Are you still a "climate change" nut?

Question

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article

Answer 1

Climate change is a fact and we cannot prevent it.

The amount of cubacks in fossil fuel usage worldwide that would be necessary to stop climate change are so large that it is not realistic that we could ever achieve them.

Instead we must start planning now to mitigate the efects of climate change.

The seas will rise because of the melting of arctic ice.

We must help poor countries that are at sea level build dike systems similar to those in Holland to hold back the sea. We must help relocate the populations in those areas that cannot be protected by dikes.

There will be more hurricanes and they will be stronger.

We must help poor countries with their disaster preparedness.

There will be droughts. We must help poor countries with supplemental water supplies and desalination plants.

Global Warming and climate change cannot be prevented, however we can mitigate many of the negative effects of Global Warming and Climate Change if we start now.

Answer 2

Well geez 3DM, what do you want? There are a couple of minor errors with "An Inconvenient Truth", which is a film from which none of the people who answered here gets their information.

Some glaciers shown in the film aren't retreating? So what? Almost all glaciers worldwide are retreating.

Yes, the IPCC concluded that they can't determine if there's a trend between global warming and tornadoes. It's also true that

"in the report, there is a table that shows that there has likely (>66% chance) been an increase in strong hurricanes since 1970 in some regions. It isn't mentioned, but the Atlantic is the region where this increase has been most notable. Also in that table is the assertion that it is more likely than not (>50% chance) that there has been a human contribution to this trend."

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=620&tstamp=200702

On top of that, people become less receptive to your questions when you call them 'nuts'.

Answer 3

I've actually never believed in Global Warming. Well, at least not on the scale Gore is trying to scare the public into believing it is. It's happening but at a rate of a raise of 1-2 degrees in average temperature over a period of ten years.

After hearing of the theory I researched the claims Gore made about the drying of the rivers in Russia, the drowned polar bears and that ridiculous hockey stick chart that he showed off to the country and I found strong scientific evidence to strike every one of those examples down.

The scientific community believes in Global Warming.. just not at quite the same rate as the common man seems to believe.

Answer 4

the climate is changing more all the time
And there are more nuts everyday

you believe letters and words more than reality
that is the mistake religious people make

that is why you are so vulnerable to mind control and manipulation

I have been in Africa and now in Mexico
seen desertification for my self
dont need editorials to try and tell me something

see in how short a time people can turn lush forrests into desserts
and under the sun which gets hotter by the year replantation is next to impossible

go to the beaches on the equator and see for how longb people stay in the full sun

,this cannot be compared to 10 years ago when we would spend all day in the sun

to day almost nobody does that ,and the whole world wears sun block ,we never used to do that

Answer 5

Well, fedcap, what can you say? To a man (or woman, for that matter) not a single one refuted the claims of the article.

The writer was very fair to Mr. Gore. Unlike the hyperbole that often spills from the keyboards of alarmists here in Y!A, they simply said that "many" of Gore's claims didn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, and that Gore should acknowledge those instances where his claims are/were not substantiated. They didn't say "all" or even "most" of Gore's claims were shaky; they didn't demand Gore recant the entire idea of global warming, either.

But listening to the tap-dancing and smears from most of your answers, you would think that they did.

I think the writer made some very good points to refute Gore's claims. Since no one could come up with ANY scientific or logical reason to invalidate those points, then I would think it only reasonable that Gore answer his critics.

If by "nut", you mean someone who buys into the type of dogma spewed by Gore without questioning it, then I believe you've just identified a few.

Answer 6

I am not so much a climate change nut, but I am a for being a health nut! How can we save what's around us if people won't even save themselves. I think it's beyond glaciers anymore. The trend we are going as a human race...shoot, we won't have to worry about not having enough water because we will all be too sick to repopulate or care.

Answer 7

Of course, that article proves nothing.

Most of these examples look at one place and say "It's not happening here." For example., glaciers are growing a few places, but mostly, they're retreating fast. The fact that they are growing in a few places disproves nothing.

The author is from the "Heartland Institute", a place whose mission is to spread doubt about global warming, not give a balanced view. They receive funding from ExxonMobil. Here's one of their other projects:

"in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco"

You cite the IPCC report of 2007. If that's a good source, global warming is real and mostly man made. It is, and it is.

Answer 8

I'm an environmental nut. I think that the climate change group is a misrepresentation of the environmental community at large. Global environmental health is a holistic issue, and can't be fixed with slogans and partisanship.

Answer 9

If you want to use that term then yes I'm a 'climate change nut' and as such I can separate fact from fiction, accurate representation from distorted opinion and know how to spot an unsubstantiated, biased and factually inaccurate news article masquerading as science.

I deal with science, science is facts. I ignore the media, the media is whatever the writer wants it to be.

There's a saying in the media - 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'. You've cited a classic example.

Answer 10

It is unfortunate that you wish to insult persons that might hold opinions different from yours.

Here are a few facts - though I sense that facts do not effect you much.

- Americans as a whole consume 8 times more energy per capita than the rest of the world citizens. 8 times. Please ponder.

- Germany, whose average yearly insolation is 2.7 kWh per square meter per year, has 100 times more solar panels per person than the USA, which on average receives twice as much solar energy per square meter, and which in places receives as much a three time than amount.

- So, next time you wish to insult someone, please consider the damage you are inflicting to the earth compared to all those foreigners you probably despise.