Global Warming

Trevor asked:


The proponents of manmade global warming have consistently stated it’s because of greenhouse gases.

To counter this claim skeptics have provided alternative explanations but they’re forever changing. Recent explanations have included cosmic rays, the oceans, increased solar output, Pacific decadal oscillation, blackbody radiation etc. Could someone please let me know what the current explanation favoured by the skeptics is?

Each of the many explanations is, in it’s own right, claimed to account for the recent warming and thus prove human activity isn’t responsible. Assuming the skeptics are correct and they’re not just coming up with anything that might sound plausible, shouldn’t the planet be warming many times faster than it is?
RON C: Another good answer but again, key points are omitted. Your logic and reasoning are sound but it doesn’t ‘add up’. There are several skeptics who claim that all the current warming can be attributed to alternative factors and in many cases a single factor is cited as being the sole cause of the current warming. If these skeptics were correct then there would be many factors each responsible for the same level of warming that humans are supposed to be responsible for. It’s true that doubling the forcings doesn’t double the temperature rise but when equated, if the skeptics are correct with all their different explanations, then the world should be warming at least 7 times as fast as it is now (and possibly as much as 20 times as fast).

Victoria

amour2vivant asked:


I need evidence to back up that plate tectonics (continental drift) processes can cause global warming. I need to find plate tectonics forces that have nothing to do with humankind that is contributing to global warming. Much of what I have found is how plate tectonics can cause cooling of the earth rather than warming it. I need help researching this as I am not having much luck. I have found that ocean currents and volcanoes actually cool the earth rather than warming it.

Whether I believe humankind is causing global warming or not, is not important in this research.

Adam

Amy T asked:


I have to do this report for my World History class about why I think humans are causing global warming. I had to pick three reasons, and one of them was deforestation. So how is this causing global warming and why is it bad for us?

Zach

C. Read asked:


The Europeans in their desire to be relevant on the world stage, have erected some immoral and vicious philosophies. Fascism, Communism, Socialism and post modern nonsense and dialecticism exemplified by the Useless Nations, as well as other cults of utopian fantasy are obvious examples. Like its cousin the current Eco-fascist Global Warming cult is premised on non-scientific data; a belief in an all knowing kind technocratic elite that will lead the group; a belief in a new world order; a hatred of modernity; a hatred of capitalism; a hatred of US inspired liberalism and a disdain for work, ethics, virtue and reality. The Eco-fascist cult is nothing more than a sick offering of left over philosophical food, cooked with rancid Marxism, coated with moral superiority complexes, sprinkled with non-scientific platitudes, and garnished by an self-adoring elite who just can’t get enough of their own importance. Eco-cultism and the Global Warming baloney is another sad example of the Euro-trash elite trying to make itself relevant. Global warming does not exist; has no relationship with human activity and is based on natural cycles and trends.

Yet the current media fascination with the eco-cult knows no limits. The current uproar over Global Warming is one of the greatest intellectual frauds in history and one that will be paid for by tax payers. The Europeans are hell bent to decrease the energy cost disadvantage they have with the far more dynamic and prosperous US economy. The Euro-eco fetish mandates the increase in socialist meddling; more unions; more bureaucrats and more dumb standards. Taxes will rise; industry will contract and jobs will be lost – but the Euro and buro-cats will tell you smugly that you sacrifice all for your children. Other cults including Hitlerism, Communism and Islam say the same.

If the Eco-fascists have their way not only will oil be off-limits in North America to new drilling but nuclear power, clean burning coal plants and other carbon based systems will be torn down. Added to this dislocation we have the eco-fascist cult lead by all-knowing seers such as the Useless Nations and Al Gore, screaming that we must do something now! to stop the earth from collapsing thanks to man-made global warming. The fact that not a shred of evidence supports the idea that humans cause global warming is hardly important to the Eco-fascist cult. It is the idea that counts! Not only that but the immoral, bloody, dirty, degenerate and rich West will have to transfer to the poorer nations enormous monies under Global Warming agreements to limit CO2 and other Greenhouse gas emissions. So shout the Eco-fascists. The costs to industry will escalate, economic growth will contract and our society will become a whole lot poorer to appease a small, government funded lobby group that is divorced from reality and a threat to our own existence.

The nonsense surrounding the global warming theory is thick and dense. But here is quick overview of why it is eco-cult garbage.

The Eco-fascist cult, lead by chief hypocrite Al Gore, believes that CO2, water vapor and Methane emissions will cause the earth to warm. This increased temperature will have catastrophic environmental impacts; such as melting ice caps, rising sea levels, ecological devastation and species reduction. Al Gore and his friends predict that without a massive reduction of about 30 % of CO2 and Methane from human induced non-renewal energy burning sources, the earth’s temperature will increase by 1-5 Degrees Celsius by 2100. Apparently this would cause a massive calamity. The culprits are rich countries who burn non-renewal fossil fuels. Developing countries including China and India are not to blame. In addition to policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, nations should use other mechanisms to meet their commitments in a cost-effective way. Such mechanisms include international emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and joint implementation. In other words, don’t reduce your emissions, just pay someone else to buy their ‘credits’.

