What can you do about climate change?

Question

What can you do about climate change?

Answer 1

Did you realise that the ice in the Arctic that was supposed to be melting and receding has actually reformed and there is just as much ice there now as before? All this scaremongering about polar bears dying because the ice is melting away because of warming is just mongering and nothing else. Look at the cold winter that has hit so many countries. But global warmers claim that lower temperatures can also be explained by global warming! A hypothesis that can explain everything is a lousy hypothesis because it will laways be true and cannot be tested.

Answer 2

Nothing. Sunspots cause GW. There were 3 Medieval Warm Periods where grapes grew in Northern England and a Holocene Maximum where temperatures were much higher than they are today and Polar bears survived that. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?F... If you can't be bothered to click the link here's what's being said:

"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.  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœDay 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."

  

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:  ÃƒÂ¢Ã‚€ÂœThe 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 National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

  

Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

  

Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”  

  

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

  

# # #

  

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary  

The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process - LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK )

UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.”

The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK)  Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK )

  

With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists."

So there we go. Also, temperature dropped from 1940 - 1975, when massive amounts of CO2 was being produced.

Answer 3

Because global warming or climate change is a cyclical event, we can do very little or nothing about it.  The cycle is every 1500 years.

Period.

.

Answer 4

I completely agree with Ladyfromdrum

Climate change is a natural process for the earth (familiar with the ice age?) No human intervention can change the fact that the earth will do what the earth will do.

The whole global warming thing is such a big industry now that it's estimated to be worth more the oil industry itself and therefore nobody is able to argue against it!

The whole carbon neutral thing is also ridiculous. The carbon that is emitted through the burning of fossil fuels is also carbon neutral (all be it over a much longer period of time) The carbon hasn't just sprung up out of nowhere... fossil fuels are made up of the 'fossils' of trees and plants that died millions of years ago. When those were alive, they sucked that carbon out of the atmosphere. and now we're putting it back with cars and planes and what-not.

Despite all of this that I have said, I do also believe that we need to be more environmentally friendly; it's not going to save the polar bears or stop the world heating up but it is going to provide us all with a cleaner, better quality of life.

Answer 5

have candlelight dinners and natural sulpher(hot-spring) baths in a group.

Answer 6

nothing unless we all take serious changes. nothing will happen..China and INdia have done nothing and neither will we. nothing will change unless something BIG happens....like the honeybees decining more rapidly

no honeybees= no food

Answer 7

install renewable energy e.g. solar panels.

Put in the new light bulbs that are more energy efficient

Answer 8

I can't do much right now, since I live in an Apartment. (Besides my personal Carbon Foot Print is about 2.9 and the national average is 7.4)

I'm also afraid that Florescent lights give me headaches. So when we have to completely change over to them, I'm going to have to find lamps that soften their lighting effect.

I also still haven't heard if we can even drive completely electric cars in a Northern climate. And since I live in an Apartment it's not feasible for me to even get an electric car, since I can't plug it in to recharge it. (I figure and alternator can only do so much to keep a battery charged.)

(I feel these are a few things people need to think about when they suggest to their fellow man that they need to change their lifestyle.)

Answer 9

Useless effort tho.. Because some countries do nothing.. Especially AMERICA.

Answer 10

jim m

Looks like you have you eyes open. Can’t say that about to many people in society today. Most of us walk around with blinders until a catastrophe hits, then we wake up pretty quick. Unfortunately we go blind again a few months later…

Let me start off by saying we (my family and I) live 100% off of the grid and are completely self-sufficient with a 0% Carbon footprint. I believe this is the first step anyone can make “help the environment”. Once you convert your own life style to a greener more eco friendly route, you can start helping others.

Without getting to in depth here, Using alternative fuels in your vehicles and harnessing your own electricity from the sun, water, earth and wind are the 2 are key elements in making a green transition and erasing your carbon footprint.

