Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
global warming
18 Answers
i know we've got a few American regulars on AB, and i'm sure that theres plenty of hits from the states, so "Question" how many Americans believe that global warming is a serious issue?Bush certainly doesn't (does he?) .. Is it just political propaganda?
Answers
1 to 18 of 18
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mr_pointment. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I spend quite a lot of time in America and it is almost as if they live in a bubble and don't quite know what is going on around them, I am not saying that a lot of them aren't concerned, but I speak to them a lot and a lot of them simply don't hear about some of the things we do. The 4 x 4's just keep on growning in fact I would say that it is the norm to have one now and you hardly ever see any 'normal' cars on the freeway now, however with petrol as cheap as it is compared to ours I expect it will continue. Anyway let's see if any answer.
So... let me try. The subject has been and is being discussed here in the great unwashed outback. Problem is, when the various experts of one stripe or another are consulted, one easily finds that there is no consensus as to whether any warming measured (less than 1 degree F over the last 10 years) is the result of manmade problems, as some maintain, or simply a cyclical phenomena.
I think the U.S. takes more heat over it's position on the Kyoto Protocol than anything else relating to 'Global Warming'. However, here again when the facts are fully understood, one finds that the U.S. and other developed countries who are already reducing emissions are heavily punished in comparison to India and China whose emerging economies demonstrably contribute to significant pollution. Additionally, they and other undedevloped counries can actually sell their 'pollution credits' to other countries, further exacerbating the appearance of totally unfair attack on our country...
The vehicle (4 X4's) demographics is already changing, as it always has in response to market forces...
I think the U.S. takes more heat over it's position on the Kyoto Protocol than anything else relating to 'Global Warming'. However, here again when the facts are fully understood, one finds that the U.S. and other developed countries who are already reducing emissions are heavily punished in comparison to India and China whose emerging economies demonstrably contribute to significant pollution. Additionally, they and other undedevloped counries can actually sell their 'pollution credits' to other countries, further exacerbating the appearance of totally unfair attack on our country...
The vehicle (4 X4's) demographics is already changing, as it always has in response to market forces...
that answer is a bit premature isca. although i agree that emmisions should be reduced globaly, the fact is that nobody really knows what the outcome will be. the world may not end or it may. if the temperature rose sufficiently then the all of the water in the world would evaporate quicker causing more clouds and global dimming. or it may not. until it happens we can only speculate
when i say 'world ends' its kind of a metaphor chief. i dont think theyve set a date or anything! i just think that it would be better to err on the side of caution and deal with this problem before the sh*t really hits the fan. The 'lets sit back on wait for some incontrevertable data plan' strikes me as a bit haphazard and asking for a great deal of trouble.
And Clanad, just for the record, forget pollution credits, the worlds biggest producer of harmful carbon emmisions is, by some distance, the USA. Im not anti american, you seem lovely, although a bit trigger happy but you as a country need to take this much more seriously, it effects us all and is not going away.
Interesting question really, there are those who say that as we are now running out of oil/gas anyway there will not be enough pollution in the future to make the global warming really bad, just google ''peak oil'' or ''oil depletion''
As the US is the largest user of oil on the planet they have made themselves a society based upon cheap oil and that is now at and end, if you want to have some idea of the present state of things and probable future problems that will cause make the effort to find and download a documentary film called ''The end of suburbia''
As the US is the largest user of oil on the planet they have made themselves a society based upon cheap oil and that is now at and end, if you want to have some idea of the present state of things and probable future problems that will cause make the effort to find and download a documentary film called ''The end of suburbia''
two points to ponder.
At the G8 summit of world leaders last summer, President Bush acknowledged man is warming the planet. But he stood alone in opposition to mandatory emissions controls, which he called too costly
A very recent study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.
who do we believe,what do we believe? do we really care?
I work in the UK for a US company so I know quite a few Americans and I have come to the conclusion that they are completely brainwashed. It's all about their belief in everything being great - "let's ignore the problems and make more money". I don't think it's their fault - they just seem to be naturally optimistic and so are easily brainwashed from birth by their one sided media and corrupt and evil leaders.
The Existance of Global warming is not disputed. Whether man kind has an effect is really the question.
There's a very good national Geographic series called "Earth Story" where among other things they describe what is known as the long carbon cycle, essentially at any one time 97% of the carbon is involved in it, so 3% is available for mankind. In short Mankind has very little to do with the natural cycles of the planet.
