Ingela

With a different view in the White House on the existence of AGW, how do you think that will affect the American opinion and here on Yahoo Answers?

Do you think the opinion of the American people will come closer the opinion of the rest of the world?

Not being an American I haven't heard this before.

What's your thoughts and comments?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/pol...

*Quote:*

The message, posted Monday on the password-protected al-Hesbah Web site, said if al-Qaida wants to exhaust the United States militarily and economically, "impetuous" Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain is the better choice because he is more likely to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This requires presence of an impetuous American leader such as McCain, who pledged to continue the war till the last American soldier," the message said. "Then, al-Qaida will have to support McCain in the coming elections so that he continues the failing march of his predecessor, Bush."

*End-quote*

Quote:

"Right now we have a real opportunity to transform our economy from one running on fossil fuels to one largely based on clean energy. Technologies and know-how to accomplish this are either available today or are under development. We can build whole new industries and create millions of new jobs. We can cut energy costs, both at the gas pump and at home. We can improve our national security. And we can put a big dent in climate change. With strong leadership we could be moving forward on an aggressive but realistic time-line and an approach that offsets costs with real economic gains. "

link: http://knol.google.com/k/-/-/15x31uzlqeo5n/1#

Look at this article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jul/25/gre...

Cutting emissions doesn't have to cause economic disaster if we just look forward for new technologies instead of relying on old. Instead, it would probably have helped the U.S. (and other countries) to deal with the high prices for oil.

"Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet. "

"The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels."

I'll give you the source to these two quotes later.

Before answering this question, please follow the below link and look at the predictions made by Dr. James E. Hansen in 1988.

Please scroll down to the second and third graph and notice how the models have calculated a dip in temperatures around 2008.

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/mo...

Again, this was calculated 1988, so when the temperatures rises again according to the predictions made, will it mean the end to this "denial debate"?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,5...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/opinion/10thu1.h...

If we continue to emit large amounts of CO2, food prices will continue to rise due to global warming. So we need to take actions to lower our emissions right away. But if we use bio-fuel produced from food crops, our emissions would be lower, yet the food prices would continue to rise.

None of this is fair to the poor. So do you think people in the rich world care and do you have any suggestions on how to handle this problem?

(If you don't accept global warming to be a problem then don't answer if you don't have anything else to say than that we should continue to use gasoline.)

Instead of making an effort to try to understand at least the basic science behind global warming and the greenhouse effect.

I think it's scary that statements made by skeptics using their "common sense" are likely to become new truths among deniers.

I read in one answer today that "consensus among scientists is that CO2 doesn't cause global warming"

In another answer there was a link that shows that skin cancer is decreasing as a argument against global warming and wonder how any "common sense" relates that to AGW? (Maybe this was related to the persistent misunderstanding about the ties between the ozone hole and global warming that makes people confuse these subjects when they think for themself.)

According to some in this section global warming "alarmism" is making young people feel suicidal.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj7pZ...

So, can global warming denial help "cure" other people's fear or is it just making it worse?

What do you think is the best way to help people who is extremely scared of global warming and its consequenses?

Do you believe that every month and every year on a local level (or even global) has to be warmer than the previous year or corresponding month to make global warming true?

The average rate of increase/year is currently close to 0.02 degrees Celsius per year on a global scale. Will you notice and is global warming a fraud if you don't?

Obviously some people feels threatened or what other reason could there be?

This was the source I used:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...

When big corporations (many of them either carbon intensive or making their living from fossil fuel) agrees that AGW is real and may be a serious problem, does that for one second make the deniers think that they might be wrong?

Examples:

BP: " We participate in the policy debate in many jurisdictions arguing in favour of mandatory emission caps and policies that set a price for carbon in a way that can change behaviour and encourage innovation."

http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categor...

Volvo: "Climate change driven by human activity is perhaps the greatest challenge of the 21st century with the power to alter radically the basis for life on this planet."

http://www.environment-prize.com/index_part2.e

Siemens: "Global warming is a reality. Its negative effects on the environment are a fact. It is still within our grasp to limit the magnitude of this development"

http://w1.siemens.com/responsibility/en/perspectiv...

20 people get stranded on a deserted island.

10 of these people also carries enough grain to grow crops sufficient for all of them.

If used wisely the grain and the other resources discovered on the island is enough to give all of them all they need to survive and live fullfilled lives for as long as needed (but without excessive luxury though).

If used unwisely, they could share the destiny of the Eastern Islands ancient society (link: http://www.primitivism.com/easter-island.htm)

What do you think would be the most fair way for them to share the resources and solve the situation?

If any of them started to pollute the drinking water on the island, or using the resources unwisely, what do you think the others should do/have the right to do to protect their own future? Or could this person polluting just refer to "individual rights" and continue to destroy their chances for a good future?

I just found out about this newly released game "Sim City Societies" where you can choose how to build your city concerning greenhouse gases as well. I thought the idea was interesting and fun.

See more here (look at the snippet of the game): http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/be-an...

What do you think? Can this help raise awareness?

More information in this press release: http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr071125_climate...

What do you think:

1. It's a natural variation and has nothing to do with global warming

2. It's due to global warming (which human activities don't have any impact on)

3. It's due to global warming (and due to human activities)

4. The statement is not true.

Any other comments?

Is it the U.S. government's way to divert the attention from cuts in CO2 emissions?

You can read about the connection between the ozone layer and GW here: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/globa...

# A 92 mile by 92 mile area of desert filled with CSP plants could power the U.S

# Around 0.3% of Sahara could power Europe, Middle East and North Africa

# CSP can combat water shortages, avoid future humanitarian disasters

Please look at this link: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/12/ec...

I don't know much about this but it sounds great. Anyone who can tell anything more about it?

... wouldn't "peak oil" and the pollution from coal be reasons enough to do all we can to speed up the research, development and implementation of more renewable energy sources?

The world's demand for energy will not decrease. To those denying greenhouse gases can cause global warming, do you really want to run right into peak oil with no other real alternatives than coal (or nuclear) power?

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,168...

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

(I posted this question earlier, but thanks to Mr Jello I realized I linked to a sequence far down on the site. Since it's very important to read the story from the beginning I post this new question instead.)

The above link tells the history of the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its contribution to global warming.

This is a must read for everyone that claims that

- Man made global warming is a conspiracy

- the computer models aren't reliable

- CO2 doesn't drive climate

- The theory is invented by Al Gore

- other silly arguments

Yes, it's a long read but if you can't take the time to read stories that debunk your arguments then you are just irresponsible deniers and your counter arguments don't deserve to be taken seriously.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_1988

The above link tells the history of the science of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its contribution to global warming.

This is a must read for everyone that claims that

- Man made global warming is a conspiracy

- the computer models aren't reliable

- CO2 doesn't drive climate

- The theory is invented by Al Gore

- other silly arguments

Yes, it's a long read but if you can't take the time to read stories that debunk your arguments then you are just irresponsible deniers and your counter arguments don't deserve to be taken seriously.