If you consider the time the planet has been in existence?

Question

Over the course of its existence, our planet has been much colder and much warmer than it is today, having endured periodic ice ages and various cataclysmic natural events. That being the case, why would anyone choose to believe that human beings are responsible for the earth's most recent, and relatively mild, climatic shift?

This is hilarious, all of these faithful and their scientists, and not one of you has read a single thing from the 20,000 or more scientists who say that AGW is a myth, you just cannot bring yourself to open your teeny little minds that what pap you are eating everyday is a LIE. AGW was a conclusion morons, not a hypothesis, they started with what they told you to believe and then built a house of lies to support it. That is not science, it is propaganda, you fools just eat it up. You have no open minds, you have closed them and will only accept that which supports your world view. sheep!

sagacious_ness - surely someone as "smart" as you can Google, and you should know what a real scientist is, and it ain't algore or the IPCC. Get a grip you want knowledge go earn it, no free lunches around here. sheesh, someone is always looking for a handout.

Answer 1

It is merely a 'cause' to band together liberal 'socialists'. Democrats pander to peoples concerns, it's how they get votes.
They get funds and count on votes from women by being pro-choice, minorities for supporting affirmative action, gays for supporting gay rights, unions for not supporting school vouchers, and environmentalists supporting things such as not drilling for oil in Alaska.

Answer 2

You know I think it is hilarious, I see stop global warming stickers on Chevy Suburbans and Ford Expeditions, I have also seen the stickers on old 70's and early 80s cars that are dripping oil and have oil smoke coming from the tailpipes. I can't believe the hypocrites. If you really believe that man it the cause for global warming then ride a bike or get a Prius. If you are just playing lip service then that's fine. but don't knock my car with the V-8 which pollutes less then some small imported cars that are not properly tuned. I personally believe that most of the climate change is natural with man having a small effect.

I remember that in the 70's they were absolutely positive that we were entering another ICE AGE. I am firmly convinced that WE DON'T know what the future brings. They can't even predict accurately what the weather will be in 1 week much less than 1 year from now.

These same climatologist also said that last year the hurricane season would be as bad if not worse than the previous year.

They said the same thing about this year and its not happening.

We have only been able to track the weather for 200-400 years, We can't say for certain what the weather was like 1,000 years ago. much less 10,000 years ago. We can guess by looking at geology but we can't be 100% positive.

Answer 3

With out a doubt,there has to be other Intelligent life in the universe.We know that for life to exist there must be water,light and Temperature. How many planets are orbiting suns in the universe? i want to guess and say that there are most likely hundreds of life supporting planets and yes i would imagine that some are far superior to our race.Think about it,we have a whole Society based on greed and ruled by wars.

Answer 4

It is funny/sad that the liberals don't talk about how to save the planet using positive economic solutions. If one kills the economy, we have less assets to environmentally friendly dispose our waste.

The environmentalist don't acknowledge how much rain-forest is destroyed to grow the sugar to power Brazil's cars. They also don't acknowledge 1 person using Jack in the Box's used French Fry oil is supplying a service to them while the populace attempting to use it creates another sell-able product for them.

If the save the planet people truely wish to save it, they need to look at how does one change the economics of Renewable Energy. At present according to the Renewable Energy people themselves even with negating all capital cost it is 2 to 4 times as expensive as grid power.

The solution must be started/under way before the energy crisis collides with the baby-boomers' retirement bill. Remember Social Security can only invest in goverment debt!

Answer 5

I hope you're kidding. The earth has never been this warm, in the history of our planet, and there is a very obvious upswing. Not even Bush can pretend it's not real any more. He's just choosing to ignore it. But he has stopped saying it's lie. If things continue the way they are, there is going to be a major climate shift. My AP environmental teacher basically described it like this. The Amazon will most likely flood that entire low area and it will probably be raining near year round and be uninhabitable. Places like Mexico, New Mexico and Arizona will become like the Sahara desert, and places like Utah and Colorado will be like New Mexico and Arizona were. The north pole will most likely melt, flooding the coasts of the world. Bye New York, LA, the Netherlands, the UK and many more. You know how it always seems weird when your ice cube in your drink melts and the water level doesn't go up? With the floating ice, that isn't a problem. But Greenland and Antarctica are land based. And when the snow and ice melts off that, it only adds to the water level. Another large problem, is that scientists are worried we are about to enter an ice age. The large current though the major oceans is warmed by thermal vents coming from the center of the earth. There were 12, and now all but two have stopped due to the desalinization of the oceans from melting ice. Once those last two stop, bye bye temperate climate. Also, in the ice of Antarctica which is rapidly disintegrating, there is methane gas which is more than double as much of a greenhouse gas than CO2. And the melting ice, changes the albedo of the earth (albedo is the reflective property of various things on the earth). Things like snow and ice reflect sunlight, cooling the earth, while things like cities, roads, and that's right children, water (hello oceans which are expanding, that's right, major UH-OH) absorb the sunlight and warm the earth. Basically, if we don't do something, we are going to destroy our climate and lives as we know them. It's really scary. There is nothing negative about cleaning anyways. Not one person has said that cleaning our air and cutting down on greenhouse gases would hurt the earth. I would love to drive over a big hill and see my city clearly, instead of in this disgusting cloud of smog.

Answer 6

that's great, and for most of earths 4.5 billion years of existence no animal could even survive on earth. Animal life has only been around for a couple hundred million years. During this period greenhouse gas induced global warming has caused mass extinction. Only this time there is no evidence at all for a natural source of increased greenhouse gas concentration. Only one source is known with 100% certainty: the human one

By removing an uptake part of the carbon cycle (forests) and increasing the emission part (combustion) only an idiot cannot see that this will have an effect on earths atmosphere. This is not even including methane, HFC's, and hundreds of other greenhouse gases put off by human activity. Most of these gases are more effective IR absorbers than CO2 and lack a natural sink.

The debate in the scientific community is over, only a few loony scientists preach their agenda while be funded by oil and coal companies as well as right wing nuts like yourself. They are akin to those scientists who deny evolution and smoking's link to cancer.

Your 20,000 scientist figure is in reference to fraudulent petitions signed in the early and late 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Answer 7

Honey, it's plain as day, to me. Libs are bored. BORED! They have no jobs, no life, and no desire to be better than they are. I hate to be crude, but there it is. Let's make up something that might help Libs get this gist of reality. Hmmmm, something like, "PROVE Global Warming exists"?
You're exactly right. The arrogance of man is astounding! To think that man with their pipes, cigars, cigarettes, cars, oil, gas, coughing, nuclear power, name anything else, will destroy the earth, is ridiculous, and the height of stupidity. All of these things come from Earth, herself, or else where did we get them? Oh yeah, Libs claim hairspray will destroy the atmosphere, too. LMAO!
As well as all of these things coming from Earth, they also came from the Universe. Being that Earth is a part of it. Common sense is lacking in a Liberal mind, and it is obvious to me.

PS Do you feel hotter, or colder today? LOL I feel the same as I did when I was 4.

Answer 8

I call global warming -GOREbal warming.....

I belief false prophet's still exist today. Gore is taking what the Bible does say, and since many unbeliever's refuse to pick up the word of GOD, he can mislead with false science doctoring and twist the truth to his own benefit.

For it is written:

Science and Global Warming
Global Warming.

Revelation 16:8-9 (King James Version)

8 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.

9 And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

Science.

1 Timothy 6:20 (King James Version)

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Fortold in The BIBLE

Answer 9

You are right of course (unless you are one of those folks who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and of course these are the same folks who don't believe in global warming using the very evidence you cite...but I digress).

Let's just stop talking about Global Warming. The reality is that we are pumping tons and tons of pollution into the air every day -- much of it from coal. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or Al Gore to understand this. It's no mystery.

So when do we get serious about pollution...irregardless of global warming.

And on one final note...let's do talk about the time of our own existence on this planet. I've been around since 1965 and I can remember playing outside in the 70's all day without sunburning like I do now just cutting my grass over three hours. And how about the huge spike in asthma?? How about ozone alerts...never heard of such a thing in 70's...but I've one right now in wonderful oil refinery rich Tulsa, OK.

So just keep on telling us there's nothing happening.

Oh...and just what is your investment in proving that there is no global warming??? What's the payback for debunking it??

I don't get it.

Answer 10

Call me what you will, I'm more likely to heed the warnings of the scientific community, most of whom feel that people most definitely ARE having a negative impact on the environment, then to heed your rants. By the off-chance that those who claim that we're NOT having any such impact are right- and I'm not saying they are- when in doubt, it's best to err on the side of caution. Unless someone can demonstrate beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that what people do doesn't make an iota of a difference- and that hasn't happened yet by any stretch of the imagination- that's what we should do: err on the side of caution.

Answer 11

A) Why does the notion of climate change resulting from human activity upset you so? Ever hear of Type I and Type II errors? Those of us concerned with climate change MIGHT be committing a Type I error - arguing for action with predictable and *manageable* costs with the possibility that these actions and costs are unnecessary; a "wrong" decision results only in the known costs incurred. You prefer to commit a Type II error - arguing to do nothing and incur no costs in the near-term with the risk of incurring catastrophic, irreversible results if your decision is wrong.

B) Given a 95% scientific community concurrence with the theory of climate change as human-caused, I'll stack 380,000 scientists against your 20,000. Care to raise me? Oh snap! You can't.

C) Why are you ignoring the smoking gun of CO2 content in the atmosphere, which has moved within a band of concentrations during your ice ages and "cataclysmic natural events" - until now, when CO2 levels EXCEED levels observed in ice core samples that enable visibility to ancient and pre-historic atmospheres? Just how DO you explain the CO2 aberration? Oh, you ARE clever - you just have your head in the sand!

D) Why is this "relatively mild" climatic shift that you mention causing our military, and militaries around the world, to so drastically alter their force and technology projections? Why are insurance companies changing their actuarial tables to account for such a mild, benign, ho-hum climatic shift?