Does anybody know anthing about global warming?
88504
in my opinion is it doesn't exist. because think about it we are coming out of an ice age. it makes sense doesn't it? fact: there have been ice ages. fact: there is a lot of ice in ice ages. so if you know about water then you know the same amount of it is here that was here when the earth began so literally it is dinosaurs piss. well during an ice age lots of stuff is covered in water/ice ( i know i live in Minnesota and it is known that it was fully covered with ice.). so where is all the water? in ice bergs, glaciers, etc. so it would make sense that to leave an ice age most things would melt right? so they are still melting they will finish melting and cover parts of the world, then it will slowly freeze causing an ice age. why would humans make that big of a difference? we are insignificant to the world.(everyone in the world could fit in Texas and it would only be as densely populated as NY city). so our vehicles and combustible engines couldn't have that big of an effect. but you say "what about the ozone thinning?" well i am not saying it hasn't but it was because of the CFC's(chloral floral carbons) which broke up the ozone by attaching to ozone molecules. but the CFC's are no longer around. the ozone is healing itself as it is meant too. their was no real hole only a thinning which is also bad. but now it is closing up and returning to normal. if you think that the co2 we produced cant be good well think about it it isn't that much and while the earth was cooling after being created it released tons of co2. so what people will notice in the next 1-9000 years is it will warm up but in that time it will also cool down and eventually there will be an ice age. just because the great human race is here doesn't mean that the earth will stop having ice ages as it has done by its self for billions of years. think about it. am i a genius or what i mean i just looked at what has happened in history wow who would have thought history would repeat its self
1113639
Global Warming is a myth
732743
Heres an idea: Our world is becoming a more dangerous place as global warming continues.(Then speak a little more about the sentence, next paragraph =causes, next paragraph= effects, final=restate the first sentence) Good Luck!
784011
I don't believe in global warming . .I believe in my opinion is the signs that Christ is coming back soon! If you don't agree that is cool by me.
344672
Global Warming.....glaciers melting and too much water for the land.
1138939
Normally you can get alot of information from current news issues like global warming or something else controversial.\n\nI have done one on global warming and other ones for example are genetic engineering etc. \n\nMake sure you choose something you are not twosided about.\n\nGood luck.
702213
honestly global warming is a big f'n lie. If anyone knew anything about meterological weather history, they would know this "overall world warm up" happens all the time, along with the "overall world cool down" if you knew anything about science in that area, you probably wouldnt be a crazy liberal. PS, driving a enviornlementaly friendly car isnt going to do squat.
1104883
Global warming is in theory reversable,but it will mean global co operation between all countries ,and taking into account human nature and the world politics ,it is unlikely that this will happen,At least not untill we are all in the middle of planetary disastres and it becomes a battle for the survival of humanity every where.\n\nSOLUTIONS\nif you want to help the planet ,plant a tree every week ,if everyone on the planet did we we would be able to reverse the destructive processes\n\nreduce carbon emisions,and they are already working on that by alternative forms of energy and regulations on carbon producing materials,aerosol cans,burning rubbish,industrial chimneys,powerplants etc.\n\nthe capture of carbon and the production of water and assist the aquiferous manta.the world bank pays large subsidies for reforrestation to capture carbon and the best tree for this is the Pawlonia \n\nWaterharvesting projects ,such as millions of small dams.to redirect over ground waterflows from the rains into the ground to supply subteranian water supplies.\n\nthe protection of existing forrests.\n\nstop building more highways,urban planning to include vegetation \n\nstop building cities encourage people to return to the land to conduct their business from there which now has become possible thanks to the internet.\n\neducation to motivate people to auto sufficiency by building more home food gardens.\n\neducation on environmental awareness\n\neducation on family planning to combat overpopulation which contributs to 70 million people each year which puts more presure on farmers tom grow more food \n\nAgricultural education and improvements to follow the principals or sustainability and soil management.\n\nmore environmental or land design, to prevent bush fires,such as--fire breaks \n\nregulations and control for public behaviour on polution and limiting the use of fossilfuel \n\nalternative effeciant public transport to discourage the use of the internal conbustion engine\n\nrecicling wastes,\n\nlimit water use
537292
No and yes. \n\nWith regards to un-educated and mis-informed rubbish that goverments tell us that global warming is an artifact of human activity on this planet no I do not. Global warming is a topic which for the last thirty years or so has been 'fashionable' to study. If you look it at this way, the Earth is approx 4 to 6 billions years old and we are only studying the past few centuries. To me this is not even a dot on the Earths timescale so how can we possibly deduce mans influence on the climate. The climate of the earth is changing constantly. What we recognise as the four seasons; sping, summer, autumn (fall) and winter have only been in existance for the past few million years!\n\nAlthough some scientists have looked at the recent erosion of the ozone, they fail to see the bigger picture and take into account the varying orbit the planet has around the sun, its tilt and wobble (see link below for info on the Milankovitch Theory). They also fail to recognise in they're studies the gravitational pull of the earths core and the movement of the fluids contained within. Additionally the 'hotspots' or 'solar flares' on the sun are not taken into account when global warming is discussed, of which also effects our climate.
