big oil, and they owe them, or else.
2007-04-06 05:51:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by MathBioMajor 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
He would have to do a shitload to do anything about it. He would first have to give up his support of oil and place it on alternative sources of energy which might turn out to be bust. Also, he would have to pass laws banning certain chemicals that contribute to global warming that are used greatly by companies. This would hurt the companies a lot since they don't have anything as effective to fall back on. In short, it's too much work.
2007-04-06 05:44:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Joe Schmoe 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
The same people that brought up global warming are the same dips that in the 70s said there was another ice age coming that never happened. So tell me, what does this tell you. Its just hype
2007-04-06 05:55:07
·
answer #8
·
answered by show_em_your_badge 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
He's not ignoring it, but there isn't much that he can do about it since it is a naturally occurring weather cycle. Oh, I forgot... he has that weather machine that he used to create Katrina that he could use... YOU ARE RIGHT! He IS ignoring it after all!!
Now talk to us about atmospheric pollution as an issue, and you would get a lot more heads wrapped around it.
2007-04-06 05:47:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by Amer-I-Can 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
yes sad but true no one cares. COCA COLA should do something if bush wont. the polar bear is their ad campaign. simple the bear makes them money so they need to repay the bear and it will be a great chance for them to gain coke drinkers. and also the harp seal. its sad that the greed for oil and power have made something we should have prevented a long time ago. listen up coke no bear no coke. dont drink coke till they take the 1st step!!!
2007-04-06 05:44:37
·
answer #10
·
answered by Tony M 3
·
2⤊
2⤋