I agree. The climate of the earth is always changing without the influence of humankind. The earth has seen a minor period of warming over the last century following several centuries of cooling. If you plot this warming trend compared to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, you will see that they do NOT correlate. CO2 has been increasing in an exponential curve over the last century, but temperature has fallen, risen, fallen and risen again over the last century.
However, if you look at the attached NASA study of solar output and sunspot activity, a plot of the 11 year average of sunspot activity follows the warming trend almost exactly.
The earth's climate will continue to warm and cool regardless of what humankind does.
2007-08-06 04:11:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by dsl67 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
ha ha is this a joke. If you say global warming is not caused by humans I can say that is a possibility. However if you believe that global warming does not exist look around tons of cities are reaching new records for heat, hurricanes have almost doubled, and many nations have had to be evacuated because of rising water levels. We are the cause of global warming. Also if you believe Al Gore is trying to make money where is he getting it from. The people who are lowering their thermostats or replacing light bulbs? Are you suggesting he gets rich off of energy efficient cars or recycling? If you were a conservation ecology minor you would know that even if global warming was not caused by us we would still be doing wonders for the environment aka what conservation ecology's goal is if I'm not mistaken
2007-08-02 09:25:41
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Odd Job Man:
hab's "ad" instead of "as" is a typo, as anyone who uses a QWERTY keyboard can see. Using spell check would not have helped since "ad" is a word.
Along similar lines, spell check didn't seem to help you out with your flub:
"The argument is weather humans are accelerating the process."
That should be "whether"...unfortunately for you, you cannot claim a typo to cover for your mistake.
And as for a good deal of the rest of you, I have to love all those ad hominem attacks, especially those that imply that a biologist lacks the qualifications to critique the science behind global warming. Given that the chief suspect in GCC is CO2 and that the carbon cycle is largely governed by biological processes, one might wonder what qualifications a climatologist has without an intimate knowledge of the biology behind it.
I suspect that even the scientists heavily vested in GCC science don't dismiss biologists out of hand.
And please, suggesting that you might engage in real question and answer if only hab s would offer some substantive evidence...when has that ever worked in this section? OK. Read this and tell me that there isn't a GREAT potential for fraud and abuse in the name of GCC combat:
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/news/0707_A_gift_from_Scotland_to_Brazil_drought_and_despair.html
2007-08-02 12:58:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by 3DM 5
·
4⤊
1⤋
you are ignorant, sorry to say it. just because you have a degree does not mean you know all about anything. the only thing that bothers me about Al Gore is the way he picks on Bush. YOU will be the laughing stock. the arctic is melting away bit by bit, and the rainforests are disappearing due to bulldozers. do you not realize that our oxygen comes from what plants exhale? we inhale oxygen and they inhale carbon dioxide. it all works together. texas just went through a three year drought, and two unusual south texas snows. I live three hours from the border, and when it snowed ten inches, it was a miracle. I hate to sound rude, but I'm just a straight-forward person. YOU'RE AN IDIOT
2007-08-02 10:19:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by cowgirlCrush* 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
If having a degree in biology qualifies you to comment on global warming then does having a degree in dentistry qualify someone to comment on midwifery. It should do, they're both to do with the human body.
By the way, I have a masters in climatology but I don't involve myself with biology.
Further, if it's all about fleecing the US taxpayer then why have the Saudi's and similar countries acknowledged climate change - they don't even pay tax (other than a 2.5% religious tax), why does every other government in the world acknowledge climate change, how much extra tax have you actually paid, how come it was the Brits who first put climate change on the world agenda, how do you explain it having been scientifically established in the 19th century, why if it's such a grerat money making scheme did governemnts ignore it for the best part of 90 years despite warmings from the scientists, why is the world warming faster now than ever before, where have the glaciers gone, why can't I go skiing in the resorts I used to frequent, why have animal behavioural and migratory patterns changed, why is the ocean showing signs of acidification, I could go on and on but you get the message. Now, do you have any answers?
Also, what has Al Gore got to do with anything, is he a scientist, has he done the research himself, would he have a clue what he was talking about if he weren't simply repeating the science of others?
One more thing, where is any credible scientific evidence to validate your claims?
2007-08-02 09:21:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Trevor 7
·
6⤊
5⤋
You have a BS degree? Sounds about right considering the ignorant statement you just made. I have a BSc (a real degree) and wonder why other countries can see the evidence that Global Warming is real (including oil companies) and also how vain you have to be to consider this an 'american problem'. I would suggest some real education, maybe read a book or better yet an IPCC report, silly troll.
2007-08-02 08:51:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by mistofolese 3
·
4⤊
4⤋
When a global warming denier brings up Al Gore, he's simply admitting that he has no credible scientific arguments.
Scientists (no, not biologists) have proven that global warming is real and mostly caused by us:
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."
Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA
Good websites for more info:
http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"
2007-08-02 09:04:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Bob 7
·
3⤊
4⤋
Leave Al Gore out of it. It's about doing the right thing. Leaving the earth a better place for our children. Who cares what Al Gore thinks or any politician. If you don't care about the environment, then care about your wallet. It saves money going green. Turn the thermostat down, replace a bulb, drive a fuel efficient car, take your lunch to work, hang your clothes outside to dry.......you will save money.
2007-08-02 10:07:49
·
answer #8
·
answered by antoinette 1
·
2⤊
3⤋
Many of us can see that. But the others make a lot of collective noise. Way to many people have been duped by the big money people who are profiting by this sham. Yeah, Al Gore comes to mind. But also, all the so called scientists who are bellied up to the government trough rather than getting real jobs. If they tell the truth about this, they loose those grants.
2007-08-02 08:47:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by John himself 6
·
4⤊
4⤋
Right on! Global warming for the kids today is the next Ice Age that was coming for me in the 70's. Communism had to find a place to land after the cold war and they have latched onto the global climate. It is quite easy to manipulate computer models for the worst case scenario and claim it as science...meanwhile the same people are investing in "carbon tax credits" guaranteed to make them all rich when they sell this bill of goods to the unsuspecting lemmings. I think the taxing that will happen will cripple this country and any of the other productive ones that are stupid enough to sign on....KYOTO anyone:)
2007-08-02 09:15:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Scooter McAsscrackin 3
·
3⤊
5⤋