Global Warming question?
Answer:
I see you have bought into the "all of the experts agree" propaganda.
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime.”
i see your point. some people express themselves differently. i agree in some situations, though...
keith
What gives US citizens the "authority" to express our opinions is the Constitution. Ever heard of it? Whether you agree/disagree with my opinion on the cause of global warming, I have the right to express it. That is not up for debate!
the right to freedom of speech.
She asked of your authority, not about the freedom of speech! What gives you, as a person who knows nothing about the scientific research, the authority to lay claims when all you are interested in is politics (for instance)? There is a moral ground to this as well. The severity of the subject strongly speaks to the integrity of the participants in these debates. I do not think that people promoting political views, not scientific, has such integrity! I do believe that you must be able to answer things as a human being, with integrity and values, not just relaying on the right to freedom of speech, when talking to others.
This site could be an educational, and informative place. I do place the presence of disinformation, and politically motivated statements on the FunQA.com team.
To Pat j: Those gases does not retain heat. When the sun light enters the atmosphere it's short wave length. It gets absorbed and reemitted by the Earth's surface. This long wave radiation is 'picked' up by the GHG's who then sends them out in all directions. About 50% of them reaches the Earth's surface a second time, heating it more.
There's nothing scientific about global warming. It's just plain commonsense. Scientists are saying CO2 has a greenhouse effect. I ask myself how can a gas retain heat. If that was true then why the space round a thermos flask has a vacuum applied and not pumped full of CO2. If heat can be transmitted through a gas then it must be able to go back the other way when the source of the heat is taken away. Just what happens at night. Summer night temperatures stay warm due to the fact that days are longer than night but still drop.
I think the rise in average global temperature(.4c) and the rise in CO2 levels are just a consequence. Temperatures have been higher than they are now with less CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ones who are trying to convince us the two are connected are out to fleece your wallet.
Don't get me wrong, there are changes taking place. I feel it during the summer in the intensity of the sun but to think it can be fixed by charging huge amounts of money for the change, is just a scam.
Global warming from accumulation of CO2 was predicted in 1896. I have a "New Scientist" magazine (an English publication) from 1989 with two articles about it. I knew about it in the late 1970s. I have been reading about it on and off ever since. I understand the physics involved in a little more than general detail. It is a matter of physics and chemistry, not politics.
I have not seen Mr. Gore's Power Point presentation. I have seen a TV program disputing global warming, and the fact that much of the objectors on it are older than I. Old scientists get set in their ideas. Despite that one or two have publicly dissociated themselves from the show.
Data for the past 10 years were conveniently omitted from the program as they did not fit the thesis that global warming was solely due to the Sun's cycle. 8 of the past 10 years have been the hottest on record since the 1850s if not rather longer.
My personal measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere were 0.032% by volume in 1976 -77, 0.0345% a few years later and up to 0.036% in 1988. Presently it is said to be 0.0383% or so. Compare this with 0.030% quoted in the mid 1960s. This is a very large increase in much less than a human lifetime.
If you think that isn't much, perhaps you'd consider that a blood cyanide content of a similar proportion isn't much either.
It is clear from most of the answers and questions that some people seem to think it was something that Al Gore invented. They are flat wrong. It looks as if some have been lied to. It is also clear that many have no idea of the actual mechanisms involved, which, given the sad state of science education, does not surprise me.
I wouldnt lump everyone into that distinct category, however I agree with you that people will often debate about science topics of which they have very little knowledge, for example, the evolution debate.
I agree. I studied it at university for a number a projects during my physics degree (which i just graduated from so I'm up to date with recent figures) and when people tell me that its the green house effect i laugh.
Study it first, don't listen to the government make your own mind up and then argue with me.
And your right its not a matter of opinion
The fact is with the majority of people not having any science knowledge they will believe anything they are told.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: