When everyone know that they are caused by Earthquakes. And to use mercury filled lightbulbs to save the earth when these bulbs will find their way to landfills and cause even more pollution? Why won't they consider nuclear power when its been shown to be safe in our country for years? Now I here that they say that having a third child is as bad as driving an SUV or not recycling? The more these radical environmentalists say the less credibility they are going to have when there really are environmental issues that need to be addressed. We need environmental solutions that we can really use on a wide scale rather than scare tactics or poor solutions to environmental issues that will come back to bite us in the ***.
2007-05-07 02:43:42 · 9 answers · asked by esi_money 2 in Environment
You needn't be so concerned about these things.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs REDUCE mercury pollution.
Fossil fuels contain mercury. Using incandescent bulbs causes more mercury to be emitted from power plants. More than is in a CFL.
It's better if you dispose of old CFLs properly so that even the tiny amount of mercury is not released. But, no matter how they're disposed of, CFLs reduce mercury pollution.
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/sustainable/Powerplay%20articles/16Powerplay.Mercury.CFL.html
Serious environmentalists don't claim global warming causes tsunamis. They also support the use of nuclear power to reduce global warming.
They support solutions that can be used on a wide scale, in particular these:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
Yes, there are a few extreme environmentalists. Just as there are a few extreme conservatives who claim global warming is not caused by us, in spite of the overwhelming data. They're not the majority, in either case.
Here's what the majority of environmentalists (and the vast majority of scientists) believe about global warming. Solid peer reviewed data.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
By the way, I can't believe anyone is still recommending the "swindle" movie, which has been thoroughly refuted.
It is simply a political statement which distorts science.
"The science might be bunkum, the research discredited. But all that counts for Channel 4 is generating controversy."
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2032572,00.html
Gore's movie may be a little over dramatic, but it has the basic science right. This movie does not.
Channel 4 itself undercuts the movie in a funny way. If you go to their website on the movie you find links to real global warming information. They also say "Confused now? Ask the Expert." The link for questions goes to a respected mainstream scientist who supports (mostly) human responsibility for global warming.
No one with any knowledge about global warming believes it. It's one of those extreme and wrong things you're worried about.
2007-05-07 03:25:09 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
These people are radicals as well as idiots. The problem with being a radical is that when people agree with you (re Global warming) You have to be more extreme to keep being a radical outside the rules (although they all wear trainers and jeans) They are a silly bunch and should really be ignored or a least mocked but for the fact they are crazy enough to do just about anything. If you get a chance co to milkandcookies.com there is a great video called the great global warming swindle it really opened my eyes.
2007-05-07 02:55:55 · answer #2 · answered by liam r 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the upward thrust in image voltaic output can account for on the main one quarter of the Earths enhance in temperature interior the final century. A panel convened by the united statesnationwide examine Council, the rustic's maximum suitable technological information coverage physique, in June 2006 voiced a "severe point of self assurance" that Earth is the well-liked it somewhat is been in a minimum of four hundred years, and probable even the final 2,000 years. NASA accepts this,maximum scientists settle for this. i don't have a project accepting this.
2016-10-30 13:21:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IMO, the reason people make claims such as that is an effort to control the lives of others.
In this case, if people's actions can be shown to be "harming the environment", then laws can be passed to dictate how people live. It is a backdoor way of implementing Socialism or Communism. Both of these forms of control require people to live in a "certain" way "for the better good of society".
I believe in a certain level of responsibility and some laws to preserve the environment. But I think these scare tactics are over-aggressive, not supported by solid research, and overly broad.
2007-05-07 03:11:27 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Who will tell us that global warming is an awaring situation?.. The least will come from the right wings of the wealthiest countries of the world.
2007-05-07 03:22:22 · answer #5 · answered by teddd 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If people are willing to believe everything that is said about global warming, why not this? They believe in extreme weather events, extreme colds, draughts and floods (either global warming is going to cause draughts or floods not both), bring on a new ice age etc.
By the way one such person just asked such a question,
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AnrVn4a.BKPMAO8WBxqYwUUFxgt.?qid=20070507073029AAIgN09
2007-05-07 04:03:12 · answer #6 · answered by eric c 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I never heard anyone try to claim global warming caused tsunamis. Where did you hear that?
2007-05-07 02:54:54 · answer #7 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are socialist and want to cripple the US . They are doing the same on the war .
2007-05-07 04:57:22 · answer #8 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Pretty much everything you said is crap you got off fox news.
2007-05-07 03:26:08 · answer #9 · answered by Kelly L 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