It has become de riguer to jump on the eco band wagon because you can only get funding for research that's fashionable so there are countless scientists spouting what is fashionable. Now don't get me wrong we should do as much as possible to keep the air as clean as possible but really we are amatuers at polluting compared to mother nature. Forest fires, volcanoes etc etc put masses of carbon into the atmosphere. I think we should get away from this frankly vain Idea that mankind has any effect on the climate, the Earth always has and always will go through it's cycles, the earth has existed for 4.6Billion years what makes us think that we can say anything meaningful based on data for at most 200 years?
Hi loosehead, well if you loosely (no pun intended) define the climate as the place we live in then we do have a very profound effect on the ''climate'', when you take into account all the changes caused by humans generally such as de-forestation, pollution of all the water systems, land errosion, loss of species etc..etc..ad infinitum then we are having an effect on our climate that the world will get over as it has all the other catastrophes in the past, but the fragile systems we jokingly define as civilisation may not survive the fallout of all these things combined and now if we add even a minute effect that humans might have on the weather climate with warming etc.. then it does seem that we are getting ourselves into something we might have trouble to get out of.
Im an american from New York, and am completely against Bush and his entire party. We are brain-washed. Our media is totally controlled, and people simply don't read enough or do enough research. Bush is the worst thing that could've happened to us, and the rest of the world. I was in shock to find out he was against Kyoto Protocol, yet not surprising because he would loose too much of his precious money for consistently exceeding the emission limit. We care too much about our way of life to change it for the environment. It really is sick, and makes me embarresed to be an Amercian often.
Bush recently came to Canadaigua (in upstate New York), to visit a senior citizens home to discuss the new medicaid program, and a very close friend of my family happens to work there. Well she informed us that the people living in the senior citizens home were forced to stay in their rooms......Bush is seen with senior citizens, but they're not Canadaigua senior Citizens, YEP! Bush brought his own group of retirees to the interview and staged the whole thing! This is fact. I couldn't believe it. It's scary.
Seems there must be more than one Canadaigua, or perhaps it was President Bush's evil twin that brought in his own elderly... The local newpaper reported
"Ferris Hills Prepares for Bush
by Leah George
Photo by Andrew Heizne
Published Mar 13, 2006
Before speaking at Canandaigua Academy, President Bush will talk with a few select senior members of the Finger Lakes community.
About a dozen residents at Ferris Hills Senior Center were chosen by lottery to listen to the president talk about Medicare Part D.
Proud Republican Mary Foster is a part of that group. She used to be a public health educator and plans to give the president advice.
"We have to get the message to the people in a way they can understand it and I think this is what we're going to try to do here in our little session I hope," said Foster.
The other 150 residents who will not be meeting with the president have been asked to stay in their rooms during the hours of the president's visit. Most say the are understanding of the security restrictions. "
The article further stated that thousands lined the President's motorcade route to cheer and get a glimpse of him. There were a few hundred protestors. The President met with the senior citizens even though he was delayed nearly 90 minutes due to weather delaying his arrival at the Rochester, NY airport. His purpose for the trip was to explain and encourage senior citizens to participate his new proscription drug benefit plan which will greatly reduce costs to seniors for the drug prescriptions...
I'm saddened by the predictible in this thread.
When I visit the UK, I am struck by the "closed circuit" reporting of the news about America and America's vibrant discussion of the issues. One might call that one-sided reporting brain-washing as well. Very sad, because an attempt at discussion between the people of these two nations often results in labels and "sound bites" hurled at the American who takes a nuanced position on issues.
If one responds that "global warming" is a complicated subject, not easily pidgeon-holed, the discussion quickly decends responses of "I have the acceptable, politically-correct, morally superior stance" and "You are wrong - you stupid neanderthal throw-back, ethno-centric retard."
Or an American who is uncomfortable with his (her) nationality will predictibly respond, "I'm not one of those stupid neanderthals. Please accept me as one of you. I have been informed by the best of teachers and professors about what is correct to believe."
Very sad.
For avery action there is a equal but opposite reaction. the theory is great for global warming is not at a state of having equal but opposite effects on the enviornment. we wouild think that it would, but when we are introducing such a great amount of particles/debrie into the global weather food chain that now instead of consuming the matter the atmophere is puking it back at us and we have not developed a medicine or cure. we now are trying to develop a system somewhat like the bees have in which when we eat these particles we should puke back honey not vomit/ make formaly what we know as toxic waste into something vaiable and valuble
1 to 18 of 18
