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

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AgKjhcNjdWDJLdfcXcGB59vY7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071208170823AAJH4EG

i couldn't believe the answers i got.

"last 100 years . . . temp. increase of 1 degree" whether it sounds so or not, this is incredibly significant. if it was so insignificant, the ice wouldn't be melting, the ph level of the oceans wouldn't be down .5, and a record high number of specie extinctions would not be occuring.

"can't predict the weather two weeks from now" on a microscopice scale, no. we can't get the temp right within .1 degrees, but we get the general temp? yes. this has nothing to do with the global warming argument anyway.

brianthepig's answer was my favorite. he says mars is heating, therefore the sun is to blame. solar levels are on the DECLINE.not only that, but half the planets in the solar system are cooling.all this proves is that we do not have the same atmosphere as mars, and that all planets' environmental conditions aren't not controlled by one factor

2007-12-08 12:49:02 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

“arrogance to presume to understand nature better than nature herself” until mother nature herself learns to speak English fluently, I’m afraid we’re going to depend on our own methods. I’m not even sure if that post warrants this much of a response.

“Well why dont you show us the flawed data that global warming is entirely based on? Why dont you tell us why a British court found the data to be seriously flawed and biased? . . .” the data isn’t flawed. Here’s one piece though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png please disprove it

2007-12-08 12:49:16 · update #1

As for your comment about the british courts: the british courts declared that certain statements in gore’s movie were either inaccurate or not proven. they also said that major premise still stood, and that AGW was a virtual fact. As far as losing grant money: skeptics get paid MORE than advocates. Oil companies fund them. As far as the NAS, I’ve never heard of this study. Please show it to me and I’ll message you privately.

To the guy who mentioned global cooling: that was a minority of scientists. So few there wasn’t even a single commission on the subject. In that case, as in mnay other, the minority was wrong. Right now, the minority is suggesting AGW isn’t real.

2007-12-08 12:49:31 · update #2

slacker: and any degree of warming / cooling is perfectly ok? no!

2007-12-08 12:54:14 · update #3

same answer to jade.

a thirty straight year temperature increase is, by no measure, normal. and to the third poster: no, we aren't sitting pretty. temp levels mimick co2 levels. co2 levels are at an all time high.

2007-12-08 12:58:00 · update #4

ice age = gradual temp decrease over hundreds and thousands of years. what we're going through now is a dramatic increase in temp

2007-12-08 12:59:01 · update #5

10 answers

Misinformed is not the adjective. Ignorant tells the tale. Close minded explains it.

2007-12-08 12:59:09 · answer #1 · answered by joker_32605 7 · 4 3

I'm sorry that you feel so strongly on the issue but fact of the matter is that conservatives agree that there is some warming. What we disagree with is the cause of that warming. If you look at history there are cycles of warm and cold for no reason. Also chart CO2 and temps over the past 2 million years. We are sitting pretty. If liberals want to believe it that is fine but don't tell me how to live my life or force me to change my lifestyle becuase you believe all problems are our fault. You know that there is a problem when the one side says there can't be any other agruments against global warming. Why are they afriad it won't be true

2007-12-08 12:55:53 · answer #2 · answered by Matt 4 · 3 0

No... I believe that the facts actually support the Conservitive position
But... even *IF* the other side is somewhat true, the solutions proposed are worse than if we did absolutely nothing... In other words the "cure" is worse than the "disease". The draconian proposals would do nothing at all to alleviate the problem and would devastate the economy of any country that actually tried to follow them. Even the new socialist Prime Minister of Australia recognized that fact and withdrew his promise to abide by it.... and that's just the old rules.. the new ones are even worse... The Global Warming Scam is nothing less than an attempt at Global wealth redistribution... If you want to live in a third world economy then move to a third world country.. don't drag mind down to that level

2007-12-08 13:03:22 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

How can you argue a point that you have no definite proof of? It's like arguing the existence of Heaven and Hell. You can til' your blue in the face, but there will always be things to help support the argument on both sides of the fence. So my opinion would be to give up on the argument and do all you can personally to help keep the planet clean and prevent the POSSIBILITY of global warming.

2007-12-08 12:58:16 · answer #4 · answered by Wyco 5 · 1 1

my theory is that even if humans arent the cause of global warming, why not improve the air and the enviroment anyway? im sure most will agree that decreasing fossil fuel dependence is a positive thing. wouldnt it be nice to lose coal plants? i know the latter is far off, but i want a cleaner world for my kids.

2007-12-09 10:27:16 · answer #5 · answered by midland4206 4 · 0 0

it is Liberals like you and Hillarious and Nancy Pelosi and Teddy "the swimmer" Kennedy that TRY UNSUCCESSFULLY to mis-inform conservatives like us. When Republicans keep the White House next year, and regain control of both houses of Congress, then we will see who was mis-informed. You fooled the voters in 2006, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Check the ratings: the Democratically controlled Congress has a LOWER approval rating than President Bush.

2007-12-08 13:05:20 · answer #6 · answered by Mike 7 · 2 1

I'm still waiting for the GW crowd to tell me how significant the cooling and warming trends were before man was here to record them.

Is liberals' hubris so great they believe that man can have an impact on such a significant natural occurrence?

2007-12-08 12:58:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

The planet has gone through heating and colling cycles long before humans came along. GW is just another bunk topic designed to give governmental organizations more power to tax people hence the carbon tax ideas being floated about.

2007-12-08 12:53:27 · answer #8 · answered by slackerwire 1 · 5 1

It is not all of our fault that there is global warming but we did contribute to it. Some of it is natural and could not have been helped but some of it is our own fault.

2007-12-08 13:02:12 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. Smith 5 · 0 0

Right, sir, but there has been a history of warming and cooling by your account for millions of years. How else can you explain the ice age?

2007-12-08 12:54:57 · answer #10 · answered by Jade 5 · 5 1

fedest.com, questions and answers