24166
Global warming\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit\nJump to: navigation, search\n \nGlobal mean surface temperatures 1856 to 2004 \nMean temperature anomalies during the period 1995 to 2004 with respect to the average temperatures from 1940 to 1980Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The term is also used for the more specific scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming, which states that much of the recent observed (and projected) global warming is human-induced and the result of a strengthened greenhouse effect caused by man-made increases in carbon dioxide (through the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) and other greenhouse gases. The natural greenhouse effect keeps the Earth 30 °C warmer than it otherwise would be; adding carbon dioxide to an atmosphere, with no other changes, will make a planet's surface warmer. Current research tries to uncover more details, e.g. about positive and negative feedback mechanisms, to allow a more precise quantification of the effects of global warming.\n\nTemperature change is just one aspect of the broader subject of (human-induced) climate change. The scientific opinion on climate change, as expressed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and explicitly endorsed by the national science academies of the G8 nations, is that the average global temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". A small minority of qualified scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in increasing recent temperatures. Uncertainties do exist regarding how much climate change should be expected in the future, and a hotly contested political and public debate exists over what actions, if any, should be taken in light of global warming.\n\nBased on basic science, observational sensitivity studies, and the climate models referenced by the IPCC, temperatures may increase by 1.4 to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100 [1]. This is expected to result in other climate changes including rises in sea level and changes in the amount and pattern of precipitation. Such changes may increase extreme weather events such as floods, droughts, heat waves, and hurricanes, change agricultural yields, or contribute to biological extinctions. Although warming is expected to affect the frequency and magnitude of these events, it is very difficult to connect any particular event to global warming.
706254
ok now here is some truth for you. Global warming is a THEORY nothing more, it has not been proven. an ALL the scientists do not agree. more than half do not agree and because of that they do not get media coverage. That is why all you hear is global warming on the news because it gets ratings. Many, many scientists agree this is a phase, the earth has wamring periods and cooling periods, we just now are getting out of a cooling period. every here of the "year without a summer" in the 1770's. that was the height of the cooling period. if you look back further in the 1300's it was hotter then, than it is now according to historical evidence. Volcanoes produce almost 10 times the green house gasses then humans produce per year. Nature is not this fragiel little thing like all the libs want you to believe, its very tough and adaptive it recycles many of the wastes we produce but also many of the wastes itself produces which in comparison to ours is infintismal. I agree we should not be reckless and find better, cleaner and more efficient ways to do things. If you want the truth, yes global warming is true, the "globe" is "warming" but not because of the Dodge Diesel you drive, but because its a cycle and in a few centuries it will begin to cool again. Most people here never heard of what these very same scientists were saying in the 70's. the same people screaming about global warming were do the same thing about "global cooling" in the 1970's and some suggested we put coal soot on the ice caps to gather heat from the sun to melt them. Look it up, its true. So before you goes starting going nuta about this global warming farse, do your homework instead of believing everything you hear on the ratings driven news everynight.
579795
global warming. ince caps melt, sea levels rise, land submerged
716608
There is not a consistent policy about global warming because no country wants to limits it own industrial capabilities to prevent pollution. The US agreed to the Kyoto Accords but now finds ways to side-step their obligation. How can any group of countries punish the US? Too many factors such as the national economies of small countries depend on the US for trade to force Washington to comply. But one thing is certain and that is that there is no agreement as to global warming even amongst the scientific community. It is being used by politicians as a gimmick to sway opinions. Before Al Gore didn't much worry about global warming but found it useful to take votes from Republicans and so there was sudden attention.Are you certain that there is indeed global warming? I realize that people have been tugging at the issue for years, but there is no substantial proof that this warming effect is not a cyclical phenomena. We have no proof about the last 50,000 years from the estimated period of the Ice Age. Counting tree rings is hardly an answer and the oldest know trees are less than 3,000 years...perhaps this situation occurs every ten thousand years. Fossils date much further back and we know that some cataclysmic event, a massive volcano or perhaps even a meteorite created so much dust that the earth was blanketed and brought about the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs. That took place about 65,000,000 years ago...just days ago, Norwegian paleontologists announced the discovery of a dinosaur 'graveyard' with the fossils of ichthyosaurs and pleisosaurs (perhaps cousins of the Loch Ness Monster) on an Island about 800 miles from the North Pole. Because both types of dinosaurs were marine (living in salt water), we then can assume they died in the water...but the 'graveyard' is now situated on a hillside some distance from the sea, but also that the water level was much higher at that time...Global Warming? Island can rise and sink because of volcanic activity but the island shows no geological suggestion that that was so. Perhaps too, this is a natural event in that as the temperature