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

2007-04-08 01:54:39 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

SMOG OVER LA DOESN'T MAKE GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!

2007-04-08 02:28:11 · update #1

16 answers

Please refer to my question about NASA and rocket nerds punching holes in the atmosphere.


Global warming, as presented to us, is a LIE,LIE,LIE!!!!!!

2007-04-08 02:03:44 · answer #1 · answered by ? 2 · 3 1

OK people.

I am a scientist and unfortunately the "scientific" arguments against a human influence on global warming are purely politically motivated. NASA has prohibited their scinetists from publishing anything that shows a connection between human activity and global warming. Numerous government reports have been "edited" by political hacks to change the conclusions of government scientists.

This fits in the same category as the lies that the tobacco industry issued for decades about the effects of smoking.

2007-04-08 12:47:40 · answer #2 · answered by amused_from_afar 4 · 0 0

One way is by looking at temperature records (both written and from sources such as ice cores and perhaps tree rings) and comparing the changes to the amount of human industrial activity.

Computerized climate models also indicate that human activity is a major contributor to global warming. If the models are inaccurate this doesn't help much, but many of them seem fairly accurate for other purposes, adding to their credibility in predicting climate change.

2007-04-08 09:01:34 · answer #3 · answered by SpaceSquirrel 2 · 1 2

mainly because on of the experimental values the level of Carbon based gasses in the atmosphere has increased with the industrial age.
Scientists are split on the subject of climate change because the planet has the ability to compensate for the changes in gasses that would cause climate change. There are more values in predicting our planet's future than the level of carbon based gases.
Either way everyone should do their small part to conserve.

2007-04-08 08:59:38 · answer #4 · answered by kittenbrower 5 · 3 1

The reality is they can't,and there's ample evidence that most if not all of it is natural cycles. The examples are everywhere in history,even by looking at crops that used to grow in certain regions during certain periods in history but no longer do. Ever hear about a place called Greenland? If you look into it's history you see many climactic changes that cannot be accounted for by anything but natural cycles. It's virtually an iceberg now,but that's not why they named it Greenland I assure you. The history is there for anyone willing to look at it honestly,but climate change fits a political agenda that allows for no debate. Add that to newsweeks articles during the 70's warning that scientists were afraid of a coming ice age and it's clear the current debate is all posturing,junk science and agenda,with little or no substance. But if they hear it on TV it must be true. If it were not for alternative media that increasingly brings us alternative points of view we most likely would already have implemented changes that would have destroyed our economy in the name of protecting the environment. The lies of the left know no boundaries,how many times for example are they going to adjust the estimate of when we will run out of oil? It is not environmental science they are engaged in,it's environmental socialism,adjust our way of life using junk science to force us into a societal model that they approve of. You will also find if you look at disclosure statements that those who push alternative energies the hardest are also those most heavily invested in those "alternatives" But they are continuing to hold onto their oil stocks until the alternatives pay off I assure you.

AD

2007-04-08 09:17:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

So all that smog all over Los Angeles, that was just made out of the blue by God then or a magic fairy?

You can see clearly that pollution is real. If global climate change is caused by pollution, then it is manmade. It's that simple. Anyone with two ounces of common sense can tell you that. If you don't think that pollution changes an environment, then you're just plain gullable.

2007-04-08 09:00:18 · answer #6 · answered by imraybarbonifrommiami 3 · 0 3

scients dont determine any thing,,historians does this,
,, read and think
-----theory--opinion---best guess--closest---most common---I think--
I would put Doctors of medicine at the top of the list of scientist and look at their license---they are all PRACTICING

remember the same trained professionals that tell you about glob al warming ,,told you about the flat earth


ok amused----"Numerous government reports have been "edited" by political hacks to change the conclusions of government scientists."

to know they have been edited,, you have to have a copy of the original ,,,correct,,,would you show me something,,or is this classified info that common folks must not see,,,because I dont believe you,,,
doc,, what is causing warming on mars???
and does phd--really stand for "piled higher and deeper"

2007-04-08 09:32:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Cuz' their smarter n' we are. The last ice age melted because of humans too. Someone must have went back in time and polluted a whole bunch.

2007-04-08 08:57:59 · answer #8 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 3 1

Sort of like... Every time I get up in the morning, the sun comes up, therefore...getting up from bed causes the sun to rise.

2007-04-08 08:58:52 · answer #9 · answered by Delphi 4 · 3 1

It is still in debate by scientists just read the news.

2007-04-08 08:57:38 · answer #10 · answered by ALASPADA 6 · 3 1

Because the timing of the current warming trend coincides with the industrial revolution.

2007-04-08 08:59:16 · answer #11 · answered by pilot 5 · 1 3

fedest.com, questions and answers