|
|
Post by jgaffney on Jun 19, 2008 0:06:56 GMT -5
The question is not whether man's presence on earth has an effect on global temperature increase, because we definitely do. The question is whether we can take actions which will slow or even reverse the global temperature change. The answer to that is a resounding "NO!" Take the trillions of dollars that AlGore et al would have us spend on slowing or reversing global warming, and instead spend that money on improving the standard of living in the third world countries so that they would be better able to survive the global climate changes that will occur regardless of what we do. Source |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Jun 19, 2008 12:00:37 GMT -5
Good points, Gaff. I would restate your question a bit though to "how much effect mans presence has on global temperature increase?" Or better, what percentage of that increase is attriutable to humans. Is it 99%? 0.99%? 0.099%?
I wonder when Al boy will step up, sell his energy hog mansion, give away his wealth, and start living the way he preaches eveyone else should live. I never seem to see him wearing unbleached, sustainably raised, cotton clothing, or riding a bicycle. He and his entourage seem to go first class, or above it, all the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 8, 2008 13:46:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 8, 2008 13:56:04 GMT -5
Unbelievable, a life long Democrat accusing Dick Cheney of not accepting his doctored findings and airing his dirty laundry in public. Down right seditionist.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 8, 2008 15:00:57 GMT -5
Doctored findings?? He's the expert. It's his job to report the findings. Dick is the only one doing the doctoring.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 8, 2008 15:13:13 GMT -5
Doctored findings?? He's the expert. It's his job to report the findings. Dick is the only one doing the doctoring. Excuse me, but he had a political agenda. Did you notice just how much money the little pecker head gave to the Democrat party? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 8, 2008 15:15:37 GMT -5
Besides, crude oil is the future, and it will be much cheaper then the alternative you think will work. Crude oil is now sustainable and renewable, and contains a lower carbon foot print. Read the Source for yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 8, 2008 18:23:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Jul 8, 2008 18:24:44 GMT -5
is it just me or did anyone else notice that santurelle conveniently forgot to answer this question? |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 9, 2008 11:09:18 GMT -5
I noticed. That particular question challenges saunterelle's already preconceived notions on the issue of global warming. The question will be ignored.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Jul 9, 2008 13:52:09 GMT -5
You're asking me to give an exact number of scientists who believe climate change is speeding up because of man's actions? I can't, as that number has never been studied. However, MOST of the well respected scientific organizations around the world have come to that conclusion. The most respected and knowledgeable organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has come to the conclusion that with 90% certainty they can say that human actions are the cause of global warming with global warming indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years. If you're not convinced by the IPCC, there are many other scientific organizations that have reached a similar conclusion and some that are unsure. You can find them listed here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Jul 9, 2008 14:09:19 GMT -5
No, you did not understand, nor answer, the question that was asked. The question is:
What constitutes a majority of scientists? 1,000? 1,500? 2,500? maybe 31,000???
|
|
