Why do you not believe in Global Warming/Climate Change?
I have no doubt our earth is warming at an alarming rate. One of the reasons I think this is because of the photo I included with the question. Otzi--the Iceman--was frozen over 5000 years ago and has remained that way through all sorts of weather trends until just a few years ago when his icy coffin melted away. This is not just a warming trend my friends.
If you are a climate change denier then please explain why our worlds best scientist are lying about it and why. A conspiracy of this size without leaks is unthinkable.
Somewhat yes, but others do not believe it's happening, despite the evidence. Like some still believe in Noah's Ark. We can't remove the rainforests and spew hydrocarbon fumes into the atmosphere and expect things to stay the same.
Give me a call and you can hike with me Randy. There is a place where 10 million years is condensed into 1 inch of formation. And the canyon is 1 mile deep in spots. Metamorphic rock dates 2 billion years. Really? People "have faith" in man caused?
Eric, then why are the world's leading scientists lying about the data? And what is their motive for doing so? Do you realize how difficult it would be to keep that a secret? Get real, dude!
Cows fart! and my family treats the world with respect but we know that our impact is so minor. 5 volcanoes at the same time. 1 volcano puts more out than LA for 200 years. Such egocentric people really think they have an impact. Morons.
All it would take to end life as we know it is for Yellowstone to blow. And that will probably happen long before man ruins the world.
So far, you guys haven't given a reason for the worlds brightest scientists faking the results of the data proving global warming is real. Even Trump's secret doings leak out in today's world. LOL!
Randy I think we are in closer to agreement than some would think. Yes man has impact. But not enough to change the patterns of climate that has been changing for billions. We hurt the earth as it effects us.
Amen: I agree that there is climate change, daily, but liberals seek to affix blame on human activity which is not settled science as they want you to believe. Calling those who don't agree with their position climate deniers is hysteria.
John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible.
Instead, what 'little evidence' there is for rising global temperatures points to a 'natural phenomenon' within a developing eco-system.
In an open letter attacking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, he wrote: "The ocean is not rising significantly.
"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.
"Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).
"I have studied this topic seriously for years. It has become a political and environment agenda item, but the science is not valid."
Also> https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/global-w … r-natural/
So, the earth hasn't changed according to you? You will only listen to those that agree with you. The majority of weather scientists agree that global climate change is real, and humans are responsible. Not believing them won't help our world.
What I find questionable is that what is the 'Norm?" The Earth has been hotter and colder during its existence. Was the Norm when Grapes grew in Canada? Was the Norm when England was connected to France by an ice bridge?
The "norm" would be the optimal conditions of the earth in its natural state, free from artificial conditions imposed by humans or animals. Barring that, the norm would be the average conditions calculated over ttime. Global warming averages are up.
How about the Cenozoic and the Mesozoic and the Paleozoic and the Proterizoic and the Hadean and the Jurassic time periods? Is someone serious about 1 million years as evidence?
How long have humans existed in civilized conditions, Eric? When did we really start the industrial revolution and began to clear the land of vast acres of vegetation which keeps the oxygen levels up? Doh!
Randy, one magma explosion, one massive solar flare and one huge earthquake. Mankind has no influence, we are nasty lame ducks. With that said, I leave a neutral footprint while Gore flies in private jets. Silly people.
This planet has gone through so many changes and man was never the cause for any of them. We might have somewhat of an influence on nature, but, like Eric said, a volcano or sun flare. As a matter of fact, it would only take Yellowstone to elawki.
I commend everyone that has commented for keeping their civility on this divisive subject.
Eric, are you smarter than the scientists? Do you disbelieve the ice packs are melting? Or do you think mankind has no part in this "natural" phenomenon?
Randy, I think man can and does effect the planet.But I just cannot ignore 5 previous ice ages. For many millions of years there was no ice even in the arctics. That comes from scientists, so I guess I do not think I am smarter.
What is the harm is cleaning up after ourselves? We are definitly creating pollution, garbage, and food shortages right now! Forget previous earth events. We had no control then. But we can control some of this weather change now.
Global warming is but another manufactured environmental crisis whose real purpose is social engineering.
Austinstar, I do believe in and live with a tiny footprint. Less is better and reusing is mandatory. I think we can make our planet better for man. But over the long haul we cannot change the climate, it will do as it does.
Yeah, it's best if we just give it all up and surrender. I'm glad that not all of us feel that way.
Lela, check out the PO hub. Very bad news!
Isn't it possible to recognize that we have an impact, and yet not go all chicken little. Maybe I do by action, but not a visceral fear. The changes in the next 2 decades might even wipe out 1 million or billion. Isn't that good for the earth? Weird?
Yes I can imagine he shocked "the academics" as he is showing his ignorance.
In science you have to backup your thesis. The global warming is proven over and over again by many scientist. His claim is 1 against a million. Shockingly naieve!
Accordingly Peter. The call is obvious. Feelings and beliefs and morals are not at play here. Science and natural law is. So by your logical standards we should let hurricanes, earthquakes wipe out a good billion people. Man must go!
Of course not Eric, if you can save a human life, or prevent a disaster you should do the best in you capabilities to do so. (I'm not talking about the pro-life thing, that's a different discussion).
Peter that fact remains. Kill of people is the only route to really limiting our impact. Man made disaster let it be man who extincts man. It is the only solution. Like thinning a herd of deer when they outrank predators you killed off. Simple Scienc
And according to which rules, who should be killed and who are the executors? Who is disposable! This way of thinking is a disaster and used in dictatorships where some people find themselves more human then others...
Absolutely my friend. We go with Paris accords and the US pays for India. India without coal or China without is death to millions of millions but West Virginia only jobs and poor children. This concept of "we bear the burden" is wrong. My children?
Eric, I suppose you agreed with exterminating most of the Native Americans by the European settlers then.
Going out of the Paris accord was in many ways stupid. Business wise and political. The US doesn't have the right to influence to shape the future anymore. Better to play the game, although you may not like it, then to be an outsider.
Randy please do not be silly. It is a point being made that if man is the problem, reducing man is the solution.
Peter I see your point. Only a player can effect the outcome of the game notion. But sometimes a player holds out for more money.
There is a price tag on leading the world. Apparently Trump is not interested in leading the world and more in money. This is short sighted. Politically and business wise.
Other countries like China will fill the gap where the US retreats.
by Pamda Man 10 years ago
I recently did some research on global warming. I found out that the USA is emitting over 25% of the world's polluting gases. These include sulphur dioxide which causes acid rain, and nitrous oxides which causes health problems. I find this very alarming, as the USA, as a developed country, is...
by emievil 10 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by nextstopjupiter 10 years ago
How can we survive global warming/climate change?
by T. Clifton 5 years ago
Do you believe in global warming?Do you think the numbers are falsified?
by SparklingJewel 2 years ago
from the patriotpost:::a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide...
by Kenna McHugh 4 months ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|