Even though the Polar Bear population is up.. 500% since 1972...(Population then was ~5000 population now is ~25,000)
How can Mars also be experiencing Global Warming if we arent driving there?
Nuclear Power is proteste by Global Warming advocates, even though it is clean, safe, and efficient. Even one of the founders of Green Peace supports Nuclear Power. We all know how evil and conservative THEY are...
Most of the stuff in Al Gores movie is FAKE! The opening, where he is showing how melted the Arctic is, he used a COMPUTER GENERATED model, used in the movie %26quot;The Day After Tomorrow%26quot; and one of the producers even said %26quot;Theres nothing real in there.%26quot;
People use videos of polar bears on Ice in the middle of an ocean, saying how they%26#039;re dying and oooooh poor them.. The polar bears they used where PLAYING! Man! How can people be so stupid?
This is probably gunna be reported...
Additional Details
3 months ago
Wow.. Ok.Yes the HUDSON BAY Polar Bear population is going down, but the WORLD population is up.Al Gores movie was inaccurate (if we arent going to give reasons to the contrary..)
Yes every advocate i have met has protested Nuclear Power.
Fact: the Mars Polar Caps are melting.
Its funny how when Bush disagrees with someone, hes a retarded corrupt idiot, but when he agrees with you %26quot;Even BUSH disagrees with you! What does that say?!?!%26quot; It says i dont agree with an idiot, and you do.
Its also funny how you insult my intelligence by claiming i%26#039;ll just pick the best answer based on who agrees with me. If you read some of my other questions, i dont do that. Try coming up with REAL logic Ma%26#039;am.not that stuff.
3 months ago
By the way, Al Gore won an emmy for his movie. Dont they give those out to fiction movies?Glenn Beck pretty much proved most of Al Gores movie wrong in his mini documentary thing %26quot;Exposed: The Climate of Fear%26quot;
and USA Today is not a reputable source. Since when were they experts on it? Al Gore said him self, while he was Vice President that America wouldnt sign Kyoto untill it better suited the US. It hasnt changed at all, and now hes advocating it.
He also said that the sea level would rise 20 feet. the UN AND the New York Times BOTH said that this was an exaggeration, and that it would be 20 inches at most.
again it is called global warming it has been cold in north america but warm in the Arctic. Report Abuse Laughable! there were several supported answers here and it goes to one that is fluff, that %26quot;blew%26quot; nothing away, and it ended quickly so no one could reply again, typical. Dana addressed all your points and antice most of your points, Mikira answer was rubbish with no support Report Abuse The answer here is rubbish; The decrease in both weight and numbers of Polar Bears is being reported by biologists not climate scientists, they have no vested interest in GW.
http://environment.newscientis... Report Abuse If the question hadn%26#039;t closed so quickly I would have also made the point that the extract from (the day after tomorrow) was just a cute piece of flying over ice, no science content, the %26#039;producer%26#039; was correct there is nothing real in the shoot but only that it is a digital render, so what. Report Abuse Haha my prediction that you would ignore the science and pick a stupid answer was dead-on. It really bugs me when people ask questions and have no interest in learning. Just go turn on Rush Limbaugh and stop wasting our time. Report Abuse
* You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (9)
-
i asked almost the same thing , and it did get reported, ,however i agree !
2) It hasn%26#039;t been established that Mars is warming on a global scale, but if it is, it%26#039;s because of dust storms darkening its surface.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
3) Most %26quot;global warming advocates%26quot; don%26#039;t protest nuclear power. That%26#039;s a strawman argument.
4) Most of %26#039;An Inconvenient Truth%26#039; was accurate.
%26quot;The nation%26#039;s top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore%26#039;s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.%26quot;
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/200...
Gore%26#039;s film %26quot;is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact%26quot;
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/1...
5) See #1. Plus Bush%26#039;s Interior Department also disagrees with you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24619887/
I%26#039;m sure you%26#039;ll choose some answer that says %26#039;ya dood, al gor is a dumbo!1!%26#039;, but I hope you at least learn something from this. Sea levels have already risen 20 centimetres since pre-industrial times, and will likely continue to rise at an accelerating rate. Higher temperatures are also killing the coral reefs that protect many low-lying islands. So places like the Maldives are increasingly becoming threatened with flooding, and may be rendered uninhabitable within as little as 100 years (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,15...
Even these predictions are small compared to the ever-present threat of melting land ice. Given that the sea ice is already provably melting, we shouldn%26#039;t necessarily expect land-based ice to last forever against increasing temperature. The problem with melting land ice is that it substantially raises sea levels. There is some good evidence that the melting process has already begun in Greenland and the Antactic peninsula. If it all melts (which may take several hundred years), then global sea levels will rise enough to drown Syndey, Auckland, London, New York, Los Angeles, all of Florida, Seattle, Shanghai, Mumbai, and in fact about 30% of our current population centres worldwide. We don%26#039;t know when this will happen, although recent research by NASA suggests that the probable level of CO2 at which the Antarctic icecap will melt is around 425 ppm, which we are headed for in the next 10-15 years. The melting may then take hundreds after that, but once the CO2 is in the atmosphere, its difficult to get rid of it.
Of course, it helps to be well-informed on the issues. Al Gore is not by any means the only person saying this; indeed in the main he%26#039;s just summarising the science which has existed for much longer than his film. You have been lied to by people in the pay of the oil industry, and more stupidly still, you have believed them. Perhaps you should take a look at this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_ac...
In particular, you should read the stuff about Exxon, which is repeated in more detail here: