Global Warming: Hot or Not?

Question

do believe that this is actually occuring? Recent studies have showed that the earth is just going through a natural climate change, which i believe to be true, but are we as humans making it 10 times worse? Opinions please!

Answer 1

Compared to average temperatures, we have less than one degree warming.  It's natural.  We should trim our lifesyle, no doubt, but it's unlikely that humans can stop climate change.  The one-world government people and those with stakes in global-warming-for-profit scams want you to believe their propaganda because they get power and make a lot of money.  They don't care about you, your grandchildren, or the polar bears.  Wake up!

Answer 2

GW CULD MAKE AS MUCH COOL CREATURE AS AFTER DEATH SO THIS IS.........

Answer 3

Global warming is a big scam manipulated by the governments worldwide to provoke panic attacks in societies and to control them with brainwashing techniques.

The most viable solution from the governments is to become addicted to Prozac.

My 2 cents.

Answer 4

global warming is badly damaging the earth coz last year i had to do lots of studying on it

Answer 5

No way!

"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold."

Answer 6

soon with going to leave in space , or something like armagedon going to happen.

days getting hotter and hotter/

more nature disaster. earthaquakes, huricanne , twister  and etc.

Answer 7

Earthquakes have nothing to do with the weather.  Even so, tornadoes and hurracanes are not connected.  Global warming is a myth.

Answer 8

the planet does goes through stages in which it gets very hot or very cold, thus the ice age. but this climate change takes hundreds of thousands of years, usually giving the species in the planet time no evolve and be able to become fit and survive. but the one that we are actually living right now seems to be accelerated by the green house gas effects that we provoke, so yeah we are speeding up the process. just know hat in the last 100 years we have warmed the planet by 1/2 a degree Celsius. so we doing pretty fast eh.

Answer 9

that is true

how is it natural

when pollutions go in the air

killing plants animals and environments,

how is it natural when thousands of trees

are cut down a day just for paper,

u know those cute polar bears

well their homes are being destroyed

by high temperatures

caused by human actions

please give me a thumbs up

Answer 10

What "recent studies have showed that the earth is just going through a natural climate change"?  I follow the scientific literature on climate quite closely, and I haven't seen any recent studies that concluded that.  Quite the contrary, all the studies I've read in recent years have concluded that there is no natural process or cycle sufficient to explain most of the warming experienced the last half of the 20th century.

If you've personally read some studies that concluded it's natural, then please provide a link.  Otherwise, I think you should question the reliability of whatever source told you they exist.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104...

"Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century"

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...

"The estimated magnitude of the anthropogenic signal is consistent with most of the warming in the second half of the twentieth century being anthropogenic."

Answer 11

Yes the more they propagate Global Warming the higher the cost of gasoline.

Answer 12

Be sure to read the questions at the end!!

>

>  

>

>  

> -----

>  

>  

> Into the wild green yonder

>

>

> May 11, 2008

>

> By Walter E. Williams - Now that another Earth Day has come and gone,

> let's look at some environmentalists' predictions they would prefer we

> forget.

>

> At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel

> Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside

> nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for

> mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,

> "The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and

consistent enough

> that it will not soon be reversed."

>

> In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore's hero

> and mentor, predicted a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the

> 1970s... hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."

> Mr. Ehrlich forecast 65 million Americans would die of starvation

> between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have

> declined to 22.6 million. Mr. Ehrlich's predictions about England were

> gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England

> will not exist in the year 2000."

>

> In 1972, a report for the Club of Rome warned the world would run out

> of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and

> petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.

>

> Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said

Americans

> were using 50 percent of the world's resources and "by 2000 they

> [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them."

>

> In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The

> World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

>

> Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization

> will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken

> against problems facing mankind." That was the same year Sen. Gaylord

> Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75

> and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

>

> It's not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers

> have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced

> there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California,

>

and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In

> 1939, the U.S. Interior Department said American oil supplies would

> last only another 13 years. In 1949, the interior secretary said the

> end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

>

> Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the

> U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year

> supply of natural gas. In fact,, according to the American Gas

> Association, there's a 1,000- to 2,500-year supply.

>

> Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making

> predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and

> millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government

> policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

>

> When Mr. Ehrlich predicted England would not exist in the

year 2000,

> what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent

> such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the Interior Department warned we

> only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should

> President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think

> environmental alarmism is any more correct now the tune has been

> switched to manmade global warming?

>

> Here are a few facts: More than 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is

> the result of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. Without the

> greenhouse effect, Earth's average temperature would be zero degrees

> Fahrenheit. Most climate change is due to the orbital eccentricities

> of Earth and variations in the sun's output. On top of that, natural

> wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all

> human sources combined.

>

> Walter

E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a

> professor of economics at George Mason University.

>