The philosophy is badly flawed and utopian – like any fascist cult. The science behind global warming is so bad that 18.000 Climatologists and Scientists have signed a petition stating that it is junk science. Politicians tell you that the scientific community is united on global warming. It isn’t. Only 800 environmental activists and government scientists support the idea. The idea that somehow the earth is not going through a natural climate cycle has never been seriously refuted. Data seems to indicate that there are regular occurrences like the little ice age and the medieval warm period in a rough 1500 year cycle. This cycle has repeated itself endlessly over the past 140.000 years. For example the earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period 900-1400 AD. This warm spell ended around 1350-1400 and the temperature decreased precipitating the ‘Little Ice Age’ [1400-1900]. IPCC models can’t explain these temperature swings.

In the 20th century any temperature increase apparently occurred in two phases, during 1910-1945 and from 1975-2000. The first period is impossible to align with greenhouse emissions. The second phase can be aligned with emissions but 25 years does not constitute a meaningful long term trend, especially when between 1945-1975 there were rising emissions but no corresponding increase in temperature. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa’s Carleton University, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal only a very small temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07C per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable. As well climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun’s brightness.

Besides the above we have common sense. Most importantly — Ninety five percent of CO2 emissions come from natural sources and the earth releases 210,000 mega tonnes each year of CO2 gas. Only about 5 % of this comes from industrial and human activity. Even if you wiped out the human race the effect on CO2 emissions would be only 5 % of the total released yearly. Why then worry about it? Then there is the catch all nature of the Eco-fascist cult. Much like other cults – everything is attributed to the cult of global warming. Cold winter? Damn that global warming. Hurricanes? blame CO2. More ice in Antarctica’s eastern fringe? – well that is global warming at work too.

Al Gore and the Eco-fascist club is Marxist and anti-capitalist. The basic idea of their creed is that capitalism - represented by the immoral United States - is a danger to our mother earth. The earth goddess cult is a cheap way to gain votes. By installing the earth goddess cult into political debate politicians are able to do a number of things. First, they can buy off the green, left wing and eco-cult vote. Second, they can raise taxes and hire more union members in the name of love, the future, our children’s green space, saving the world, and other platitudes routinely employed to buy votes. Third, they can denigrate capitalism, growing economies and market dynamics by offering government as the only solution to solve an incurable ‘market failure’. Lastly they can resurrect the sorry paganism of the noble savage, the stone age nirvana of the earth goddess cult, as they transfer monies from the rich immoral northern part of the world, to the corrupt, polluted and failing areas of Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe. Apparently destroying your economy and ecology through socialist mismanagement as witnessed in Africa and Eastern Europe, needs to be rewarded.

Message to Gore and company - get lost and if you are so enamored of pagan cults, go live in Arabia.



Elise

Mugambo asked:


The legendary Indian spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) once said: “The earth has enough for the needs of all but not the greed of a few.” His words have since proved to be quite prophetic!

The world today is in chaos and by that I’m not merely referring to the tumult taking place in the Middle East; what I’m talking about is the imminent extinction of hundreds of millions of people as a result of global warming. In both scenarios the United States plays a central role!

I have already pretty much detailed out how and why global warming is happening and which nations are most responsible for its acceleration, as well as who’s doing what and who is not to rectify the situation in my article entitled: Global Warming–How It Could Spark World War III.

That said, I’ve included a list of figures below to illustrate to what extent each nation/region is responsible for greenhouse gas pollution in the atmosphere (greenhouse gases are widely held to be the engine behind the accelerated global warming seen today):

USA: 30.3% Europe: 27.7% Russia: 13.7% South East Asia: 12.2% South/Central America: 3.8% Japan: 3.7% Middle East: 2.6% Africa: 2.5% Australia: 1.1%

THE TRUTH BEHIND THE LIE

To many in marketing circles the concept of manipulation of social evidence is nothing new. Basically what it entails is manipulating tools of evidence to further one’s goals.

Thus for example, until fairly recently in internet marketing circles, the practice of manufacturing bogus testimonials was fairly widespread.

The objective being to convince visitors to one’s website to purchase products on the strength of those manufactured testimonials.

In the arena of global warming much the same has been happening. In the same manner that a defense counsel in a court case will produce its own expert witness to discredit that of the prosecution (or vice versa) so has the Bush II administration paraded a string of bogus experts to decry global warming as just a myth!

