English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

are you saying its okay to continue to pollute the air and water?? what about the increasing rates in asthema and childhood cancers?

2007-11-20 01:57:32 · 15 answers · asked by CF_ 7 in Environment Global Warming

geeze people its just a question - if you cannot answer it - dont go freaking out or anything... sheesh.. just answer the question.. do other problems concern you or not... where did I even mention Al Gores movie?? sheeeeshhh - a bit paranoid are we?

2007-11-20 02:19:17 · update #1

15 answers

No we are not saying it is OK to pollute the air and water, CO2 is not a harmful pollutant it is a vital atmospheric molecule for life on earth. After all it is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, and will always be a trace gas regardless of how much internal combustion is carried out by the human race. But the real problem here are people worrying about the climate decades into the future, while currently on a typical hazy day on the western sea board as much as 25% of particulate matter in the atmosphere (including lead, mercury and sulfur) is coming from the industrialization efforts by China. And now for the eye roller, the only thing that matters right now is reducing CO2 emmissions so that we may have a positive impact on the climate next century.

2007-11-20 04:21:16 · answer #1 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 0 0

Carbon dioxide is as much a pollutant as water vapour. Our cars make it on purpose to cut down on carbon monoxide emissions, which is actually hazardous for people. (and the environment)

Simply because I'm skeptical about how much mankind has contributed to climate change does not mean I'm advocating polluting our planet. I believe that we should cut down on fuels that contribute to smog by releasing aldehydes, ketones and NOx gases into the atmosphere. (something that does not receive enough press, imo) I believe in recycling, and using less where appropriate. I could go on, but this is already gonna be a long answer.

I also believe strongly in the old saying, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." It's nice to say that you mean well for the environment, (or the trendy cause whatever it may be) but I've seen my share of "green" alternatives that are just as hazardous to the environment as the things they're supposed to be replacing. If you really want to help out, do your homework. Make sure your alternatives don't do more harm than good. Otherwise, you may as well not bother.

Dani, you said it eloquently. Too few people are pragmatic in their approach to anything nowadays, it all has to be the extreme. If anyone is allowed to think for themselves they are labelled "Deniers" and made into pariahs.

2007-11-20 03:13:20 · answer #2 · answered by Heather 4 · 0 0

I do not believe in global warming. I do believe in recycling. I do not think it's okay to pollute anything - that's a loaded, one-sided question, but I shall attempt to answer it. Global Warming is a religion, not a science. It has not been proven by anybody - it's just a theory. To think that us mere humans can destroy the whole world is pretty darn arrogant thinking. I am not saying ignore cancers and asthma, etc. Stuff can be done to improve how we use/re-use items, sure. How can you defend someone who flies all over the world in a private jet to promote global warming, while adding tons of pollution to the atmosphere, which by their beliefs only contribute to the "problem", who now makes a ton of money on scaring people into believing that they can plant a tree to alleviate the problem? (Many trees over hundreds of years won't even make a dent in the pollution problem, by the way!) All I can say is to look at someone's motivation for promoting global warming and it so-called effects. There are seasons to the earth's climate - hot and cold over many millenia.
I say global warming is a cult because it can be defined as "any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific". It needs people to spread it around and convince us all that it even exists and that because it exists, that it's harmful and slowly killing us. It has not been proven at all. Childhood cancers and asthma and all those are not caused by global warming.

2007-11-20 02:27:05 · answer #3 · answered by dtxn 1 · 1 1

No, that is not what I'm saying. The earth goes through cycles, and we are going through one that we haven't been through yet. Get over the blame game. Yes, we can be more responsible for how we use and reuse our resources, but we are not the direct cause of the global warming. Take a look at the earth's climate changes for the past few thousand years, and you will see that there have been many different changes that have affected the people. Even "An Inconvenient Truth" doesn't portray the whole picture. Do your own research before you accuse everyone that doesn't believe the way you do. It is America, you know, and we can feel and think the way that we want to.

2007-11-20 02:09:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

What im saying is this and for this im gonna quote my favorite comedian George Carlin "The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference?..the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE! The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun? The planet is fine the people are ******!!" And there aint a damn thing we can do about it!

2007-11-20 02:28:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Did you know Al Gore Single handedly invented the internet?? Did you know that Al Gore single handedly stopped segragation from his momma's womb????

Al Gore JR is a MORON he is a shame on a great Senators otherwise sterling record. I found An Inconvient Truth really more contrived than Farhenheit 911 (which should say alot right there) and guess what im not conservative or a right wing Jesus nut.

I got a question for you since you obviously believe everything Albert Gore JUNIOR tells you. What is it like to be able not to think on your own??

2007-11-20 11:49:43 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

What does water pollution have to do with Global Warming?

Your question illustrates the issues many skeptics have with the GW evangelists. You mix basic environmental issues like pollution and contamination under the overarching GW umbrella when they are separate and distinct issues, then call the responders names when called on it.

2007-11-20 03:10:13 · answer #7 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1 1

You are buying the political BS fed to you from the left. Al Gwhore is an idiot that will bankrupt America over this natural cycle of the earth. If you think you can judge 5,000,000,000 years by the last 130, or even100,000 you are an idiot also.

2007-11-20 03:53:45 · answer #8 · answered by Evil Conservative Man 2 · 0 1

properly, I do! we could say we did no longer have self assurance in international warming, If it grew to become into real: we would l fry and burn, and Drown, and all lifestyles on the earth that grew to become into Billions of years in the Making... long gone It wasnt: we would all sit down on our lazy butts, at the same time as properly noting takes place. we could say all of us did: It grew to become into real: we would be saving our lives making a greater advantageous could on an identical time! IT wasn't real: we would nonetheless enhance our international. uncommon animals might come back into our international, our Enviorment could Flourish! My philosophy is we would desire to consistently consistently be secure, particularly than sorry!!!

2016-11-12 04:41:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Another typical DA liberal GW question. GW is about CO2. Not about pollution! No one in the US is desiring to pollute the planet.

2007-11-20 11:30:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers