Science requires a starting point to every theory. When was the climate IDEAL on earth? OR is it moving toward that ideal point now? If warming occured many times before, is this just another cycle? Why did science call for an Ice Age coming in the 1970's? Was science wrong then?
The silence tells it all. No answers to the starting point.
Maybe because people know you already have your mind made up and don't want to get into another senseless argument.
LOL. You provide no scientific studies, nor explain where you disagree with climatologists. You need to be more specific with your skepticism.
No I don't. This forum is about an Ideal Time in Climate. Without an answer, your input is useless.
You dodge and you dodge and you dodge some more. You can't silence me here the way you do other places.
Climate scientists do not talk about some IDEAL. There isn't a perfect temperature. Drastically changing the temperature will be better for some species than others, though if it got too hold or too cold, eventually everything would die.
All climate change/global warming is asserting is that continuing to spew CO2 in massive amounts into the atmosphere is going to the warm the earth so much it will have severe negative effects for human beings, such as droughts, rising sea levels, and more extreme natural disasters. Ice caps are already melting, and sea levels are already rising.
I don't think any scientists is presumptuous enough to assert that such and such is the ideal temperature for all species on earth. Of course, all discussions usually center on what's best for human beings, but that's another issue.
When you start off criticism by completely misunderstanding the argument, it's hard to do much besides educate you on what the position actually says.
The argument was stated by me. Did I misunderstand myself? There must be an ideal to state anything else is not ideal. Try again, I enjoy a good laugh.
No there does not. I just explained that an ideal for one species isn't necessarily ideal for another.
Even before we started spewing massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, there are still uninhabitable parts of the earth for human beings. Does that mean we should somehow magically REDUCE the earth's temperature so we can just live anywhere? We cannot simply just control the weather always and everywhere.
You need to provide sources for your claims. You haven't provided anything, and again you continue to not respond to my assertions.
I started this forum. You have NOT replied to my assertions. When was the Ideal Climate? If thats too tough for you to answer, maybe you need to try more research.
I have already answered there isn't one. Making it better for us can hurt other species. We could at least go back to the pre-industrial era levels of CO2 emissions though.
But continued heating is going to be bad for us, and a whole lot of other species as well. The mosquitoes and the ticks are going to be happy though :p.
WHAT? Surely you believe those other species will evolve to survive. Isn't that what evolutionist preach?
That's completely irrelevant to what we are talking about. But no, evolution does not teach EVERY species evolves to survive. Many die off, and that's a pretty obvious observation.
No. Not every species will evolve and survive...I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Only some species will survive.
I have wondered the same thing. Climate has always changed even way before the combustion engine. So it's changing and maybe it's even changing for the worse for agriculture, etc. Still doesn't mean that it's cause by man. I remember when they were saying another ice age was coming - guess they were wrong. Anyone who thinks scientists are objective and that they don't have political agendas isn't very well informed.
SSSHHH--------- They think they're educated. The indoctrinated always do.
Some scientists do have political or economic agendas funded by EXXON-MOBIL and the Koch brothers, the coal companies and the electric power companies. But 98% of independent climate scientists say we should be doing something about global warming.
Ralph: don't recite leftist propaganda here. Think, it may be a new experience for you.
I think what you have uncovered, Gusser, is far more serious than climate; you have exposed the brainwashing that has been so successful it makes 'two legs good, four legs better' weak by comparison. It seems to me that an experiment has been run; 'how easy is it to brainwash people?' and this whole 'global warning' fallacy was created.
I think 'global warming' has been selected as the 'topic' and studies are being done to see how many people believe it, will defend it, etc. I suspect it has softened us for the next big lie.
I think you may be a victim of the "Tea Party Syndrome?"
http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it
James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA, explains it pretty well here. Please read it and tell us what you disagree in Hansen's op-ed, besides the fact that it appeared in that commy paper, the NYTimes.
"Game Over for the Climate" James Hansen
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opini … ;st=Search
No starting point of the perfect climate. Without that it remains BS Nasa is still trying to tell us what the average temperatures were in 1998. It must be really hard to do eh?
That was a quick reply. For some reason, I doubt you bothered to read Hansen's op-ed.
op-ed---OH -an opinion.Are opinions now facts? Did he read my opinion? Everyone has one.
Hansen is a respected scientist who is doing his best to inform the public of a very real threat. Did you read his article? For some reason I doubt it. What are your credentials, BTW?
Hansen takes Government money. He says anything to keep it flowing.
Ralph, there is no threat, there is no Global Warming, the Ice Caps won't melt. Just relax; and if you live in the Northern Hemisphere, don't throw away your parka
You're a climate scientist are you? The vast majority of the the world's climate scientists are in agreement that we are facing a major problem with man-made climate change, yet according to you there's "no problem". What are your credentials for making such a claim?
You can panic if you want, you can believe in Global Warming; you can believe in the Great Spagetti Monster. I would just suggest if you live outside of the tropics you don't dismantle your heating system. Cause if you live in NY it's going to reach 0 in the Winter, and it's going to snow. And it will do this for the next 50 years, at least.
Gusser - it's a bit hard to follow this thread. You posed an argument open for opinion and debate then you dismiss and literally argue without reason any and all comments and opinions. That's not a debate.
Hanson is a scientist. His article was based on observed facts. BTW, what are your qualifications? Membership in the Tea Party?
http://ralphdeeds.hubpages.com/hub/The- … ou-have-it
1 - NASA land-temperature data doesn't match satellite data. Land-temp data from NASA claims much more warming than the satellites.
2 - In 1999, NASA said the 1998 temperature in the US was +0.9 degrees, and the 1934 temperature was +1.5 degrees. They published a graph showing a 64 year cooling trend. In 2001(or close to it), NASA said the 1998 temperature was +1.3 degrees and the 1934 temperature was +1.2 degrees, republished the graph with a slight warming trend.
I'm just waiting for the next time they have to change their mind about what the temperatures were/are.
Nitpick if you wish. The data aren't perfectly consistent, but nearly all of them point in the same direction according to the vast majority of scientists who have studied global climate.
WHAT ? Science isn't consistant? So you believe inconsistant things, eh?
1 - The 1999 and 2001 reports aren't perfectly consistent. One shows a cooling trend and the other shows a warming trend. That is more than a slight inconsistency.
2 - NASA land data shows warming of ~ +0.5-+0.6 degrees since 1980. Satellite data shows ~ +0.3.
Reports for one year or short periods don't mean much. The record is clear that the global temperature is warming. Did you read the linked Hansen article before making your comment? Apparently, you still haven't read Hansen's article.
Ralph is finally correct. Inconsistant Nasa reports "don't mean much". Ralph, is it warming to the ideal climate or was that ideal climate sometime in the past? If so, WHEN?
Big changes in the climate--warming or cooling--tend to be quite disruptive whatever their cause, natural or man made.
Good Dodge. Try answering the question next time.
It's a dumb question. Ideal climate for whom? For the people in the U.S. upper midwest or those in Arizona and California, or those on the islands which will be underwater? There is no ideal climate for everyone. Change, either direction will cause significant problems. The people will adapt unless the climate change is quick and extreme, but the adjustments could be costly and disruptive. Some species will become extinct and others may thrive.
Call it a dumb question when you're to ignorant to have an answer. Did you learn that in Liberalism 101? If you don't have an answer, perhaps you should answer some other forum.
Gusser - What's your opinion? So far you haven't given one. So far, you only throw out jabs to everyone else's opinion. Since few here are likely scientists of any kind, we only have published data on which to base our judgment. There's been conflicting data and opinion across the board in the scientific community.
IMO, based on the pictures I've seen from Keplar, the only thing saving us is our atmosphere. As it decays, our sun will fatally toast us all. How is the atmosphere holding up?
I have to agree with the question "Ideal for whom". The Earth's climate has always been ideal for sustaining myriad life forms. It's the only planet known to us that has liquid water in vast amounts enough to sustain life. Perhaps this is what makes it ideal. But, again, I'm not a scientist.
Reports for record years matter. Besides, the entire 70 year trend was changed from a cooling trend to a warming trend.
Don't confuse them with scientific facts like that.
It's misleading to say that "science called for an ice age coming" yet it's frequently used as propaganda by climate change sceptics. In the 1970s a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age and it was taken up by the media and sensationalised. The majority of scientists, even at that time, were predicting warming.
Darn facts always get in the way of a good story!
Chart is 65-79. The Ice Age predictions were in the 1970's. Eliminate those from 65 thru 69 and the popular "scientific" view was for massive cooling. NICE TRY, errrr LIE
I know I might as well bang my head against a brick wall but I repeat:
There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970 … S-2008.pdf
It's no lie. The whole 70s ice age distraction is just indicative of the kind of manipulation, distortion and misinformation used by by the climate-change deniers.
Banging your head against the wall would make progress toward a goal (breaking the wall or your head). Some people are immovable in their religious belief that science is the enemy.
It seems that way and not just religious people. I'm mystified that some apparently believe that the world's climate scientists are part of some great conspiracy to scare the pants off us - for what reason I can't imagine. They'd rather listen to a loud-mouthed denier with no scientific credibility, screeching 'global conspiracy!' than hear what the scientists are saying.
I was in university in the 70s. In geology it was taught that we were due for another ice age as they have come every 10k = 12k years. I dispute the chart above. Most people who were alive in the 70s would remember all the warnings, the television programs, etc.
Irrespective of what you personally think , were taught in school or what you saw on TV, the fact remains those predicting an ice-age were in the minority and it's just a specious argument to try and present ice age predictions as evidence against climate change. Here is an article presented by the American Meteorological Society, if you're interested in the facts:
A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today.
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970 … S-2008.pdf
Wow Jane! You're really into it aren't you? Wow. Okay. I'll play. THE ICE CAPS ARE MELTING! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN!
lol!,... finaly,.. a sense of humor in this thread! love it!
Pardon me, I should have realised you preferred just mouthing off from the top of your head to an actual discussion. Go and stick your head back in the sand.
Not reeally. I actually did Geology in University. I actually know something more than I read in the newspaper. Are you even vaguely aware that Niagra Falls froze solid within the past 100 years? Are you aware that grapes grew in Canada 1000 years ago? Are you aware that the Earth has gotten much colder in 1000 years than it had been with in the past 8000? Are you aware that there was an ice bridge between England and France? Are you mooting that the temperature was 'right' in 1900 and 'wrong in 2000?
This Global Warming hysteria is not based on Scientific data taking the last 10000 years, (a nanosecond in the history of Earth) but on peculiar scattered 'findings' which suggest that a far less hospitable model of climate is 'correct'.
When the ice bridge between Europe and England melted about 8,000 years ago, it wasn't because of cars, or fossil fuels or any human involvement.
Nobody's denying that natural forces have in the past and will continue in the future to cause fluctuations in the global temperature and weather. Why should you deny that man-made factors (CO2)contribute to the global climate. It's not an either-or matter. The climate during any period results from both natural and man-made factors. The warming effect of greenhouse gases is real. It has been scientifically measured. This effect could be neutralized by natural forces, reversed by natural forces or enhanced by natural forces beyond our control. This is unpredictable so far as I know. The warming effect of CO2 is measurable and predictable, so it strikes me as only prudent to take steps to stop the increases in the release of greenhouse gases. It's a logical mistake to reduce the matter to a tis and tain't argument.
The hysteria about it, the belief that the sky is falling, (or sea level risings) in a kind of B grade disaster movie...the terror of many of those posting here. I mean, lets be calm and recognise that it will get very cold in NY come November. And it will stay cold until March. And if one wants to collapse in fear because it seems the temperature in 2011 was .0004 higher than it was in 1911...cool
Really? I didn't notice any hysteria from any of the posters here. Except for the guy who started this thread.
Thirty-five years ago one my wife and one of my children planted an acorn in our back yard. Now we have an oak tree forty feet high. In case you don't get my point, we need to begin to look beyond next winter, in my opinion.
We may well becoming victims of the "boiled frog syndrome."
Yes I have heard of the 'grapes' argument. 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period) parts of the world were as warm or warmer as they are today, while other parts were cooler than today. Averaged out, overall warmth was similar to the early 20th century. However, global temperatures are now significantly warmer what they were a thousand years ago.
There were known causes to Medieval warming-eg;higher than average solar radiation and a decrease in volcanic activity. Evidence suggests changes in ocean circulation patterns shifted warmer waters into the North Atlantic, which accounts for the unusual warmth in that region. There is no such explanation for Global warming today.
That man-made global warming is negatively affecting the planet is no longer in dispute among climate scientists - the overwhelming majority (97%) are in agreement over this. I'm not a scientist so I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of climate science - I rely on those who are experts in the field to be telling the truth. You're entitled to stick with the tiny minority who deny the problem but it makes little sense to me that 97% are likely to be wrong and 3% are likely to be right.
It has not been easy for those who wish to push the 'Global Warming' argument down the throats of the population. It has a long dumbing down process.
For example, most of the people on this site claim to be Christians. They could probably draw the costume of a Roman Soldier 2k years ago. Now considering what the temperature was in Jerusalem on Good Friday last, they would have frozen their balls off, (to be coarse) if they dressed like that today.
Now it is known, proven, beyond doubt, that the world was far warmer up until about the mid 1600s and it became rather cold until recent times. To read History, i.e. 3000 years ago to 1000 years ago leaves one in no doubt that the Earth sank into a mini-ice age from which it is just emerging
I guess the question is more about whether or not it's ideal for 7 billion humans.
I'm pretty sure the cockroaches will be fine with a 5° increase in temperature. Will that work for you?
Sidebar: Humans are one of the most adaptable mammals known. We'll probably go into shade and underground - like rats.
I tried to make that point. But some people can't handle subtlety!
I wrote a Hub about how bad global warming could get if it reaches its full potential: http://rocknj.hubpages.com/hub/How-Meth … Extinction
There's a tremendous amount of methane trapped in polar regions and beneath the Earth's oceans that if released could have a catostrophic impact on all living beings on Earth. This is not science fiction, according to geologists who study the geological record, this massive warmup due to methane gas releases has happened at least twice in the Earth's history, which coincided with massive extinction events on Earth.
If you really want to have some fun, ask people why NASA was unable to tell us in 1999 what the temperature had been in 1998.
When GW became a big topic again, they had to adjust recent temps up and past temps down to make it look like the earth has warmed more than it has.
Ideal for who or what? Climate is determined the earth's solar orbit. Ideal is whatever it is and what is best adjusted. Seems to me science is pretty agreed that warming is occurring. It is natural if you are capitalist and unnatural if you are a socialist.
If climate is determined by solar orbit, how is man effecting that. Man made global warming must be from to many people jumping at one time and changing the earths orbit. ;-)
I dunno about most arguments when it comes to Global Warming, but I don't think we'll be in much of an "ideal" situation if the polar ice caps all melt and the ocean rises by tens or hundreds of feet, drowning coastal communities and causing people to lose their homes and create issues with land availability.
No, common sense. When it gets hot, things melt. There's TONS of water frozen in those ice caps.
As for an ideal temperature, I don't exactly think there is one -- it probably depends on multiple factors at a specific time... right now though, with 7 billion people on the planet, it's pretty obvious that an ideal temperature is definitely one that wont have everyone underwater.
Psycheskinner is right. How can you not realize that? And as an added note, I do applaud Al Gore and his cameos on Futurama.
The current temperature is far from putting 7 billion people under water. So what's your worry? Did you have this much concern during the last warming trend?
It's not the current temperature that's the issue, it's the upward trend -- with more people means more production and harmful gasses that cause the world to go through the warming phase faster or more intensely.
But the upward trend was claimed AFTER changing actual figures that showed a downward trend. Why do you chose to believe "doctored" info?
I'm going off the basic idea that heat + polar ice caps = higher sea levels, add in the variable of billions of more humans than there was at the start of the 19th century, along with their machinery, cars, and whatever else probably helps further along global warming due to harmful gas emissions to the ozone. Whether or not we're in a global warming threat period right now I'm not 100% sure on, but that doesn't mean I don't think we def. need to take precautions now to stop from screwing ourselves over in the future.
The worry is mainly about the not to distant future temperature, although the current temperature is already causing undesirable effects in some parts of the world.
If warming continues weather patterns will become increasing erratic, more and more species will become extinct, enormous tracts of land will go underwater, sea water will encroach on important waterways and agricultural systems will collapse. That is why it is bad.
No--the US military!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja … sing-force
Of course, Koch will tell you the military doesn't know anything...HE does. After all, his dad worked for Stalin...who better to know everything?
and who better as a patriotic American?
"Ohhhh Gloryglory halleluyah
Glory glory halleluya
Glory glor halleluya
That Koch has B*lls of steel"
Bring in the Koch's when you have nothing. How scientific of you.
He financed the stone-walling of the first EVER wind farm on the East coast of America. He has everything to do with Global Warming. He is a polluter extra-ordinaire. And a killer of renewable energy.
Coal and oil....global warming's best friends. And let's get into more wars for it, ya hear?
The planet has built-in temperature control. When it gets too hot a cooling kicks in which prevents complete extinction and vice versa. It is said that this control system has much to do with the great conveyor.
Stop the conveyor and instant ice age, and it is further conjectured that melting ice caps will stop the conveyor.
So what was the climate like during the "big bang"? Was it warmer or cooler than now? Was it the ideal climate then?
Gusser - According to what I've seen, by the time enough particles collected and compressed to form planet Earth, the temperature was ideal to sustain life. Now, what do you think?
Just returned for a few moments. So what was the average Temp during that time? Or are you just making stuff up? Wait, I bet your a Climatologist, right? Be back in a bit.
hahaha - no an environmental scientist specializing in wetlands ecology. So you're looking for a number? Why not just research this? It's not really a debatable topic. The question of optimal living conditions is since that would be subjective in terms of relative life forms. Just follow the evolutionary scale and you'll probably discover that the mean temp wasn't much different than it is today.
P.S. I like debate but if your response is arbitrary I probably won't respond.
Since nobody was around during your big bang, Temps are not recorded. So much for your response. You are just guessing again. Science is supposed to be fact not guess work. BUT THANKS FOR PLAYING: next contestant please.
Freaking out? Hell I'm just pointing out how ignorant those who claim to be educated really are. Not one contestant has answered the origional question. They just regurgitate what their political bent tells them. Both sides of this are good entertainment, as are you.
That's because your original question is meaningless. As many here have pointed out. You just don't get it. Why do you continue to embarrass yourself?
The question is a basic premise of science. It is senseless to those who claim education without understanding basic science. But thanks for the entertainment.
No it isn't. There doesn't have to be an "ideal" climate for global warming/cooling cycles to exist.
All scientific theory REQUIRES a starting point. Cycles ? Are you sure this is just another cycle in earths history? Well another Global warming denier has been created.
Gusser - I wasn't guessing to begin with so I can't be guessing again. As those who have seen my comments on all forums may have surmised, you can always take me literally. That means I write exactly what I mean (with the rare sarcasm meant for jackasses). I used the word probably because it's common sense to think so but I haven't done the research. And we all know the big bang is not my theory, but thanks for pointing to it. And although you read into my comment that I've been educated, I never claim anything. Education is relative and doesn't require schooling or books.
So moving on, you still haven't given any opinion, which means you have none. You're an ass who likes to antagonize others for your amusement. We've seen you're type many times over the years here and you're good at it. In the end, however, you're still an ass with a big mouth who says nothing.
And since you weren't there when your Bible was written, there's no reason for you to take it literally. There's no proof, scientific or otherwise and no starting point from which you can bestow your infamous common sense. You have none. None that you've shown here.
By the way, you should probably clean up your hubs. Poor sentence structure, run on sentences, misplaced punctuation, misuse of tense and much more. Not to mention misinformation based, no doubt, on a lifetime of assumption, narrow mindedness, religious indoctrination and philosophical malachievement.
if a man walks down the street and see's an angry dog chained to a post in a desolate yard,... does he reach out to pet him?... would it be wise to throw a treat to the angry dog? even if it is clear he's far too buisy growling and barking to notice or care about the food?
niether should any one wishing to keep thier fingers, reach out to debate some one who wants only to fight.
walk on friends,.... just keep walking,.... let others feed fingers to the angry chained dog.