I've been installing Solar panels. Solar stoves, Solar batch and inline hot water heaters. Solar radiant heating. Solar home heating and AC, along with home made wind gens and other alternative energy items for the last 3 years in Mexico villages.

You can even make the above projects on site with simple parts from the local hardware stores or auto stores or junk yards. For more info check out some guides I wrote / compiled on how to DIY www agua-luna com

Again these projects can be accomplished anywhere by anyone.

if you absolutely can't do anything in your home at least you can put alternative fuels in your car. most major automotive manufacturers (Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors, etc) recommend the use of bio fuels, and nearly every car manufacturer in the world approves ethanol blends in their warranty coverage.

In fact your probably even driving an ethanol car and didn't even know it.

The trick is finding fuel.

I've been producing biofuel for about 3 years now, it's not extremely difficult. Basically you need general household ingredients, a processor (or still for ethanol) and some used oil. Blend it, let separate, screen and use. I complied a guide a while back to help walk you threw the process step by step, just email me or check out..

www agua-luna com

as for recyling the best way i've found without taking money from your won pocket is to join a free freecycle group in your area or visit the habitat for humanity.

If you’d like help in making your self sufficient steps, feel free to contact me directly. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at www agua-luna com

on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others “help the environment”.

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Retired Boeing Engineer now living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www agua-luna com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!

Answer 11

I'm a teacher and I like to pay attention to details.  You know how it goes; lining up, uniform, work habits and all that.  Well, the effect of that is a more productive student who learns more and achieves more.  It might not be much more, but each student who is a bit better is a positive influence on society.

I'm the same when it comes to the environment.  It's easy to take the gloom-and-doom approach and say "we're all ****ed".  That takes no effort or skill and produces no positive results.

The alternative to this mentality is to stay alert and be ready to do what you can.  I know it sounds trite, but turning off that tap or changing that bulb for a CF one really DOES do something.

In fact it does two things.  It reduces our overall energy use / waste production:  good.

It also generates a positive, can-do mindset; each time we decide to take action against waste of energy and resources we strengthen that approach in our own minds.

Motivated people also then influence others that are less motivated.

It may be small, but so is every part of every thing.  I will do what I can, and I urge you to do the same.

What can I do about climate change?  I can do what I can do, and if we all did that there would be no issue.  I will do it.

Answer 12

All the usual things such as cutting down on electricity consumption, recycling waste etc., all of which is just a drop in a bucket compared with what is required.  

Global warming will continue with or without human intervention.  It happened thousands and thousands of years ago when cars, planes etc., hadn't been invented, so how can we be so arrogant as to assume that we can remedy the climate now?

Answer 13

More than you are doing...right?

What are `you` doing?

Answer 14

Nothing its a load of rubbish just another way for the government to make more money from us, do the sensible thing and buy a 4x4

Answer 15

there's countless amounts of things you can do, like:

-use energy efficient lighting

-wash your clothes in cold water

-drive more efficient cars

-wear a sweater inside your home instead of cranking up the heat

-install a solar panel or wind turbine into your home

-don't buy big houses if you don't need all that space because your just wasting money on extra heating and cooling bills.

-walk or take public transit if you can

-turn off your lights when your not using them

-don't leave the fridge or freezer open for any time longer than 10 seconds because you shouldn't have to

-find other things you can do instead of watching tv if your extremly bored

-be careful of what you buy, because some products are shipped from far away places. for example, i live in canada, and in the winter, vegtables would have to be shipped from southern america.

-don't be lazy, laziness is why people drive 2 blocks to go to the mail box.

-oh yea, and don't idle your car. its stupid because i see ppl leaving their car on when they go to the mail box. someone could just jump into the car and steal it, and their wasting gas.

Answer 16

this link is designed to help you save money AND the planet

http://www.gomestic.com/Personal-Finance...

you need to spread the word that saving the planet also helps the people save money - that will motivate them more into action