Do u believe this stupid idea ( global warming is the result of air,sea & land transport)?

Question

* In summer around the year (north/south), many natural forest fires occur.
* One forest fire for few days is offering smoke & CO2 more than the whole transport means do.
* That in addition to erupting volcanos.
* So it is a naural warming & nothing to do with my & you car.
* Governments use that as an excuse to rob me & you under different name of robbery,(tax).
BE VIGILLENT PEOPLE & DON'T BE THE MILKING COW FOR THE GOVERNMENT!!

Answer 1

The only fact I have seen thus far that is indisputable is that the sun is causing an increase in global temperatures. That fact is observable by reading the global temperatures of our fellow planets. To anyone who thinks, that is proof that the sun is to blame, not man. Man has not yet even been to other planets.

Here is another observation I have made. I look at the actions and activities of the "man made Global Warming" alarmists at the top of the pecking order. I notice that one of the top high priests of global warming is Al Gore. How big a house does he live in? How much energy does he use? Does he drive a small highly efficient car? Does he limit his air travel to commercial airlines? No. He does not. If not, then why not?

I can only come up with one answer. He knows it is not true.


.

Answer 2

<< Do u believe this stupid idea ( global warming is the result of air,sea & land transport)? >>

No, I beleive it's much more than just transport. Transportation accounts for a little under one fifth of anthropogenic carbon dioixide emissions, there's much more to it than just cars, boats and planes. Power generation in itself is a bigger contributor to global warming. The of course there's all the other greenhouse gases besides carbon dioxide.

<< * In summer around the year (north/south), many natural forest fires occur.>>

Yes they do and in recent years there's been more forest fires than before.

<< * One forest fire for few days is offering smoke & CO2 more than the whole transport means do. >>

No it's not. Transport emissions of CO2 were 5.5 billion tons last year, that's about the same carbon content within 2 billion trees. Have you any idea how big an area would be occupied by a forest consisting of 2 billion trees - it's about the same size as South Carolina.

<< * That in addition to erupting volcanos.>>
Volcanoes cool the planet when they erupt because they emit large quantities of sulphur dioxide. Total annual emissions of CO2 from volcanoes is approximately 500 million tons, a tiny fraction of the amount humans produce.

<< * So it is a naural warming & nothing to do with my & you car. >>

It's partly natural and primarily manmade. Try to find someone who has actually studied global warming that claims otherwise.

<< * Governments use that as an excuse to rob me & you under different name of robbery,(tax). >>

And which taxes would they be that have been imposed on you, please identify them. There have been some taxes imposed on certain people who pollute more than average but these have been offset by tax reductions for those that pollute less. Personally I've made quite substantial savings and you could as well.

Answer 3

Transport causes Global Warming, but not by producing CO2.

As well as the engines releasing a lot of heat into the atmosphere (like an small EXTRA volcano erupting where each city is), the roads we drive on are reflecting (concrete) or absorbing and re-emitting (tarmac) solar energy that would otherwise be absorbed by plants and stored in biomass.

The atmosphere seems large, but it's actually a very thin layer wrapped around the planet, and we are doing so much energy-intensive activity that we can affect its average temperature. That includes transport, but also manufacturing, cooling (ie moving heat out-of-doors), lighting, etc. 70+ % of the electricity that is generated is wasted on 'transmission losses' (ie heating up the wires, switches, transformers & storage) before it even reaches the user.

This is all ADDITIONAL to the heat released by natural events, and the loss of natural habitat reduces the natural capacity of the planet to remove energy (absorb and store sunlight) from the system.

Carbon Dioxide is a red herring (but a very profitable one, which is why it's being promoted so heavily). Almost all large biomass (including ourselves, and trees (by 'respiration'; check it out, they DON'T just photosynthesise), and many bacteria, and most marine life) produces CO2. The natural 'oxygen donators' (microorganisms found in soil & water) have also been removed by disruption of natural habitats. We are causing CO2 to rise, but it's only one out of a huge number of 'pro-greenhouse' and 'anti-greenhouse' factors that interact in complex ways.

What we do differently is to use (release) energy in very high concentrations, as if extra lightning were striking all over the planet That's what our carefully-balanced life support system (ecology) can't cope with.

Less energy use is the only practical solution. The energy we do use needs to be either non-electrical (eg direct waterwheel power), or generated in small amounts right where it is going to be used.