When I was a young boy in the 1970s, I was being taught the imminent arrival of an ice age was on the way. The money pot ran dry for that story so the people that know more than we do started bleating about global warming, sorry its global climate change. Global climate change has always happened.
Global warming isn't much disputed. The cause is. 1)Glacial melt irrigates the lower elevations where food is grown. 2) Fresh water from ice is diluting the balance of the ocean ecosystem. Ever raise saltwater fish? Slightest imbalance in their habitat is usually fatal. 3) Most major metropolitan centers are ocean/seaports, and a rise in overall temps will cause more devastating hurricanes/w storm surge. It could be yearly repeats of the devastation experienced by New Orleans. 4)Migratory and hiberbation patterns are already changing, which could mean trouble for many bird and animal species. This has been noted on the Oregon coast over the last ten to fifteen years. Great whites are inhabiting areas that were once, too cold. 5) The perma-frost in the great northern tundra is beginning to thaw. It threatens to totally alter that terrain, making it unsuitable for the lifeforms adapted to those conditions. 6)Breeds of trees are slated for extinction due to the projected changes in their habitat from global warming. And, my personal favorite, #7 reason why we should be worried: More water, less land, more people.
You know, everyone raised before me says the whole new ice age thing, but when I was poking around an old book store many of the books from the 80's on climate change claimed it could go either way. Cooling or warming.
Climate change is certainly a constant but it is foolish to think it is necessarily a benign phenomena.
Ice ages are not benign but there have been plenty in Western Europe which is vulnerable to changes in the ocean currents.
There is also strong genetic evidence that human beings were nearly rendered extinct 150,000 years ago, probably by climate change, certainly by some sharp change in environmental conditions.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … tinct.html
That's true but what's new is the effect of increasing amounts of green house gases being pumped into the atmosphere. Previous cycles were due to natural forces. There is nothing natural about green house gases. We are consciously and voluntarily putting our future and that of future generations needlessly at risk.
Carladeed...I probably was in class with you. What I find so funny right now, is the Queen's Diamond Jubilee...in JUNE...it was freezing out there!!!
When we talk of Global Warming being good or bad we are talking about it from our standpoint as human beings living on the surface of a planet which is covered mostly BY water. I'm pretty sure fish and marine creatures generally wouldn't be particuarly peturbed if the seas rose and covered more land. Neither do they worry if it rains far more frequentlyand there are more storms and humanity is stressed because of this.
But from our standpoint, however, a sufficient temperature rise could put just about every bit of the landmass on this planet BELOW water. Make no mistake about it. There is enough water locked as ice to do this, according to the scientists calculations. (At least, I read this somewhere) But even if the temperature rises only a degree or so, it raises sea levels around the world.
I'm not going to buy into the argument of whether or not we human beings are causing such a rise. The question didn't ask that.
Did any of you happen to notice the Queen's Diamond Jubilee? It was like last week? June? You remember June; that's a 'summer month'? It was cold. Really Cold....in London....what happened to Global Warming? Did they shut it off?
Obviously, you don't understand climate change.
Topic; GLOBAL WARMING
Untopic: CLIMATE CHANGE
Obviously you don't read English well
Global warming is to Climate Change as blouse is to Macy's. This is not a forum on 'Climate Change' this is a forum on "Global Warmers; Explain how Climate Change is bad."
My understanding of the topic is that
1) It is requesting those who believe in Global Warming explain why it is bad.
2) Explain why Climate Change is bad
The poser of the question appears to wish to solicit cogent replies which 'prove' Global Warming and which "prove' that a climate change is inherently bad.
I do not believe that there is Global Warming, nor do I believe a change in Climate is inherently bad.
by Kenna McHugh 3 years ago
The Sun actually has something to do with the Climate Changehttps://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016 … ge-retrea/
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by Holle Abee 5 years ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Randy Godwin 5 years ago
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...
by ThunderKeys 10 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please explain.
by emievil 13 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.
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|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.|