2007-06-13 04:09:58 · 8 answers · asked by John Galt 2 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Sorry bob, Guess i should just shut up and leave you hypocrites alone then huh. Why should you not have to address this question. Does it make you nervous?
2007-06-13 04:24:15 · update #1
Sorry bob, Guess i should just shut up and leave you hypocrites alone then huh. Why should you not have to address this question. Does it make you nervous?
2007-06-13 04:24:16 · update #2
bob and i didn't attack you personally. You felt offended when you read the question. Maybe it hit home a little too much, huh.
2007-06-13 04:26:02 · update #3
Gee, what a sincere question. As I'm not a hypocrite I can't really answer the question since it doesn't apply to me. If I were to answer it, the answer would be no. My work computer would be on either way, as I just pop over here when I'm waiting to receive information or taking a break, for example. I'm not using any energy that wouldn't otherwise be used. I am spreading information about the science behind global warming, so I guess that makes me an anti-hypocrite.
2007-06-13 05:13:45 · answer #1 · answered by Dana1981 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The problem is systemic - the idea of never using electricity again is stupid and would mean a total regression of society.
What we really need to do is switch to geothermal power and electrical rather than petrol powered machinery - we can still have all the energy we need but none of the emissions (and less pollutants than making solar cells would create), even if you don't believe in global warming this would be a good thing because pollutants from power plants and cars cause lung damage and cancer (causing thousands of deaths worldwide). It would also cost less than any other option for generating electricity other than 'non-clean' coal and even then only marginally and would reduce or eliminate the US reliance on oil and therefore reduce the likelihood of future conflicts in the middle east.
2007-06-13 11:34:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Come on gentlemen it is a misunderstanding . It could be a problem in the thermometer that they measured with 100 years ago. They are looking for an error of 1 deg. A thermometer 100 years old could be off + - 3 deg F.
2007-06-13 14:04:01 · answer #3 · answered by JOHNNIE B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah uh ok and then they could sit around and not do anything about the problem. Now how smart is that. Informing people is just as important as conserving energy. If one conserves big whoopie doo but if many conserve big impact. We humans communicate. Thats what we do. If we don't nothing gets done. End of story.
2007-06-13 11:36:23 · answer #4 · answered by Dustinthewind 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
We don't have to stop doing things to fix global warming. We just have to do them more efficiently. Here's the plan:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
Here's one for you. Why do global warming skeptics make personal attacks instead of scientific arguments (with data, please)?
EDIT: I'm not offended or nervous. What in my wording could possibly give you that idea? It's just an honest, objective question. I answered your question (with the same answer I give to people who ask others to give up cars, spectator events, etc.), you ducked mine completely. Where's the science?
2007-06-13 11:18:35 · answer #5 · answered by Bob 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No-they are trying to save the world.
"Earth-love it or leave it"
2007-06-13 13:10:33 · answer #6 · answered by Ard-Drui 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lol, I see you don't want any opposition. :)
Maybe is our evidence and responses too much for you to handle?
2007-06-13 11:38:49 · answer #7 · answered by Anders 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey, good point! There are some that power their computers using renewable energy but those are the real extremists.
2007-06-13 11:18:06 · answer #8 · answered by Mokey F 2 · 0⤊ 4⤋