If Global Warming were actually AFFECTING Mn (it hasn't really "warmed" there in 45 years - see linked article) we might, just might, be able to talk about whether Gorebull Warming affected the bridge.
The question IS, however, being "asked." That's sort of like asking "Did Galileo have anything to do with JFK's assassination?"
2007-08-09 04:08:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by jbtascam 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Why do you have to politicize everything? If you get your information from a right-wing source like the Free Republic, you're automatically biasing yourself.
I asked a similar but un-politicized question where I directly linked Joseph Romm's (the so-called "Ex-Clinton official" who is an expert on many issues and was the acting assistant secretary at the Dept. of Energy at one point) comments on the issue:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX?qid=20070808101237AAlmikL
The spin for the right makes it sound like Romm said "Global warming caused the collapse!!". What he actually said was (paraphrasing) "global warming may have played some role in the collapse". And it's possible that climate change did play a very miniscule part in destabilizing the bridge, which is all he's suggesting.
Next time get your facts from a more reliable source. Free Republic and redstate.com - give me a break. Why not just go straight to everything_liberal_is_evil. com?
2007-08-09 05:30:28
·
answer #2
·
answered by Dana1981 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Like any specific event, it is not possible to attribute it to GW.
The situation that led to its collapse, however, is analogous to GW. The bridge was inspected by experts over 10 years ago. Those experts issued a warning that the bridge was dangerous. That warning was ignored, and the suggested remedies were not implemented. Eventually the warnings came true, the bridge collapsed and everyone was sorry. Will the politicians who ignored the warnings be identified and punished? Not likely. In the case of GW, however, the warnings are about the whole Earth, and the possible casualties include all our descendants.
By the way, I was considering voting for Fred Thompson (I'm a Republican), but I recently found out he was a GW denier, and I could not possibly vote for someone so out of touch with reality.
2007-08-09 05:10:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by cosmo 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No no no no. You're missing the bigger picture. Global Warming is only indirectly responsible for the collapse.
You see, Bush is the great evil. No questions asked. Indisputable. Bush is responsible for Global Warming, which is responsible for the collapse.
So it's Bush's fault.
If you keep confusing the issue, we'll have to send you to a re-education camp. We don't like confusion.
We have a few openings at the John Kerry North Vietnamese Re-Education for a Better Socialist in You. Would you like to schedule a visit?
2007-08-09 07:55:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Your middle source is amazingly slanted. lots because it ought to have been written by using Cheney or Bush. The final source is irrelevant and not approximately bridge fall down in any respect. Quote out of your first source "some would merchandise to even asking the question, "Did climate replace make contributions to the Minneapolis bridge fall down?" My wager is those are the comparable people who deny that international warming is led to by using human beings or that it somewhat is a extreme situation - the comparable people who inevitably say "we are able to adapt to despite climate replace there is." " "yet, in my adventure, those "adapters" are literally no longer attracted to looking out what the impacts of world warming are. The Bush administration has blocked study into the end results of climate replace in this united states and muzzled climate scientists from discussing key climate result themes, such with the aid of fact the relationship between international warming and the present improve in extreme Atlantic hurricanes - that's clearly an significant style undertaking." "by using the way, for human beings that have forgotten, CAP is the team headed by using former Clinton chief of team John Podesta which in June defined a Democrat attack on conservative talk radio."
2016-10-09 16:04:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am an engineer and know that the thermal expansion of steel can cause it to buckle if sufficient allowance is not made for expansion. Here in the UK there was a case of a rail buckling one hot summer due to insufficient pre tensioning to allow for the expansion. It is not inconceivable that hot weather was a factor in Minnesota, if the prevailing temperatures were extremely hot and there was a major design/construction/maintenance defect.
However it does seem that investigation is not heading in this direction http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/09/national/main3150793.shtml?source=mostpop_story at least for the moment
2007-08-09 04:32:03
·
answer #6
·
answered by Robert A 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Global warming or Ice ages would not have been the main factors of collapses like this . There would though be indicators that elements of global warming or ice ages would have had devistating affects over time on the strength of the steel and concrete. Fatique combined with viberation and overloading, will I'm sure , be found to be the main causes of the colapse.
2007-08-09 03:35:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by reinformer 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
I have heard nobody blame the collapse of the MN bridge on either global warming or G.W. The reasons I have heard are metal fatigue, rust, age and lack of maintenance. Unless George W. is a maintenance man or was an engineer back in the 1940's, he didn't do this one, but then again neither did either of the Clintons.
2007-08-09 03:33:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by jack of all trades 7
·
5⤊
1⤋
You forgot to include the anti-global warming faction on Yahoo Answers. No credible source makes this connection.
2007-08-09 03:57:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
Just sit back, as the vast majority of the people do, and listen to the Libs bray and make complete fools of themselves. It's hilarious....and you don't have to buy a ticket, as you do at the circus. The enviro-wacko show is free.
2007-08-09 04:37:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by I.H.N. 3
·
0⤊
1⤋