You look at global warming as nonsence you put your head in sand if you don't see it, its not real?

Question

Al Gore has been preaching global warming, but if you hide your face from trouble as the ostrich hides their face from evil in the sand nothing will happen to it. If we chose to look at whats in front of us we can see things that will harm us.open your eyes and see what is right before your eyes. All politicians will tell you only what they think you want to hear, not what they want to do for them selves,and friends,oil buddys,nra,automakers do you get the picture

Answer 1

I don't think it's nonsense.

It is real.

Answer 2

NO NO NO you cannot do that

sticking your head in the sand is MY line



And it applies to SKEPTICS ,

NOT to intelligent,Nature loving ,

Environmentally responsible people like me,



Who are driven to pasting endless repetitions of wisdoms because you guys keep asking the same damn thing

Over and over again.



The very same question 8 times on the same page

and maybe a hundred times just this week



I realized it was real long ago

because the local papers and television were totally involved with the disasters in Chiapas ,and because i saw a lot of evidences on Film,and colleagues came back with stories from other places



some with their heads in the sand may never get that far .

not unless their back side is on fire

A while ago one of NASA's top scientists concluded that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free within five years, much faster than all previous predictions.



when the north pole is gone , you may have polar bears soon in America ,looking for a home ,



Calculations do not include the accumulative ,speeding up ,factor with time. the increase in water temperature will get faster all the time as well as the melting, when the ice is all gone the deeper cold Ocean currents will be drastically affected,which in turn will affect the warm currents,since all moving bodies of water are connected in series.



This will affect coastal climates ,world wide ,almost instantly. All aquatic flora and fauna will be affected,many dying off and others becoming invasive,



And recently In Chiapas ,and Tabasco in Mexico .more then a million people became homeless overnight with water coming up to their roofs ,because of rains from super evaporation from the forests,this had never happened before. Millions of animals died.



In India 3000 people died because of super storms .



.A few years ago in Europe 3500 people,died during a heat wave ,many of them in France .



Right now the average death toll annually is 150.000 due to Global warming



. these figures are already out of date and are expected to double soon.



In Northern China millions of people are running for their lives because regular dust storms so far have buried 900 villages under the sand and the whole of northern China is turning into a dessert.



The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year all around the edges ,like a slow burning fire shriveling up their neighbors In the Kalahari huge rivers have dried up and thousand of species are gone due to their habitats disappearing .



The biggest changes are invisible at micro biotic levels species are becoming extinct ,others are multiplying ,



This affects the insect populations that follow ,and changes in that ,affect all that follows in the food chains ,



in the last 300 years half of the planets forests have gone

and in the last 50 years

half of our wet lands ,rain forests and ice fields .and 3000 species of animals .



Global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,Subsequent wind and Water erosion,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources and air pollution.



WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.



We are now witnessing a mass Extinction of animals and plants of Biblical proportions,equal since the disappearance of the dinosaurs

.

There is a series that you can download easy ,called

bbc,Planet earth by David Attenborough.

About 15 ---700mb videos



this is a photographic team that has been filming Nature stories all over the world ,for a very long time .



In 3 of the episodes called --the future--saving species(this one covers extinction and the importance of species)

the future--living together ,ice worlds ,



they compare films they made before of places and species to what they are filming now in the same places.



Many scientists give commentaries as well .



Whole migrations of animals involving millions have disappeared in only 20 years,

in one place in the tundras ,in just 5 years

CHECK THE CLOCK FOR THE SPEED

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf





If we want to save ourselves as a specie ,we have to address

the problems



We can correct most of the destructive factors

with disciplines ,changes of attitude and habits,alternative energies ,sustainable design etc.





All species are in Danger eventually,and each is important because all of Life on this planet is interrelated even if it is not obvious



Imagine that the Eco system is a wall and each specie is represented by a brick



Every brick taken out weakens the wall ,and eventually it will collapse ,which brick is the most important ???

they are all important and we are one of the bricks

Answer 3

the planet has always gone through cooling and warming periods lasting thousands of years, our life span is only a few seconds to three hundred million years, so I'm afraid there is nothing you can do, but make your self feel good, that said , any thing you can do to improve the air you breath then fine,don't drive smokey cars, and that is only temporary. the planet will heal its self long after we are gone, you should worry more about the asteroid.

Answer 4

Man doesn't cause global warming, ostriches don't bury their heads in the sand, they certainly have no clue what evil is. Quite a fitting metaphor. Look it up.

Answer 5

There may be global warming but next year it might be global freezing. Who knows. When Al Gores moves out of his McMansion....I'll think about it!

Answer 6

Global bullsh*t is real...and I'm not just talking about "global warming". Time to wake up people!

Answer 7

Global Warming is real!!! Can't you see that?!?!? You need to really examine it, its real. Stupid people and companys think its fake.

Answer 8

Lets ask some real climate scientists to answer your question. We hear enough from the conspiracy theory nuts.



