Global Warming?

Question

My fellow americans if we don't stop global warming It may be the beginning of the end for the planet. ThenWe can't blame the goverment for our own wrong doing.This is not a debate .This is a real problem.

Answer 1

Nonsense. The entire global warming theory rests on the foundation of the "Greenhouse Effect" theory. The Vostok ice core data shows conclusively that over 450,000 years there has never been an incidence of an atmospheric CO2 concentration change preceding a temperature change. Not once. Temperature always changes first and then the atmospheric CO2 concentration follows.

In the face of Vostok ice core data the Greenhouse Effect theory is either nonexistent or miniscule. In addition, the blackbody radiation calculation of planetary temperatures shows that the greenhouse theory is laughably inaccurate in comparison when predicting temperatures of the planets in our solar system.

Your "fellow Americans" are becoming more and more informed on the subject and are finding the insane repetition of poorly constructed global warming arguments in the face of scientific rebuttal to be more of an indication of the proponents politics than any real threat.

You're right. This is not a debate and it is a real problem. The problem being that the scientifically handicapped, you being one representative of that caste, continues to spew misinformation that is easily rebutted with both scientific data and more applicable theories. I suggest you turn your attention to issues with a higher probability for connection with reality…like the scourge of Bigfoot feces in Pacific Northwest aquifers.

Answer 2

If you took a POLL of climatologists:
Asking: Do they think that Pollution is "majority" contributor to Global warming. You would find that they would be SPLIT.
WHy?
Because, the science of the green house effect is true. However, since there are so many NATURAL sources of green house gases that could effect the climate before pollution.
(ie/ methane production from animals,
volcanos emmitting sulfur & fine particulate and most important of all; the SUN!)
In the 1970's, climatologists impregnated a similar "fear" into society as they are doing now. Except, they were predicting the exact Opposite! In the 1970s a Mini ICE AGE was forcast. Right in the middle of a mini industrial revolution! When gas gozzling cars were emmitting peak amounts of toxic emmissions (green house gases) Industry was careless dumping millions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere. The green house effect was certainly available for debate then too, but the temperature was certainly not going up at that time. Records show that the global temp was going down. Why? Well for about 5-7 years, the sun was producing fewer SOLAR STORMs.
(analogy: if you turn the BBQ knob down, there will be less heat? (1970's). If you leave the BBQ on for an hour (today) the grill is extremely hot?)
So in comparison, those who theorize that the Global warming due to Carbon emmissions argue that THE SUN is the dictator of our EARTH's climate and not just pollution.

Since the Earth has been bombarded by a continous array of Solar Storms for the last 15 to 17 years,(longest in history?) it would be safe to say that the SUN has major influence on the increase in today's global average temperatures.

Sad, for todays' fundamental pro Global warming scientist but more likely than true. We have really no control of the climate.

So why not focus on something that is definitely a concern; CONTROLLING POLLUTION levels.
In the end it will probably will curb green house gases anyways???

Answer 3

Do you know what is responsible for most of the global warming? You might not believe this, but it's true, none the less. Methane gases expelled from cows causes more problems than all the cars and light bulbs in the world put together. The answer to global warming cannot be as simple as electric cars and LED light bulbs. There has to be something done about the gases emitted from bovines all over the world. I don't have a clue as to what could be done about bovine emission, only that it is the biggest problem out there.

Answer 4

The planet Earth is in no imminent danger of being destroyed. Human life will have long since passed from this planet before the Earth itself actually ends. Global warming, if it is actually happening, is not a cause for great concern. There is no accurate measure of any such thing and no one knows the future. It is folly to think that the very agents of catastrophe, humans, can do anything positive to change the course of that problem.

