Helping the envirnment...global Warming?

Question

Hi, my name is Ashley Korn. My sister Shauna Korn and I are trying to find ways to help the economy. We live in Michigan and we notice a significant change in the climate and we are trying find ways to help. We recycle at home and we use resuable water bottle...what other things can we do it help.

Answer 1

I do not believe global warming exists and it is a bunch of c**p. Back in the sixties and seventies, people were worried about an ice age coming along. Now they are worried about the world melting? It makes no sense. What I think it is is that it's just a pattern the world goes through and that people are over reacting to it. The polar caps aren't going to melt and flood the world and destroy our planet. That's bull. Now, am I saying that you shouldn't help our environment and keep it clean, no. We do need to take care of our environment, but there is no such thing as global warming.

Answer 2

Listen to Malabari, he's the only one that doesn't seem to have an axe to grind.  His advice is well thought out.  Forget the rest of the ditto heads.

Protecting the environment is well worth the effort.

We are doing grave harm to the ecosystems of earth with or without global warming. People who think otherwise are either not aware or have a vested interest in confusing you.   and vote  vote for people who are responsible about the environment.  Obviously Bush and his crowd are not of that type.

And Pray that we never elect an oil man again.

Answer 3

don't sit in front of your computer asking questions and waiting for answers as that uses electricity and electricity generation produces C02 which is apparently responsible for global warming

but as global warming dose not really exist it doesn't really matter dose it.

Answer 4

try farting to polute the air.....ITS A CYCLE... GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH..

Answer 5

Those little things help, but you have to become an activist and convince many others, including the legislaters, that we must take monumental steps now to confront this issue.

Anyone who doesn't see the change is in denial, and I don't mean the river in Egypt.

Answer 6

Learn all you can and make choices that are good for us and yourself

I attended the Focus the Nation at Sierra College on 1-31-08. The event was the 2% Solution, a 2% reduction over 40 years to solve GW. Oil is a nonrenewable resource and we are running out-but not soon - $30 Gal for gas. The 2% Solution is ok for the USA for a 10 year plan to cut 20%. But over those 10 years, we have to be building renewable energy and about that time, we can cut an additional 20%. This should get us from importing any oil. We must have a pollution surcharge where we pay the real price (health effects, GW and cleanup) for oil, NG, coal, cigarettes, Cooling Towers, Cars, trains and airplanes. Humans have to put some of this nonrenewable into renewable energy like small hydro-electric dams, concentrating solar power plants, wind and wave machines, nuks, and geothermal. With the peak of oil in the 1970’s, peak NG in the 1990’s, having mined cheep coal, the peak of ocean fishing in the 1980’s, and the peak of uranium in the 1990’s, humans must stop procrastinating and make real changes to keep earth sustainable including in the energy debate, finance and regulation.

Many of mankind’s advancements cause earth surface to warm, destroy the ozone layer, kill off endanger species, heat cities, and in some way cause more dramatic destruction.  Blacktop and buildings (roads, roofs and parking lots-heat cities), deforestation (air pollution, soil erosion), duststorms (increase hurricanes and cyclones, cause lung diseases), fires (cause pollution, mud slides, and deforestation), refrigerants (like CFC's) and solvents (including benzene destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates) and plastics; cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production (causes pollution including raised CO2 levels and increased lung and other diseases); these human problems we must fix to keep life on earth sustainable! Humans have destroyed half of the wetlands, cut down nearly half of the rain forest, and advance on the earths grasslands while advancing desertification which increases duststorms.

The result is:  change is on the way, we just do not know what changes (where and when). Look beyond the hype, beyond the weather, beyond a quarterly report and beyond today. President Bush has made a choice of energy (ethanol) over food and feeding the starving people around the world; this is a choice China has rejected. The fact is Bush wants to buy your food to send to starving people since our grain is not available. Now what USA Presidential candidate is give you the facts so you can make an educated decision?

Over the next 90 years carbon dioxide is projected to skyrocket as human’s burn more fossil fuels. The problem is, the oil will be gone in less than 30 years at present rates of consumption without projected increases and shortages. We have to come up with what will take its place. Again we have to cleanup our mess. One of the big problems we have is at some time Yellowstone will blow its top again, as the magma move closer to the surface, creating a nuk winter. After that we will not have to worry about the destruction of the ozone layer, global warming or pollution.

But with that we must understand we have never seen what is now happening before. CO2 has never lead to temperature change, but temperature change has led to increases in CO2. The models have to be made as we go along with current evidence! But again adding a small amount of CO2 to the atmosphere enlarges the earths sun collection causing warming; increase water in the atmosphere and it forms clouds cooling earth but sometimes causing flooding. Even natural events are warming earth and causing destruction. The sun has an increased magnetic field causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow, great destruction), and sun spots. Lighting produces ozone near the surface (raising air pollution levels). The USA Mayor's have taken a stand and I believe are on the right track, we can have control and can have economic growth. The sun is available to produce energy, bring light to buildings and makes most of human’s fresh water. Composting is the answer to desertification. New dams are the answer to fresh water storage, energy and cooling earth by evaporation, we need many small ones all over (California needs 100 by 2012 and has not even started).

Remember knowledge is power and this information is very powerful. Humans have 50 trillion dollars worth of stuff that runs on cheep oil, natural gas, or coal. We need 20 Trillion Dollars worth of renewable energy over the next 10 years if we are to avoid a world wide depression (and right now ethanol does not count)!

That is why I founded CoolingEarth.org, a geoengineering web sight where you can learn more about earth, the atmosphere, and how to sustain life on earth’s surface.

Answer 7

I'm pretty sure I'm older than you, and I don't see any change. Its all rubbish.

Answer 8

Hey, I think its cool you are looking for ways to improve the environment. I also think that some of the people that have answered your question are way over the line and should keep their narrow minded opinions to themselves. There is no reason to be so hostile. Even 'IF' global warming is a myth then what is the harm in recycling and lessening one's impact on the planet?

  Anyway, there are many things you can do, save water( don't leave taps running etc), turn lights out that are not being used, un plug appliances that are on stand-by, ride bikes over short distances or walk and don't drive if possible, talk to your parents about energy saving ie if you are replacing a car then they can buy an economical model. Have a look on the Internet because there are many things that you could do, but I have no idea on your lifestyle and really only you can make the choices that suit you, but you are on the right track by trying to get information. Keep up the good work. And don't let all the negative deniers put you off, there is nothing wrong with trying to make the world a better place.

  Oh yeah, its probably not a good idea to be putting your name on the Internet.

Answer 9

posted by Jack H

The temperature dropped from 1940 - 1975, and most scientists don't believe it's caused by us : Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"

Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth." "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. "There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried," Uriate wrote.

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo - Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. "The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming," Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming - Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts' and ‘sea level rises,' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: "It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction."

Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. "The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases," Winterhalter said.

Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. "I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong," Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: "The earth will not die."

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid," Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles."

USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: "Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real' climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem."

Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: "Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: "The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers' might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so."

South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa's Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: "The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming."

Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels."

Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation."

Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions."

China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated' - Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan's and Sun Xian's 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change."

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish  

Answer 10

Climate change is an established scientific fact, while man made global warming is a political doctrine.

Both the amount of change that is happening and contribution of human activity have been grossly exaggerated.

Of course, we should use our resources wisely and clean up after ourselves, but this obsession with carbon dioxide is completely out of proportion and distracts from the major problem that affects our environment ie. the exponential increase in the human population.

During 20th century the world population quadrupled from 1.5 billion to 6.0 billion, and from 2000 to 2006 there has been a further 800 million people. The idea that all these people can be housed , fed and clothed, provided with water, energy, transport and employment, and at the same time reduce our effect on the environment is simply nonsense.

So the most useful thing to do to help the environment is campaign to raise awareness for the need for population control