Answer 4

No I certainly do not. Global warming and climate change may be happening but it is not due to driving a few cars around but to a power much greater than anything we are doing on this litttle planet - a little burning orb up there in the sky called the sun. Read that and weep - and we are all being conned in the process - bit like the weapons of mass distraction? Apparently we have five years to save the planet - the fact is that the planet has been through all sorts of climate change in the past and will continue to do so - whether we make it through or not is something out of our hands - but what does it really matter - we are just minute meaningless specks.

Answer 5

I am vigilant. Not "vigillent". Often the problem with getting information is the inability to read it. I don't want to sound insulting, but perhaps learning how to read and write the English language will help you understand the science behind global warming.

There are numerous places to go to for research analyses and information about global warming. If you don't want to believe Al Gore, then perhaps the Cousteau Society might be a place to start. Remember Jacques Cousteau, oceanographer and environmentalist from way back? Well, his website deals with the effects global warming has had on Antartica. Read it and weep, indeed.

A simple Google search will yield you any number of places to begin researching global warming. It's always best to have an informed opinion.

Answer 6

Are you aware that unless there is something in the title of a scientific paper relating the paper to Global Warming, then scientists will not receive government funding for their research?

Sorry folks, but all this talk of global warming and blaming it on the man on the Clapham omnibus, is absolute rubbish. It is an INDUSTRY and a great many people are making a living out of it.

In an earlier answer I said that we all began hearing about global warming the day after we stopped hearing about the hole in the ozone layer. Think about it.

Answer 7

Nature has a way of fixing itself, filtering the air and water. But with so many people and so much dirty industry we're sort of "backing up" the Earth's filter system. Usually harmful gases have been able to release into space leaving our atmosphere, but now, the atmoshpere is much thicker with pollution. This causes the ozone to hold in, trap, the gases that would normally filter out.

If you understand physics, geology, math, biology, astronomy, etc. you can calculate your personal energy consumption and that of the "average" American. Then multiply that number by all the people around the world. It does add up. The Earth itself does produce gases, but we have contributed to the excess.

Besides, wouldn't you rather be safe than sorry? I have the same perspective on global warming as God: I'd rather believe in God and find out He isn't real than not believe in Him, and then find out He is real.

Answer 8

CANNABIS HEMP IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT TOOL TO REVITALIZING OUR ENVIRONMENT AND PROMOTING NEW GLOBAL CONCERN

Many people know that Cannabis Hemp will be good for our environment. IT has been endorsed by various political & environmental groups. There are a variety of ways that Cannabis Hemp can promote environmental awareness and help restore our earth. Until now, however, Cannabis Hemp has been a low priority among environmental activists, especially due to its association with Marijuana. Here on this website are the summary uses of Cannabis Hemp for our environment. No one should doubt this vital information. There is no better solution to our ecological problems. The truth is as plain as day.

Answer 9

Would you care to defend your points with some kind of evidence? Forgive me for not taking your word for it, especially since your third point provides serious doubt. From Wikipedia:

"Emissions of CO2 due to volcanic activity, though sometimes large on a local scale, are relatively minor on a global scale, accounting for between 0.02 and 0.05 Pg C per year."

"Globally, transport-related emissions of carbon dioxide are growing rapidly. They currently consitute around 24% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions [nearly 2 Pg C per year, which is 100 times the volcano contribution]"

To summarize:

Point 1: True, there are forest fires. No kidding.

Point 2: I found no evidence to support your claim that one forst fire emits more CO2 than the entire transportation sector, in fact I'm 100% sure that's a false statement, and astazangasta just proved why it doesn't matter anyway. If you're going to try and convince anyone of anything, I suggest you provide some evidence in the future.

Point 3: Erupting volcanoes are a relatively very minor source of CO2 (1-2% of the transportation sector alone).

Point 4: You contradict yourself here, because you admit that CO2 is a source of global warming. Cars emit CO2, therefore they have SOMETHING to do with global warming. You can try to argue that humans and our cars are minor contributors, but you cannot argue that we are not contributors, because you already admitted that we are.

Point 5: Paranoid and ridiculous.

Also a point which was later made, it is incorrect to say that cows contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases. That conclusion is based on data nearly 100 years old and recently proven vastly incorrect by a study performed at UC Davis.

Answer 10

YES, I do believe it is stupid to believe this. this is all propaganda.

this planet has been on a warming trend for ALOT longer than humans have been here. it is not a problem it is planetary evolution. it is a phase our planet must go through.
it is comparable to the four seasons, the planet warms, and cools over eons of time, it is not something we can change or stop, unless of course we can stop the earths orbit around the sun, oh ya and most likely also stop our galaxies orbit in the universe...