The Earth is millions of years old and has always gone hot , cold and hot.... part of it's natural cycle. The 'environmentalist' argument is that it's only been over the last 30 years or so that it all started. I'd look towards the 'Industrial Revolution' away back... which spewed out 10,000 times than we ever could today.
2007-10-30 23:46:08 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Usually at the climax of these natural cycles..CRAP LOADS OF THINGS DIE!!!
2007-10-30 23:55:18 · answer #1 · answered by Cenobia 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is not a fabrication on the part of environmentalists. The projections on the serverity and effects of GW are based on data collected by scientists since the 1950's. Models are based on cold hard facts, and it's a slippery slope, no doubt, because scientists can't point to any prior examples to help guide their way.
The argument is not limited to the last 30 years. Evidence does indicate the problem began with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. The "spewing" you referred to has been mitigated somewhat, but increased population, etc. continues to factor in.
If it is to your personal advantage to bend facts and ignore data and generally look the other way while the planet's environment goes down the toilet, that's your privilege. I choose to become informed, but I'm not at the point I can rattle off facts from the top of my head, and that kind of information scares some people and bores others, anyway. What I can do is provide you with links to sites that I've found useful, and suggest that you carefully read the information, digest it, and think about what these articles indicate.
The Earth is estimated to have formed some 4.56 BILLION years ago, based on clues within the oldest mineral grains ever found. And in the span of just a few centuries, we've altered life conditions to the point that our very survival may be at stake, and certainly life as we know it may change significantly in the decades to come unless strong, timely action is taken. That process is happening now, despite you, and you can come on board and be part of the solution, or stay in the shadows and be part of the problem.
Your choice.
2007-10-31 08:40:47 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
The predictions made from climate models are nothing more than guesstimates. The modellers themselves admit that climate models are useful tools to help understand climate, but they are nowhere near good enough to say anything about the future. They have been taken up by political activists and presented to the public as scientific fact when they are nothing of the kind.
Climate change is happening, it has always happened and always will, as long as this planet exists, it is part of how our atmosphere works. We need to learn to adapt to it, not waste time energy and money in a futile attempt to stop a natural process.
The degree of warming and man's contribution to it have been grossly exaggerated by people propagating a political agenda. We need to use our resources wisely and clean up after ourselves, but it won't make a scrap of difference to climate change.
So it is not my nightmare. My nightmare is the human population doubling every 50 years. 1.5Bn to 6.0Bn in the 20th century, maybe 12.0Bn by 2050. How can we possibly house, clothe, feed, provide water, power, transport and employment for all these people, and at the same time reduce our effects on the environment. It just defies common sense
2007-10-31 16:07:24 · answer #3 · answered by mick t 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Has anyone stopped to realise that nowadays our cars are the cleanest they have ever been? They have very low emissions and are extremely economic to run so why is everyone blaming cars for global warming? Modern society has become so paranoid about clean air, etc. The Clean Air Act was brought in in 1956, we went over to unleaded fuel, we introduced catalytic converters to our cars, how much more can we do to clean up the air? No, climate change is not my nightmare - it's the idiots that are trying to convince us that it is down to us when it is something completely natural, they are my nightmare. Having to listen to them constantly bleat on about how they want us to stop living and working and sit in our homes in the dark, with no heat and just look at four walls. This is because we mustn't drive, use power, or anything that will cause CO2 (stop breathing as well). Once upon a time we burnt our rubbish and used the heat produced
to warm homes and heat water. Now we've stopped burning the rubbish, we are slowly disappearing under mountains of it - clever, eh? And we can't heat our homes or water because it can cause CO2 - oh how we've been conned, or rather you lot have who believe this rubbish.
2007-10-31 13:18:56 · answer #4 · answered by Lynda Lou 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your facts and figures and conclusions are wrong. You really should watch the attached clip so you can understand the concept of "doubling time".
Pay close attention to one concept he explains ... after each doubling time you have used more resources than in all previous history. We spew a lot more today, I'm sorry to say.
The nightmare continues to grow.
2007-10-31 09:33:06 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
How many cars were there during the industrial revolution? None. And cars, along with heavy industry, are one of the biggest contributors to environmental degradation.
Environmentalists mostly reckon the start of the industrial age is when the problem got set in motion-and as we got so set in that lifestyle we are only now beginning to see its effects. Not only that but we are not making enough changes in the way we live and manage our resources to avert climate change.
2007-10-31 06:57:04 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I "think" that your "presumptions" could use some "working on".
While "pollution" control in general was non-existent during the "industrial revolution" there still is not any controls on "carbon dioxide", so much more is being pumped out now than "back then".
2007-10-31 08:15:41 · answer #7 · answered by Brian A 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The levels of emission during the "industrial revolution" were negligible, compared with the levels today.
my nightmare is "Nuclear Iran", " Nuclear terror" and "nuclear retributions" than "climate change"
2007-10-31 08:11:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try a book called "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. Brilliant.
2007-11-01 07:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Hillary Clinton is my personal nightmare.
IMO anyone who pays the least bit of attention to Al "The Biggest Hypocrite" Gore is foolish. Until "The Biggest Hypocrite" stops using 20 times more electricity than the average family of 4 and flitting about the country and world in a private jet he should shut up. As is all too typical of a liberal he wants us to "Do as I say, not as I do."
2007-10-31 06:57:23 · answer #10 · answered by EDWIN 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I totally agree with you, mankind wasn't even around during the last climate change so they have no experience of what to do
2007-10-31 06:59:00 · answer #11 · answered by Tower Of Strength 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