In 2007 a good number of environmental scientists and climatologists publicly stated that they’d been pressurized by various Bush II factions to manipulate data to downplay the seriousness of global warming!

Which simply begs the question: why is the Bush II administration going to such lengths to hide the truth about global warming?

SNATCH AND GRAB OPERATION GONE AWRY

It is now widely accepted that the invasion of Iraq had little to do with terrorism, less to do with democracy but everything to do with oil!

The question still remains however, why did the US go to such lengths (which included manufacturing evidence) to illegally invade a sovereign state under what at best can be described as a thinly disguised pretext for war?

Was it merely a question of the then single remaining superpower claiming its right to wield that might as it saw fit irrespective of international law, just as Nazi Germany once did?

Or was it a case of a few vain men hoping to claim their slice of immortality through a legacy festooned with the glory of having secured new oil reserves for a nation with a quenchless thirst for the stuff?

Or perhaps the U.S. oil reserves were so desperately low that Bush II and his New World Order buddies were prepared to force a snatch and grab operation that could easily have escalated into third world war, so as to shore up those dwindled oil reserves?

Or maybe, just maybe, the U.S. desperately needed to stockpile a vast amount of oil for something far, far more sinister.

To keep at bay a monster it helped so much to create!

THREADS WEAVING A DISTURBING TAPESTRY OF EVENTS

These days more often than not fact is stranger than fiction. When we look at the Bush II Administration’s policy on global warming it is beyond perplexing why they have gone to such lengths to deny its existence.

For sure, his Have-More buddies in oil and other environmental-damaging industries have plenty to gain by muddying the waters, but what if there’s really more to this repudiation of global warming than that!

What if this is a carefully concocted plot that has been kept under wraps for years?

Here’s what we know thus far about global warming. The data has been around for well over a decade and has been readily available to government officials.

Since the turn of the 21st century scientists across the globe have been warning of the extent of global warming; warnings that apparently fell on deaf ears! (Well at least as far as the Bush II administration was concerned.)

But supposing this was not actually the case.

What if the Bush II administration did listen, but only to those scientists who’d concluded that the world had reached the point of no return? And that global warming could not be reversed anytime in the foreseeable future and thus by proxy neither could its ensuing effects!

FUELING UP FOR A GLOBAL CATASTROPHE

In other words there was no point implementing measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions (thereby slowing down global warming) and that in fact the best policy was to forge powerfully ahead and ensure that America was readied for the ensuing catastrophe no matter the cost!

If it meant manufacturing a war, so be it! If it meant causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of people to achieve that aim, so be it! After all this wouldn’t be the first time in history that the few had been sacrificed for the many!

Oh! Except in this case it is the many sacrificing for the few, or more specifically, The Have-Mores!

When looked at from this perspective, that the U.S. is fuelling up for a long term global catastrophe, it all begins to make some sense! Especially considering that Saudi Arabia still has the greatest oil reserves in the world and has never said no to U.S. oil demands!

Bottom line, it is quite conceivable that the U.S. under Bush II has been insuring against (or at least trying to) a global catastrophe predominantly of its own making! But alas even the best laid plans go badly awry. Iraq didn’t turn out to be the pushover they’d expected and the oil is not gushing the way they had envisioned.

Think that such a scenario is way over the top? Think again! Remember Iraq? Remember Hurricane Katrina?

The way the Bush II government handled Katrina was so shameful that Google for some reason best known to it was compelled to replace post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery with pre-hurricane images on its map portal (Damage control? Trying to hide America’s shame from the rest of the world? At whose behest one wonders?).

As you can well imagine, when it came to light, the whole sordid affair was an extreme embarrassment to Google (And certainly not good for business! The search engine business thrives on the premise that results are accurate and impartial and not manipulated!).

But the point I wish to emphasize here is that if the Bush II government could shun its very own citizens (albeit mainly citizens of color) in such a cavalier fashion why would they give a damn if their actions resulted in the deaths of hundreds of millions of Africans or peoples from other parts of the globe who are going to be worst hit by global warming?

In World War II the Nazi’s genocide weapon-of-choice was hydrogen cyanide gas, what irony that in the upcoming global warming related genocide, gas too is the weapon of choice; carbon dioxide gas!



Chelsey

Jessica G asked:


for my science project, i have to pick a canadian based food chain and say how global warming may be affecting it.

Evelyn

Michael. asked:


I think that people don’t have to worry about global warming! Everyone keeps on saying that “The sea level will rise even more if the North + South pole melt just because of extreme heat off global warming” Even if they do melt by how much do you think land would disappear, maybe by about 5 meters! That’s nothing!

Yet I see so many people making such a big fuss about it on TV on the internet.

Liam

Dana1981, Master of Science asked:


Mr. Jello - he of “top contributor” status in the global warming section - has now blocked my ID so I can no longer correct his incessant distortion and ignorance of the scientific facts regarding this subject.