"The global warming is a hoax believers don't understand the difference between informed opinion, uninformed opinion, misinformed opinion and totally ignorant opinions." from comments at gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027

posted by LeeAnnG



"Scientific skepticism is a healthy thing. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge, improve their understanding and refine their theories. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog, study or 15 year old that refutes AGW"

http://www.skepticalscience.com/



http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...



Skeptics claim the scientists are all biased.

Yeah, they're biased toward science.



"Honest skeptics persist at trying to convince their colleagues of alternative conclusions, and they do it by submitting their manuscripts for publication. If they do not get published, then it is because their data, their arguments, their assumptions, and their conclusions did not stand up to careful scrutiny, not because reviewers were predisposed to a different opinion. Oh sure, some reviewers can be opinionated and have their own political ax to grind, but with persistence, you can find enough fair academics to get any legitimate conclusion published. My years as a journal editor, as a reviewer, and as an author of scientific articles validates my position that most academics will give a valid minority position a fair evaluation."



And here's the kind of source the skeptics believe and use for sources. They read stories like the one in the WSJ and immediately embrace it as confirmation of their opinion, which is usually based on things they've heard form equally suspect sources. I mean after all it's the Wall St. Journal right? Practically an institution. And owned by FOX now, where you can find equally falsified and slanted reporting by the likes of Sean Hannity. Where you can here a talking head pronounce that solar energy can't contribute in any meaningful way to America's energy needs.

Not one person on FOX questions this statement.

But solar industry people can tell you, that an area less than now used for coal mines, filled with solar power plants would power the whole country with todays technology at competitive prices. Didn't know that did you? Who have you been listening too?



"The conclusions reached by Robinson et al., upon which The Wall Street Journal news item was based, in my opinion and that of my class, cannot stand the scrutiny of objective peer-review. Our judgement notwithstanding, The Wall Street Journal presented an unpublished manuscript as actual science to a gullible business world. Giving support and credence to an unpublished manuscript certainly reflects poorly on The Wall Street Journal and its standards of reporting and objectivity. We know The Wall Street Journal’s science reporting cannot be trusted if they don't know the difference between opinion and science, or worse, if they do know the difference, then they're just dishonest."



http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n08/...



"And please don't forget that anthropogenic global warming has been for a centruy the underdog theory, it is only very recently that the mountains of research have dragged a generally conservative scientific community inexorably to a very unpleasant conclusion"



http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86



http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/26/wsj-gore



"In today’s Wall Street Journal, prominent climate skeptic Richard Lindzen tries to make the case that “There Is No ‘Consensus’ On Global Warming.” Most of the article is, typically, invective against Al Gore and his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. "



"Lindzen does acknowledge that thousands of scientists from 120 countries have agreed, through the extraordinarily rigorous International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process, that human activity is driving global warming. He also acknowledges that this consensus was recently confirmed by a report prepared for Congress by the National Academy of Scientists."



"Here is Lindzen’s only substantive response:"



"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy [sic — Naomi] Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words “global climate change” produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it."



"Peiser’s work – and Lindzen’s reliance on it — is an embarrassment. Here’s why:"



1. Peizer misunderstands the point of Oreskes study. The point was not that every article about climate change explicitly endorsed the IPCC conclusions. The point is that if there was real uncertainty there would be “substantive disagreement in the scientific community” that would be reflected in peer reviewed literature. There wasn’t."



2. "Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies that oppose the scientific consensus. Peiser claimed that 34 papers “reject or doubt” the consensus view. Tim Lambert got Peiser to send him the abstracts of those 34 papers. The vast majority of these papers express no doubt whatsoever about the consensus view. Only one paper, by the Association of Petroleum Geologists, cited by Peiser actually rejects the consensus view and it “does not appear to have been peer reviewed outside that Association.”



"Peiser has admitted that his work included errors. But ultimately, it doesn’t make a difference. The point of activity like this isn’t to be right, it’s simply to provide fodder to people like Lindzen to create the appearance of uncertainty."



From real climate.org

"According to ExxonSecrets.org, the Heartland Institute describes itself as “the marketing arm of the free-market movement” and has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The Heartland Institute is in no way a scientific organization. It is a propaganda mill. "



"The success of the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to disinform the American public about the reality of global warming cannot be underestimated. They successfully delayed serious action to reduce emissions (and the consumption of their products) by ten or twenty years at least. With ExxonMobil alone reaping annual profit approaching 40 billion dollars, the payoff for the paltry millions they’ve paid outfits like Heartland has been huge.

But not as huge as the cost of that lost time will be to all of us."



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/0... The Cold Truth about Global Warming by Joseph Romm



" The big difference I have with the doubters is they believe the IPCC reports seriously overstate the impact of human emissions on the climate, whereas the actual observed climate data clearly show the reports dramatically understate the impact."



"One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists."



"So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming."



"As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus."



"But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea."



"What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant."