I wonder if all these "Industrial Revolution" people can answer how it all happened 1000 years ago in much the same way....
Oh, right, Michael Mann says that no longer happened.
2007-08-16 05:18:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by truthisback 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
If I can steal a quote from Rush Limbaugh, and I'm not a dittohead by any means,
If people want to own SUVs and pay for all that gas, whats it matter, they're willing to pay for it.
My response is,
Wouldn't you want a more fuel efficient vechile, espeically with gas at 2.87 a gallon like it is now?
Granted, you didn't choose your car your father did, but I would ask for future purchases from you, your father, or any body,
even if this global warming thing isn't real,
wouldn't you want a more fuel efficient vechile?
--
Regarding the seals, thats funny, and it does illustrate the point that the whole global warming thing really needs to have good science before anything drastic needs to happen.
However, saving money, thats something I'm about. So a more fuel efficient car is what I intend to buy next time.
Now, I must say, that when I bought the car I have now in 2001, the hybrids weren't good value.
I think the next time I do buy a car the value will be there.
Saving money, doesn't that appeal to the conservative in you?
Greed is good!
2007-08-16 12:31:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
"Global warming" does exist. Current temperatures are higher than past norms.
*BUT*...the cause of this change in average temperatures has not been proven..by anybody. Temperatures are rising on other planets in the solar system as well. Libs whine and cite "consensus" among scientists...which is nonsense, since consensus is not science. Science is reproducible results that stand up to scrutiny. And this is the scrutiny that man-made global warming wackos cannot stand up to:
1 - What percentage of current temperature increase is due to man, and what percent is due to natural variation of the sun or other factors?
2 - Man-made global warming enthusiasts use the "hockey stick" graph to predict catastrophic effects in the future. This graph is based on the output of global climate models. Yet these models cannot be accredited. Global climate models predict future warming even when *RANDOM* data are input for past temperatures, indicating that the model algorithms would predict future warming regardless of the past.
3 - Global climate models use past recorded temperatures, but for years prior to 1700, they use other methods to "estimate" temperatures. These methods cannot be validated, their accuracy cannot be confirmed.
So many Y!A libs have run from this scrutiny...it is staggering.
2007-08-16 12:52:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well, I'm sure overlooking the Industrial Revolution, as others have pointed out, is simply an honest mistake. Something else caught my eye in that article:
"The Architect of the Capitol estimates that by having installed energy-efficient comfort-control systems and lighting, including occupancy sensors that automatically turn off lights when they are not needed, they are saving American taxpayers more than $2.2 million per year."
Hmmm... I wonder how much would have been saved over the years had Reagan not removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House roof?
http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/newsreleases/2007/07-18.pdf
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/03/solar.html
2007-08-16 12:29:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by sagacious_ness 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
There was this little thing called the Industrial Revolution. And in its early days, there were no restrictions or regulations on the smoke coming out of the many factories that popped up. So, to answer your question, no, it was not the SUVs, but there are other things that it most certainly could have been. You get an E for Effort.
2007-08-16 12:07:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
dear pretty pretty princess,
1922 was not that long ago in the grand scheme of things. since the industrial revolution, which happened shortly before the year you speak of, we have been polluting our atmosphere. it has been steadily warming since then. at the beginning of the 20th century, it was factories that contributed most to the pollution. now we have factory farms, industry, urban development that depletes resources, and your precious SUV polluting the air. i do not know what your 'find' proves other than the fact that we have been polluting the atmosphere for 100 years.
- an informed, hard-working gal who buys her own vehicles and tries to give a damn about the future of her planet
2007-08-16 12:33:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
What exactly is wrong in trying to extend the life of this planet?
Yes, we have had global warming before, but didn't that happen on nature's timetable?
Do we need to accelerate it?
I hear that scientists are trying to extend human life expectancy, why not the planet?
2007-08-16 12:22:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hmmm this is actually food for thought. I wont give you the con-smack for this.
Now, are there articles and information that speak to the glaciers re-forming? Are these areas that re-formed or have they been gone since that time.
2007-08-16 12:04:58
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
excellent point to bring up.During that era,coal was the fuel of choice during what was the height of the industrial revolution.Even then people realized it was a problem and went to "cleaner"burning liquid fuels.
Moral is that the environment is a dynamic entity.There are no absolutes.
2007-08-16 12:11:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
no, but I'm sure all the factories that were unregulated at the time didn't help :)
P.S. There will be peaks and valleys.. in other words next year may be much cooler and show less signs of Global Warming than this year.. but as a whole.. the entire trend is moving up.
2007-08-16 12:03:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by pip 7
·
6⤊
3⤋