English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I do agree that we can't control the emissions of volcanoes and other natural contributors but why do we compound the problem with our own contributions and then say we have no control over this issue?

2007-07-09 06:41:02 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

Heart and Troll: And the guy above you....yeah I realize I typed the wrong word after I had already submitted it!!

And ...believe me ...I knew one of you if you were on would point it out!

Thanks~

2007-07-09 07:31:17 · update #1

10 answers

I don't know anyone who is saying we don't need to cut back on pollution.

This issue of Global Warming if that is what you are getting at is about CO2 emmisions. That is an altogether different issue than pollution.

2007-07-09 06:46:19 · answer #1 · answered by osborne_pkg 5 · 1 0

I think you misunderstand.

I don't know anyone that is pro-pollution. I think we all would like to keep our planet clean.

Here's where the opposition comes in - when Al Gore and his buddies use scare tactics and claim that man is creating global warming without concrete evidence. The earth has cooled and warmed for millions of years, long before the industrial age. There is no concrete evidence that man is causing the warming. If there were, scientists wouldn't be debating it...

And why do we keep insisting that the current temperatures are the ideal temperatures? Maybe a warmer planet would be better?

In case you didn't know, Mars is warming too. I'm pretty sure there aren't any SUV's on Mars.

I also think a lot of people would like alternate energy sources, but they just don't exist. Last I checked, I can't run down to the local car dealer and buy a solar-powered car.

So let's keep the planet clean, but without the hype. Let's look for alternate, cleaner energy, but make sure it's truly better overall than our current sources.

2007-07-09 13:53:31 · answer #2 · answered by KAVE 2 · 3 0

Did you mean infinitive, a grammatical term, or infinite, a math term?

If the latter, then you are quite wrong, since you have no concept of infinity.

And before you regulate a finite amount of carbon dioxide, you had better have concrete analysis of the percentage of current global warming that is man-made, and the percent that is due to natural variation of the sun.

But since you don't know the difference between a split infinitive and infinity, I doubt that you can address the causal question.

2007-07-09 14:14:23 · answer #3 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

It perplexes me... we can honestly say there is a green house effect.. I mean.. without it the Earth would be a frying pan during the day and an ice cube at night... so we know these gases regulate our heating cycle... and don't think that pumping billions of tons into the atmosphere with change the system? if there was ever any doubt before the effects of CFC's burning holes in our Ozone layer there shouldn't have been after. We can adversely effect our planet.. but it goes both ways.

Let nature regulate itself as far as the volcanoes and what not.. but it's irresponsible not to take care of our part.

2007-07-09 13:47:27 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 1 2

It contributes but not to the degree that Fat Gore thinks it does. Think of all of the houses that have been burned and the forest fires. The volcanoes are just the tip of the iceberg. One forest fire puts out more than most other combustions do.

2007-07-09 14:25:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Only if you consider your exhaling as a pollutant....
This just in...
"Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively. ""
For that link from New Zealand go here...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html

2007-07-09 13:54:33 · answer #6 · answered by Cookies Anyone? 5 · 2 0

Good question. Here's another. Do you drive? You likely will find the answer to why we compound the problem with our own contributions in your own answer to that question.

2007-07-09 13:45:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Im holding my breath so I dont release any Co2 Kelly :) I also promise not to eat any mexican food so no other green gases escape ;P

2007-07-09 13:45:48 · answer #8 · answered by sociald 7 · 2 0

Yep, why do we have bad air days? Oh, my bad its from cow farts!

2007-07-09 13:45:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

then get off the computer, do you know how much electricity you are using on you comp. alone?

2007-07-09 13:44:51 · answer #10 · answered by Random Black Woman 6 · 3 2

fedest.com, questions and answers