Answer 5

If you desire to obtain provide cash for local weather study, do you suppose that you can get a cheque in case you say," I want the provide, as I suppose that I can end up that the figures that the present paradigm is situated upon are incorrect" ? The best environmentalist, David Bellamy, has been silenced, and refused airtime. There continues to be no confirmed causative hyperlink among the volume of Co2 within the surroundings, and an develop in international temperatures. The WWWF graphics of the polar bears swimming have been taken within the Arctic summer season; whilst the ice cap in part melts, as they could not stand up to photo within the iciness. The ice used to be too thick! The East-Anglian uni study figures. "Oh! The figures do not fit our expectancies. Oh good. Keep quiet. Because we all know that we're proper." When the perception, and the religion is extra major than squarely dealing with the professional doubts of plenty of non provide-supported scientists, technology has been superceded by way of devout zealots. As Oliver Cromwell colourfully stated." I pray thee, within the bowels of Christ, bear in mind that thou mayest be incorrect."

Answer 6

The whole global warming male bovine excretement idea is just something the talking heads have created to distract the public while their pocket is being picked. Wake up, idiots of the world.

Answer 7

Yes, I'm an Indian and even me want to stop this global warming.

Answer 8

Sorry Mr. Chris but THIS fellow American understands that Anthropogenic Warming (A.W.) is not established to the extent many think. Chris, a consensus is not a substitute for a proven event. The probabilistic modeling used to predict climate changes are scenarios and only as good as the parameters & defined variables in the model. Here is a case in point: The Sun, pro A.W. camp claims to have accounted for Sun's effect by measuring Radiant Output. They totally exclude on these models, the strength of the Sun's Magnetic Field which impacts on the ability of cosmic rays interacting with the Earth's atmosphere & the resulting generation of clouds in the atmosphere. With all due respect I don't think that this cycle is being driven by increased CO2 levels. Yet inspite of my misgivings I have run across some very good & cost effective solutions to the issue of CO2 levels in our air. Of all the solutions out there my choice would be: "Iron-Catalyzed Plankton Restoration". Marine phytoplankton have annually absorbed and fixed nearly half of all planetary CO2 emissions or approximately 50 billion tons/year. Seeding plankton poor regions in the South Atlantic Is the least expensive and most envorimentaly benefical strategy. The effects are dramatic one pound of iron dispersed over an expanse of sea water will fix 100,000 pounds of Carbon... This is not a typo! Recent marine trials confirm that one kilogram of fine iron particles can reliably generate well over 100,000 kilograms of plankton biomass this biomass in turn serves as the base of a food chain that provides for marine life in the seas. The size of the iron particles is critical, however, and particles of several micrometres or less seem to be ideal both in terms of sink rate and bioavailability. Particles this small are not only easier for cyanobacteria and other phytoplankton to incorporate, the churning of surface waters keeps them in the euphotic or sunlit biologically active depths without sinking for long periods of time. There have already been small scale demonstrations of this method and the results comform to the predicted levels of carbon sequesteration anticipated. This method DWARFS all other proposed carbon fixation methods and is truly a win/win for all concerned. Current estimates of the amount of iron required to sequester 3 gigatons ( 1 giggaton = 1 billion tons) of CO2 range widely, from approximately two hundred thousand tons/year to over 4 million tons/year. Even in the latter worst case scenario, this only represents about 16 supertanker loads of iron and a projected cost of less than €20 billion. Considering penalties for Kyoto non-compliance in just the EU alone, will reach €100/ton CO2 in 2010 and the annual value of the global carbon credit market is projected to exceed €1 trillion by 2012, even the most conservative estimate still portrays Iron-Catalyzed Plankton Restoration as a very feasible and inexpensive strategy to offset half of all industrial emissions. What I like about this soulution Chris is that it establishes a food chain in a region of the Ocean that's devoid of any. Sequesters massive amounts of CO2 without some huge bloated U.N 'Nanny State' agency, that will just try and to undermine our way of life. If People are serious about sequestering CO2 more than they are advancing a One World Goverment via the U.N. then this process should have no trouble being implemented. If not Chris it just means they really want to sequester more than just your CO2...

Answer 9

ok...its not just ppl creating global warming think of all of the deadly chemicals put into the air from volacanos...those sit and smolter for months pouring out smoke tearing up the o-zone....theres no way to stop it all we can really do is just slow it

Answer 10

Maybe the sun will swell up into a giant red star and devour our planet! Oh, and the bogeyman is hiding underneath your bed!