This is not the first time a global warming denier has blocked my ID - I was also blocked by someone named “the_CO2_agenda_is_a_lie” and “a_bush_family_member” for the same reasons.

Are global warming deniers so afraid of the facts that they’ll censor people who try and use scientific facts to convince them that they’re wrong?
Boy you just have to love that logic - ‘Bob blocked me so I blocked you’.

The logic of a global warming denier, ladies and gentlemen.
Not to mention the paranoia and ego of “everyone has an agenda (except me)”. LOL!
Bob - the quote is “you can’t HANDLE the truth!”. But no, I haven’t seen Jello post anything that wasn’t simply either his uninformed opinion or a distortion of the truth (at best).
dad - yes, if you click on his question and it says “You cannot view this question at this time”, that means he’s blocked you.
Chuda - Y!A finally (and correctly) reversed the ban on my account:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=As6MMc8lLk5ZrMSOAhywS77sy6IX?qid=20070823124327AAu8Sak

Juan

James Nash asked:


I used to joke that the government issues so much information every day, it can’t help but let the truth slip out every once in a while. The Bush Administration’s recent report on global warming is a classic example. Though far from perfect, it contains some crucial but awkward truths that neither George W. Bush nor his environmentalist critics want to confront. Which may explain why the Administration has sought to bury the report, while critics have misrepresented its most ominous conclusion.

The US Climate Action Report made headlines because it contradicted so much of what the Administration has said about global warming. Not only is global warming real, according to the report, but its consequences - heat waves, water shortages, rising sea levels, loss of beaches and marshes, more frequent and violent weather - will be punishing for Americans.

The report’s biggest surprise was its admission that human activities, especially the burning of oil and other fossil fuels, are the primary cause of climate change. Of course, the rest of the world has known since 1995 that human actions have “a discernible impact” on the global climate, to quote a landmark report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the White House has resisted this conclusion. After all, if burning fossil fuels is to blame for global warming, it makes sense to burn less of them.

To a lifelong oilman like Bush, who continues to rely on his former industry colleagues for campaign contributions as well as senior staff, such a view is nothing less than heresy. No wonder, then, that Bush and his high command have virtually repudiated the report. Although their staffs helped write it, both EPA Administrators claimed they were unaware of the report until the New York Times disclosed its existence on June 3. Bush himself dismissed it as a mere product of “the bureaucracy,” that oft-vilified boogeyman of right-wing ideology.

But he could equally have blamed his own father. The only reason U.S. Climate Action Report 2002 was compiled in the first place is that George Bush the First signed a global warming treaty at the 1992 Earth Summit that obligates the United States to periodically furnish such reports to the UN (one more reason, it seems, to despise treaties). But somebody in the Administration must have seen trouble coming, because the report could not have been released with less fanfare: It was simply posted on the EPA’s website, three unguided links in from the homepage. If you weren’t looking for it, you’d never find it.

The Administration has been hammered for issuing a report that on one hand admits that global warming threatens catastrophe but on the other maintains there is no need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels. The report squares this circle by arguing that global warming has now become inevitable, so we should focus less on preventing it than on adapting to it. To deal with water scarcity, for example, the report advocates building more dams and raising the price of water to encourage conservation. Critics see such recommendations as proof that the Administration is doing nothing about global warming. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

The worst thing about the new global warming report is that it is absolutely correct about a fundamental but often unmentioned aspect of the problem: the lag effect. Most greenhouse gases remain in the atmosphere for approximately 100 years. The upshot of this undeniable chemical fact is that no matter what remedial steps are taken today, humanity is doomed to experience however much global warming the past 100 years of human activities will generate.

That does not mean we should make matters worse by continuing to burn fossil fuels, as Bush foolishly urges; our children and grandchildren deserve better than that. It does mean, however, that we as a civilization must not only shift to green energy sources immediately but also begin planning how we will adapt to a world that is bound to be a hotter, drier, more disaster-punctuated place in the twenty-first century.

Many environmentalists know it is too late to prevent global warming; the best we can do is minimize its scope. They don’t like to admit this truth, because they fear it will discourage people from making, and demanding, the personal and institutional changes needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is that risk. But a truth does not disappear simply because it is inconvenient. Besides, a green energy future would mean more, not less, economic well-being for most Americans, while also increasing our chances of avoiding the most extreme global warming scenarios. Sometimes the truth hurts. But avoiding it will hurt even more.



Kristian

dumdum asked:


I really want to know because I don’t know how global warming to supposed to contribute to these shifts in the weather–thanks!
Anyone have any links? Because I know that global warming and CO2 emission is said to contribute to climate change and instability in the weather (hurricaine, blizzards, etc.). I’m just wondering about the mechanics/science behind this.

Benjamin