increases, so does evaporation and thusly more rain, so could it be that it is a cleansing system to remove pollutants from the atmosphere? There are many far-fetched theories and one is from Australia where scientists claim that cows are a major source of pollution. Herbivores produce methane gas as they digest grasses, fodder and such, and with the vast number of cows and other herbivores, our atmosphere is contaminated. It makes little sense as in America were vast herds of bison, and the plains of Africa still have millions of grazing animals...both past and present. The die-off of marine organisms is often linked to man-made problems...oil spills, dredging, sewage and such...i.e. the Thames River of England was so polluted years ago that no fish could exist...the environmental agency cleaned it up by stopping sewage, etc and now 10 species of fish have returned. We build dams and prevent floods and deprive vital nutrients to the sea. In Asia, DDT was introduced to protect the crops and successfully killed many species of fish and birds (most potent when used with oil as the solvent). Few people understand that a tree does many things besides provide wood, it retains soil but also transpires a substantial amount of moisture into the air...and we cut down the forests. We cover vast areas with tarmac and concrete and deaden the soil. On my last visit to Mt. Kilimanjaro, I noticed the reduction of the ice caps and glaciers but I didn't come away with any firm conviction of a drastic change. In Tibet, I visited the glacial rivers but they seemed much unchanged, and the peak of Mt. Everest seems to have the same amount of snow and ice. The only tangible proof I have found is that some of the tropical marine life in the Sea of Cortez have move further north, but that could be explained by a shifting of currents, rather than an
157711
It is Global Warming.  Geologically speaking we are still coming out of the last ice age.  We are on in a natural cycle which has been accerated by pollution.
865117
It's full of lies. Keep in mind, this is the same person who predicted another ice age in the seventies...sorry, i really don't believe in global warming until i get some real facts. After all, how do you think the glaciers melted? The earth had to warm...and that was long before SUV's were around. just my thoughts.
1093830
Here's something to dwell on:\n\nGlobal Warming has become a religion run by fanatics reminiscent of the leaders of the darkest days of the Inquisition that nearly destroyed civil society only a few hundred years ago. We are not to question the great god of Global Warming. Those who do are separated from civil society and labeled as heretics. \n\nThe simple truth is there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. In fact, as the media frenzy screams global warming, there are a growing number of scientists who are expressing their doubts.  In 1992, just prior to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders signed The Heidelberg Appeal, a quiet call for reason in dealing with the climate change issue, which expressed a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears. Today, the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by more than 4,000 scientists and leaders from 100 countries, including more than 70 Nobel Prize winners.\n\nAlso in 1992, another statement from some 47 atmospheric scientists was issued saying greenhouse global warming theories derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. The statement went on to say, "We are disturbed that activists, anxious to stop energy and economic growth, are pushing ahead with drastic policies without taking notice of recent changes in the underlying science."\n\nIn 1995, over 85 scientists and climate experts from research labs and universities worldwide, signed the Leipzig Declaration. In part it says, "In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For these reasons, we consider ‘carbon taxes’ and other drastic control policies – lacking credible support from the underlying science – to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."\n\nIn 1997, a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists shows that 83% did not support the claims of the green house theory of Global Warming.  In 1998, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) issued a petition for signature by atmospheric scientists saying there is no scientific evidence indicating that greenhouse gases cause global warming. That petition was signed by more than 17,000 scientists and leaders involved in the issue. \n\nGlobal Warming scaremongers have tried to discredit these statements from the opposition, saying either they are too old to be counted in today’s debate or that they weren’t signed by real scientists. Neither is true. One only has to look at the signers on the documents and statements to know who and what they are. The relevance of the documents can be answered in two ways. First, most of the signers of these documents from the 1990’s hold the same positions today. Second, as is the fallacy in the Global Warming debate, such drastic climate changes, as described by scaremongers, would not come about overnight. Though the proponents would have you believe otherwise, 15 years is but a microsecond in the study of the earth’s activities.\n\nHowever, there is great question about the validity of the documents promoted by the Global Warming crowd. In May 1996, unannounced and possibly unauthorized changes to the United Nation’s report on climate change touched off a firestorm of controversy within the scientific community. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the science group that advises the United Nations on the global warming issue, presented a draft of its report in December 1995, and it was approved by the delegations. However, when the printed report appeared in May 1996, it was discovered that substantial changes and deletions had been made to the report to make it conform to the P
118898
Did you mean Global Warming?\nGlobal warming is an increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The term is also used for the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming, which attributes much of the recently observed and projected global warming to a human-induced intensification of the greenhouse effect.\n\nFor more info go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming