What Is The Cause Of Global Warming Page with Resources and More

We Have What Is The Cause Of Global Warming News

And Links to Top Sites

and don't forget What Is The Cause Of Global Warming questions and answers!

Open Question: How can I prove that global warming is bad? Like scientifically?

I don't really know what how it happens, but I know it is horrible. Everyone knows it is caused by man, but how do I explain it to people, like my brother, when they don't believe me? more

Open Question: Is global warming really happening?

are we the one who are causing it? i want to hear your opinions more

Open Question: If we admit immigrants from the Third-World, should we pay a Carbon Tax to offset their ramped-up consumption?

The movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH shows us clearly that there is global warming tied to increase carbon production into the air. One source is burning fossil fuels, but with trillions of dollars left to sell and burn, human greed is keeping that going even though it is noxious to the climate, causes 1 in 3 of us to come down with cancers, etc. It is the same with Third-World Immigration. It has a variety of nasty social effects, but it goes on because somebody is making money out of it, a greed no less heinous than the oil companies, only split up into millions of bodies. And yet, when you take a set of assorted Third-World people in their own country and allow them to immigrate to the developed world, the same number of people are going to produce more carbon. Shouldn't we impose a carbon-tax on that? It would amount to hundreds of dollars for every expected year of further lifespan in a developed country. There is a hidden cost to manufacturing and oil refining, a cost to the environment that the corporations tried to foist off on other people. It is the same for immigration. If the true cost of immigration were figured in like this, no one would afford to immigrate! So, knowing the bare and true facts that immigration increases carbon production, should we charge them a Carbon Tax to come here? more

Open Question: Why is it so important to know if Global Warming is due to human causes or natural causes?

Open Question: How did man cause global warming on other planets?

As the media says that the Earth is warming due to man, the other planets are warming at this time too. How is this happening? Rememeber when they said there was going to be a mini ice age, and there wasn't one? There also graphs showing that temps decreased after WW2? etc etc etc more

Open Question: When i burp or have other gas, does that cause global warming?

My friends say I put a lot of warmth on the globe. more

Open Question: Hi, i need help on my course work...?

I am doing my coursework on "Is Global Warming a human cause?" and i don't know how to start or do the introduction .. what i have so far: For this coursework, i will be looking at the arguments for and agenst "is Global warming a human cause?" First i will explain what global warming is and how it effect us, also how the blame was put on humans... what else could i write :S i need it to be way more longer and more informative thankscan i also mention that if anyone has any ideas, would you know any arguments against humans causing global warming thankx more

Resolved Question: Has anyone seen this report in the Mainstream Media? Opinions?

Check the link below for the full report. "House Ways and Means Committee 25 February 2009 Written Testimony John R. Christy, University of Alabama in Huntsville One Page Summary I am John Christy, Alabama’s State Climatologist and Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Global Temperature Impact of vehicle reductions of CO2 (California AB1493): The EPA is considering allowing California and other states to determine their own rules for CO2 emissions. I calculated, using IPCC climate models, that if the entire country adopted these rules, the impact would be a minuscule 0.01 °C by 2100. And, if the entire world did the same, the effect would be less than 0.04°C by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot measure it with instruments, let alone notice it in anyway. Global Temperature Impact of 1000 Nuclear Power Plants by 2020: Again using IPCC climate models, if 1000 new nuclear power plants could be operating by 2020 (about 10% of the world’s energy) this would affect the global temperature by only 0.07°C by 2050 and 0.15°C by 2100. We wouldn’t notice it, but this dent could just be detectable by our instruments. However, these values are very likely overstated as they are based on current models. Overstated warming in current climate models and surface data sets: Current climate model projections assume that climate is very sensitive to CO2. We’ve found however, that during warming episodes, clouds step up their cooling effect. When model output is tested this way, not one model mimics this cooling effect – in fact the models’ clouds lead to further warming, not cooling as seen in nature. We hypothesize that poor cloud properties cause models to overstate warming rates. We’ve also found that current popular surface temperature datasets indicate more warming than is actually happening in the atmosphere because they are contaminated by surface development. Energy and Life: We utilize energy from carbon, not because we are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation on which the profound improvements in our standard of living have been achieved – our progress in health and welfare. I taught science in Kenya, Africa and witnessed first hand this simple rule – without energy life is brutal and short. Global carbon-based energy demand will grow as Africans and others continue to discover the benefits of technology, medicine, mobility and agriculture and start reaping the benefits of higher standards of living, just as we have. If the Congress deems it necessary to reduce CO2, the single most effective way to achieve at least a detectable reduction while growing the economy, is through the massive implementation of a nuclear power program. Other currently available alternatives simply cannot produce enough energy to be significantly noticed at a price and geographic scale that is affordable." http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/ctest.pdf more

Open Question: Ever notice how all global warming deniers come at the topic with abject ignorance?

Generally, they dont understand science at all. Denial of basic facts seems to be the standard. It reminds me of creationists. Or of tobacco apologists who denied smoking causes cancer. All based upon false scientific arguments, refusal to listen to facts, or utter fear and/or loathing.Yep. Just as I figured. No real thoughts. Yeah- I think we know the ice ages happened without poeple around.... do you realize the rate of change of temperature compared to ice ages is like a Porsche vs. a turtle? Do you realize the scientific consensus is not because of politics.. its because of overwhelming DATA? more

Resolved Question: How Is Crap and Tade Going To Reduce Cattle Emissions?

Cows with gas caused global warming according to Al Gore. more

Open Question: Hey, wanna hear some random facts?

1. The nose drips into the back of the mouth and you may get mucus mixed with saliva when kissing. 2. Fungus is constantly growing in the oral cavity. 3. The white blood cells from your partners mouth will attack yours when embracing in a kiss. More random Gross Facts: 1. One of the gasses in your farts is actually flammable. If you attempt to light your gas on fire it has a chance that the flame will back up into your colon. Ouch! 2. To this day, some Chinese farmers are still using poop as a fuel. They dump pig feces and other animal waste into a large holding area. The bacteria in the poo creates methane, a natural gas. A pipe is then inserted into the fecal dump and the natural gas is then brought into the home for cooking. 3. Ear wax comes in two forms - dry and wet. Your heritage determines what type of wax you will be born with. Most Black, White, and Hispanics have wet wax, this is an oily, sticky and tan colored. Asian and Native Americans have dry wax, which is a sticky, brittle and grey color. 4. An elephant can poop a 7-gallon pile. 5. Ear wax naturally dries up and forms tiny little balls that drop out when we yawn, chew, or swallow. 6. If you are right-handed you will sweat more from under your left arm. If you are left-handed, you will sweat more from under your right arm. 7. A deceased person will still fart shortly after death. 8. They actually make special underwear for people who pass gas a lot. They are called Fartypants. 9. There have been recorded cases where intestinal gases with a higher than normal oxygen content have exploded during surgery once the electric cautery was used by the surgeon. 10. Termites have the smelliest farts. These creatures farts are believed to be a major contributor towards global warming. 11. When you fart in the bathtub, you are releasing small amounts of feces into the water with you. 12. Studies show that in your lifetime you will have eaten poop more than once. This is caused by using the restroom and not washing your hands properly after wiping or scratching your "butt-hole" from an itch. 13. Almost all humans have Pin-worms in their colons. Most don't ever notice these tiny parasites unless they have an unusually high amount. You can find out if you have a high amount by having someone gently touch around your anal area with Scotch Tape while you sleep, this is when they are most active. The worms will stick to the tape and you should be able to see them. EEW! more

Open Question: what is the most hardline scientific data on global warming?

that it exists and is caused by man more

Resolved Question: Will the Democrats make our Military "go green"?

Will they force our navy battleships to use paddles instead of engines, to combat global warming? What about our Airforce? Will we have to go solar power for airplanes, like the flying target in this picture? http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/solarimpulse4.jpg Lets not forget our troops, should we start using squirt guns so all that gunpowder doesn't cause climate change. what say you?*Military...........Michael, Im a Marine 0311, too. If you thought I was making fun of the Militray, you must have scored low on the ASVAB more

Open Question: Liberals, what is wrong with this theory of global warming?

Knowing that your eduction is only on paper lets start with a kindergarten-level fable. There is a greedy king and each of his 100 subjects possesses 10,000 gold coins and 10,000 silver coins. The king hired a taxman and ordered him to collect 99% of all gold from each subject. The taxman collected 9,900 gold coins from each subject, total revenues of the king are 990,000 gold coins. And each subject now has 100 gold and 10,000 silver. But the king is greedy so he hired second taxman, and send him for second collection on the same terms. By how much will king's revenues increase? Answer: by 9,900 gold coins, or roughly by 1% for all this new trouble. If you do not understand why, you can stop right now. Now back to global warming. Carbon dioxide absorbs heats in certain band of infrared wavelengths, lets call this ban "gold". In this "gold band" carbon dioxide already stops 99% of heat radiated by Earth. This always caused greenhouse effect of about 50 degrees Farenheit. The rest of wavelengths are free to pass, in "silver" band no matter how carbon dioxide is there. Now the question: by how much will greenhouse effect increase if amount of carbon dioxide doubled? more

Open Question: Are warm-mongers going to agree on an excuse for the lack of warming?

We've got "global warming causes different local conditions, including cooling" which doesn't work because we have this thing called the internet and you can get online and find out that it's not just your neck of the woods that isn't warming. We've had "global dimming offsetting global warming" - that one didn't seem to catch on. We've got the true deniers, insisting that it's still actually warming, and/or that while the warming has paused, it'll be back with a vengeance. We've got the crowd that says that natural variability is offsetting warming - which is basically an admission, but who's counting? And we've got "it's really climate change" which is deliberately amorphous so as to remove accountability - and which seems to me to be the frontrunner. But the warm-mongers appear to be split among these and other excuses / fall-back arguments. At some point you'd expect them to agree, to get into lockstep, to read from the same script, which they've done all along up to this point. Which of these various fallback arguments do you think they'll agree on? more

Open Question: Global Warming result of humans?

Okay, the way I see it is, in a one-word answer----- "NO." I believe, through evidence found and stuff, that global warming IS a scheduled thing. BUT... I DO believe that humans have a HUGE impact on how FAST global warming is occuring. IF we stop doing bad things now, be completely perfect in terms of environment friendly stuff, i believe we would still observe global warming. But at a MUCH MUCH MUCH slower pace. The reason why I say that global warming is NOT the result of human actions is because i know global warming has happend before, way before humans were alive... many times, in fact. so it can't be a direct result of human activity. instead... we act as a very good (good in the bad sense) catalyst in the evolution of global warming. what used to take several of tens of millenium worth of global warming is now just taking a handful of millenium, which has never happened before... which coincidentally, is when humans started to appear. and its exponentially expanding. so yes, we contribute. but no, we don't cause. we're a catalyst. agree? more

Resolved Question: Since human CO2 emissions are also causing global warming on Mars...?

Do we need cap and trade on Mars?Redleg, do you mean an indoctrination class? I took a few of those in college. Fortunately for me, I did not pay attention. more

Resolved Question: Do you realize that if you hate the controlling rich and don't trust large corporations, they are the leftists?

Democrats are the richest in the country, leftist activists are supported by the richest billionaires in the world who would like to put you in a box. Your television brings you news and entertainment which is heavily laced with brain washing messages of a leftist bent, owned and controlled by leftist billionaires, contrary to what those leftist billionaires have worked to condition you to believe. They use hip sounding leftist propaganda. They use the name of great causes, which they betray when it comes to a choice between the cause and the key to power they seek through that pretext, like so called environmentalism, global warming, looking out for the poor (who they betray and put in a kind of soft bondage of dependency and propagandize to hate others they are told are obstacles to their happiness, to keep them as voting blocks). They woo with goodies and feel good idiocy to bring you to work for their ends which will harm your life and your children's opportunity of creating a fulfilled happy life for themselves. They work to destroy your ability to own property and have power in and over your government. They work to bastardize your vote, to misinform you, to put in courts who will do what they want, not what your elected officials have made law. To undermine your rights under the constitution. They create devils for you to hate. Manipulate media to bring you into outrage on false pretenses, and to manipulate your neighbors so that even if your do see something is wrong, if you speak out you will be destroyed by your peers because that is what they have been trained to do. They have you voting for people because everyone else is supposed to think they are great, of course they do right? TV says they do. Your favorite shows approve of them and tell you all who don't are evil and wrong. Prejudiced and mean. While it's ok to be nasty mean and unfair to those people and defame and destroy their reputations unfairly, because, of course, they are the bad ones, the enemy, you know like Sarah Palin, Dick Cheney, Joe Lieberman, You know who they are right? John Stewart reminds you all the time, Saturday Night Live keeps them on your mind while painting them stupid and or evil. It's great to have a ridicules demeaning TV cartoon bashing the president, if he is a republican, but not ok to say anything insulting or off color against a president or vice president who is a democrat, that would be treasonous right? It's ok to go after president Bush's kids, Cheney's kid, Palin's kids, but not Chelsey Clinton or Obama's kids, that would be reprehensible. And they tell you it's ok when Bill Clinton sexually harasses women, and that you should ignore 3 credible reports of rapes by him, he's a good guy after all! right? It's ok for Barbra Boxer and Nancy Pelosi to get rich no bid contracts for their husbands. It's ok for democrats to trade on insider information. It's ok for democrats to cheat on their taxes, to take bribes, to drive around the capitol area on drugs and have the capitol cops cover it all up because their name is Kennedy and those are the good guys right? It's ok for Harry Reid and Jack Murtha to ear mark multi millions of tax payer $$ to go to projects which only benefit themselves and enrich their own personal investments. It's ok for Obama to take illegal campaign contributions. For Chris Dodd to get favorable loans from Country Wide in return for legislation that allowed them to help screw up the banking system. It's ok for Charles Wrangle to cheat on taxes, he is being investigated of course like Chris Dodd, though they have never obtained the documents that would convict him though offered openly by the offending bank after over a year of non investigation they call investigation. Do you ever stop, and take a good look at this stuff? Did people involved in fascist movements in the past ever notice until their terrible acts came back to bite them? I mean these are only a small number of examples, I could write a book. Is such disparity and corruption ok with you? What if it were an instrument used against you, using you toward your own destruction? to destroying the lives of your children in favor of those rich manipulative billionaires you've always seen as republicans, but who are actually supporting and funding democrats? Don't you get it?I've always been a DEMOCRAT, and I voted for OBAMA. But he lied and it's become so clear I started really looking into things. Watching those guys democrats told me were to be hated. Glen Beck has some excellent information, and I would have never seen it had Obama not angered me so much by betraying those children in DC by getting their vouchers pulled and forcing back into that horrible school system. Now I see more and more, people, open your eyes, please. Soon things will have gone so far we won't be able to ever get our lives back. more

Resolved Question: Do you think that Global Warming is caused by ?

Do you think that Global Warming is caused by all of Obama's " hot air " ?FYI - A report by NASA revealed that the temperature on earth has risen less than 1 degree ( .6 degress ) since 1880. Why is it that the so-called " experts " who run around like Chicken Little yelling " The polar ice caps will melt if you don't drive a Prious !.....The polar ice caps will melt if you don't drive a Prious ! " are the same " experts " who can't tell you whether it's going to rain next Monday ? more

Open Question: How is the world going to end?

There are a lot of possibilities here... religious predictions, global warming, nuclear war, global epidemic, the sun collapsing... what do you think will happen? I think World War Three will break out causing a nuclear war. The few survivors will mutate into some unthinkable creatures. The Earth will survive until the sun collapses into itself, but the human race will have long perished... more

Open Question: Why do you think Obama had the EPA bury the current findings that eliminate Co2 as causing global warming?

Mike, you might find these of interest.http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10274412-38.html http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/?test=latestnews http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/26/epa-plays-hide-and-seek-suppressed-report-revealed/ more

Open Question: This climate bill is a joke. Who's with me?

That is, it is a joke if you are still clinging to the absurd belief that man is really causing "Global Warming." Okay, I will grant you that global warming exists. But you know, so does global cooling. In fact, many recent scientific reports (which power-hungry lefties intentionally ignore) show that we are currently under a stage of global cooling, not global warming. Somebody please tell this to that nutcase alarmist Al Gore! This is very simple to me. This is because the left operates best when the people of a society are driven by fear. It is another excuse to tax the American people and gain more control. It is no more complicated than that. How do you wake up liberal drones? Any suggestions? more

Open Question: Do you think since only 24% of Americans know what Cap&Trade is, Congress shouldn't pass the bill yet?

This bill would cause ALL forms of energy to skyrocket in price. Up to 50% higher fuel costs and up to 90% higher electricity costs. YET, only 1 in 4 people even know what it is. Shouldn't the "most transparent administration in history" make a bigger effort to inform the public on such legislation?? http://www.examiner.com/x-8817-Pittsburgh-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Cap-and-Trade--A-carbon-tax Caustic to commerce and the citizenry Cap and trade can be boiled down to the United States government charging fees for the privilege of emitting carbon into the atmosphere. The bill states that it is designed; “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution, and transition to a clean energy economy.” The bill which was just passed by congress will severely limit production of energy domestically, slow economic growth, encourage use of internationally procured energy and cost consumers thousands of dollars per year in increased energy, food, clothing, furniture, appliances and property taxes. more

Resolved Question: I know global warming is really bad and that we are causing it, I just don't know how?

I just don't understand it at all and want to research like a scientist to prove we are causing global warming so that I can convince others that we are to blame. My brother is so dumb. He thinks global warming is a scam and a bunch of hot air. He says if brains were dynamite that I could not blow my nose...whatever that means.I think polar bears are super cool. more

Resolved Question: Is Paul Krugman really as smart as people say he is? (READ ALL)?

This man has won a Nobel Peace Prize, so what? Al-Gore got one and now NASA has PROVED him wrong. They say global warming is due to the sun--that same statment from NASA came from the UN years ago... Nothing special. Now lets take a look at his most recent arguement. Paul Krugman said we needed a stimulus. Lets look at the New Deal Stimulus. What the New Deal gave America was relief, but it did not solve the problem, it only prolonged it. It also left America with more debt. When FDR took office in 1933 (Year New Deal was passed.) unemployment was over 24%. In 1935 (Second year New Deal was passed) unemployment was at 18%. In 1939, it was 17.2%. In 1940 (before the War), unemployment was still over 17%. That doesn't sound like something that worked, after all 17% unemployment is MASSIVE. From 1933 to 1938, unemployment dropped only 7%. When America entered the Second World War in 1942, unemployment began to drop in a rapid pace. In 1943 unemployment had fallen to 1.9%. The Second World War is what got us out of the Depression. It made unemployment go away and it awakened the industrial might of America. It's not hard to see how WW2 got us out of the Great Depression. With everyone buying, spending, and producing, the economy made a great recovery. With the demand for war supplies high, it forced our nation to be more productive, which lead to us being more prosperous. WW2 got us out, the New Deal did not. All the New Deal left us with was a higher debt and a larger government… I think FDR’s own staff members can summarize how badly the New Deal failed, like what Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of Treasury for FDR, said once. He said - “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosper. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And enormous debt to boot.” - Henry Morgenthau, FDR's Secretary of Treasury... (1941) That came from FDR’s own staff member! The numbers don’t lie either. Redistribution of wealth, which is what a stimulus does, does not create wealth or jobs! It only changes who has the money… Lets look at the $152 billion Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the $300 billion Housing Recovery Act of 2008, or Bush stimulus. Did it work? No... Before the stimulus was passed, Bush had 6 million unemployed, 5.1% inflation, summer gas crisis, increase in poverty, and a falling economy. After the stimulus, Bush left us with 6.7 million unemployed, 7.2% inflation, same poverty rates, more debt, and an economy which still fell into a recession… hmmm.... How about Japan's troubles in the early 90's? They had banks failing and they used a stimulus to bail them out. That lead them into a HUGE recession... Hmmm. Funny right? Now Paul supports Obama's stimulus, which 90% of it is filled with earmarks to special interest groups. The amount of useless spending in this bill is unbelievable… How is $50 million dollars towards Frisbee Golf going to stimulate the economy? How is $60 million dollars for sex prevention going to help our economy!? How is $40 million dollars to the liberal company ACORN going to help us!? How is $600 million dollars, which will be used to buy federal employees hybrid cars, going to help the economy!? How is $2 billion dollars towards the new FutureGen near-zero emission power plant in Mattoon going to help our economy!? How the hell are we going to pay for this $1.1 trillion dollar bill!? There’s also a large amount of money invested in Green Jobs for cleaner air… What bothers me about this is that it’s spending money we don’t have! It could be a lot cheaper for us if we let the oil companies, not the government, drill in Alaska, off the shore of California, and build more refineries-this way the price of energy can easily go down. Then we could allow companies to build more nuclear power plants around the nation-that too would bring prices down. In fact, did you know that 70% of France’s energy comes from nuclear power-it is safe! Then after we become energy independent, then we could invest on the expensive green technology that we need-but doing all that green spending now is just NOT sustainable! I know this green spending is for a good cause-but President Obama is doing it the WRONG way… SO WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY? SOURCES: http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2002/summer_2002_3.html http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=176 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1089131/Great-myth-New-Deal-Depression-era-plan-prolonged-US-economic-slump-makes-poor-model-Britain.html http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/12/06/obamas-descmore sources: http://lvb.net/item/960Some times the truth seems like nonsense to people, that si why u can't reply to it.Adam B., that economist was the Secretary of Treasury for FDR. HE SUPPORTED FDR U IDIOT. And i am right about Japan, u libs are so pathetic. Nobel peace prizes mean nothing if u are wrong. more

Resolved Question: Obama trying to suppress report showing global warming is BS, why?

Monday, June 29, 2009 A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming. The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined. "He came out with the truth. They don't want the truth at the EPA," Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, told FOX News, saying he's ordered an investigation. "We're going to expose it." The controversy comes after the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, one that Inhofe said will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate despite President Obama's energy adviser voicing confidence in the measure. According to internal e-mails that have been made public by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carlin's boss told him in March that his material would not be incorporated into a broader EPA finding and ordered Carlin to stop working on the climate change issue. The draft EPA finding released in April lists six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, that the EPA says threaten public health and welfare. An EPA official told FOXNews.com on Monday that Carlin, who is an economist -- not a scientist -- included "no original research" in his report. The official said that Carlin "has not been muzzled in the agency at all," but stressed that his report was entirely "unsolicited." "It was something that he did on his own," the official said. "Though he was not qualified, his manager indulged him and allowed him on agency time to draft up ... a set of comments." Despite the EPA official's remarks, Carlin told FOXNews.com on Monday that his boss, National Center for Environmental Economics Director Al McGartland, appeared to be pressured into reassigning him. Carlin said he doesn't know whether the White House intervened to suppress his report but claimed it's clear "they would not be happy about it if they knew about it," and that McGartland seemed to be feeling pressure from somewhere up the chain of command. Carlin said McGartland told him he had to pull him off the climate change issue. "It was reassigning you or losing my job, and I didn't want to lose my job," Carlin said, paraphrasing what he claimed were McGartland's comments to him. "My inference (was) that he was receiving some sort of higher-level pressure." Carlin said he personally does not think there is a need to regulate carbon dioxide, since "global temperatures are going down." He said his report expressed a "good bit of doubt" on the connection between the two. Specifically, the report noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend over the past 11 years, that scientists do not necessarily believe that storms will become more frequent or more intense due to global warming, and that the theory that temperatures will cause Greenland ice to rapidly melt has been "greatly diminished." Carlin, in a March 16 e-mail, argued that his comments are "valid, significant" and would be critical to the EPA finding. McGartland, though, wrote back the next day saying he had decided not to forward his comments. "The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision," he wrote, according to the e-mails released by CEI. "I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office." He later wrote an e-mail urging Carlin to "move on to other issues and subjects." "I don't want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no research, etc., at least until we see what EPA is going to do with climate," McGartland wrote. The EPA said in a written statement that Carlin's opinions were in fact considered, and that he was not even part of the working group dealing with climate change in the first place. "Claims that this individual's opinions were not considered or studied are entirely false. This administration and this EPA administrator are fully committed to openness, transparency and science-based decision making," the statement said. "The individual in question is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue. Nevertheless the document he submitted was reviewed by his peers and agency scientists, and information from that report was submitted by his manager to those responsible for developing the proposed endangerment finding. In fact, some ideas from that document are included and addressed in the endangerment finding." The e-mail exchanges and suggestions of more

Voting Question: Help with Biology PLEASEEE!!?

Question 9 2 points Save Acid rain is caused by ___________ and results in ____________. Question 9 answers chlorofluorocarbons from refrigerators; a decrease in the ozone layer. hydrochloric acid from power plants; "bleaching" lakes and trees. carbon dioxide air pollution; global warming increasing the sea levels. sulfur pollution combining with water vapor; damage to ecosystems. Question 10 text Question 10 2 points Save Ozone depletion in the atmosphere Question 10 answers leads to the formation of acid precipitation. leads to a rise in chlorofluorocarbons. allows more harmful radiation from the sun to reach the earth. both b and c. Question 11 text Question 11 2 points Save Solar energy can be trapped in the atmosphere by Question 11 answers the chemical bonds of carbon dioxide. the chemical bonds of ozone. radiation. sunlight. Question 12 text Question 12 2 points Save Which of the following is NOT an effect of chemical pollutants on the environment? Question 12 answers overconsumption of resources biological magnification loss of localized species diversity thin, fragile eggshells of predatory birds Question 13 text Question 13 2 points Save Which of the following groups represent nonrenewable resources? Question 13 answers ecosystems, habitats, living species topsoil, ground water, biomes ground water, extinct species, topsoil topsoil, ecosystems, biomes Question 14 text Question 14 2 points Save All of the following are important environmental problems that must be solved EXCEPT Question 14 answers increasing levels of ocean pollution. dependence on fossil fuels. rapid population growth. coastal devastation by hurricanes. Question 15 text Question 15 2 points Save Which of the following are NOT used to classify kingdoms of organisms? Question 15 answers complexity of the organism invertebrate or vertebrate method of obtaining nutrition type of cell that makes up the organism Question 16 text Question 16 2 points Save Which of the following are NOT protists? Question 16 answers fungi algae slime molds diatoms Question 17 text Question 17 2 points Save The process by which cells become specialized in form and function is called Question 17 answers colonization. aggregation. collection. differentiation. Question 18 text Question 18 2 points Save Levels of cellular organization that occur in plants and animals are Question 18 answers family, genus, species. tissues, organs, organ systems. colonial, aggregation, differentiation. niche, habitat, ecosystem. Question 19 text Question 19 2 points Save Which is NOT a general characteristic of plants? Question 19 answers use oxygen to make usable energy primary producers have specialized cells cell walls composed of cellulose Question 20 text Question 20 2 points Save Which of the following are characteristics of all animals? Question 20 answers multicellular, haploid cells that divide by mitosis, organisms with organ systems multistage zygote development, vertebrates, reproduce sexually 99 percent invertebrates, heterotrophs, multicellular both a and c. Question 21 text Question 21 2 points Save A group of specialized cells that transport fluids and nutrients is called Question 21 answers a multicellular autotroph. a methanogen. an aggregation. vascular tissue. Question 22 text Question 22 2 points Save Which is an INCORRECT statement about the differences between invertebrates and vertebrates? Question 22 answers Most animals are not vertebrates; they are invertebrates. Vertebrates have a backbone and spinal column while invertebrates do not have a backbone and spinal column. Invertebrates do not have internal organs while vertebrates do have internal organs. Vertebrates have a brain encased in a head while invertebrates do not have a brain encased in a head. Question 23 text Question 23 2 points Save A typical virus consists of a Question 23 answers protein coat and a cytoplasm core. carbohydrate coat and a nucleic acid core. protein coat and a nucleic acid core. polysaccharide coat and a protein core. Question 24 text Question 24 2 points Save During initial HIV infection, the HIV virus attaches to CD4 receptors on a macrophage and then Question 24 answers attaches to a CCR5 receptor before it is able to enter the cell. enters the cell through the CD4 receptors. attaches to a lymphocyte that attempts to fight the virus on the macrophage. HIV tricks the reverse transcriptase of the infected cell into making copies of the viral RNA molecule. Question 25 text Question 25 2 points Save Bacteria and eukaryotes share the characteristic of Question 25 answers multicellularity. a cell nucleus. a cell membrane. all of the above. Question 26 text Question 26 2 points Save Two ways that bacteria cause disease are Question 26 answers toxins are released that break down and absorb host organic nutr more

Voting Question: Conservatives, why do so many scientists have global warming wrong?

[You don't need to read all this--just data showing the consensus on man made global warming; look through it if you don't believe there is one] http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf 97.4% of climate scientists and 82% of Earth scientists believe global warming is a real problem caused by man. In a study of recent peer reviewed scientific literature on climate science, researchers found this: Dr. Naomi Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts; 0 disputed man-made global warming (AGW) http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Benny Peiser reviewed 1117 abstracts; 1 disputed AGW http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html Peter Norvig reviewed 25 abstracts; 0 disputed AGW http://norvig.com/oreskes.html Did scientists in the 70's believe the Earth was cooling? It was reported in the press, but a research on peer reviewed literature at the time reveals that 86.2% of scientists who took stance believed in global warming while 13.8% favored global cooling (ignoring all the paleoclimatological papers that took no stance) http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm Skeptics cite the Oregon Petition, supposedly signed by 31,000 scientists. Yet the Petition contains fake names like Geri Halliwell (spice girl) and Robert Byrd (senator). Other names were duplicated. The petition was mailed along with a non-peer reviewed, forged NAS paper claiming global warming isn't real. The Oregon "Institute" isn't even a real institute--it has 6 faculty members (none study global warming) and 0 students. The petition was mailed to ~8 million scientists. Less than one percent signed it. Of those that signed it, most were mathematicians, chemists, economists, etc. (any scientist could sign it). Approximately 400 people who supposedly signed it study climate, but we can't even be sure their signatures are legit. A Sci Am report found that only approximately 42% of signers deliberately and knowingly signed the petition and truly believe AGW doesn't exist. The rest had never heard of the petition, signed it at the time but have changed their minds on AGW since, had died, or couldn't be reached. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308 http://web.archive.org/web/20060823125025/http://www.sciam.com/page.cfm?section=sidebar&articleID=0004F43C-DC1A-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21 [more links if you'd like--just message me]obamasbro: that's not true, the theory doesn't need to be proven for a consensus to exist. Consensus simply means that a majority of scientists support the theory. Theories with consensus include Cell Theory, Theory of Gravity (relativity), and Evolution. None of these have been proven.phil: please post your sources (credible sources) that show that the data is inaccurate.kpk: We actually have millions of years worth of data through ice core samples. Technically though, we don't even need them to deduce why the globe is warming, because we have radiosondes that measure stratospheric temperature. We don't keep accurate numbers of polar bear populations. Scientists aren't sure if their numbers are growing or shrinking. the planet's temperature has warmed, not remained constant: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1975.jpg and for your last statement you posted a faulty link more

Voting Question: Is this the Red Alert? Are these laws the last straw to the freedom of this nation?

After reading this, and contemplating the ramifications of what these "laws", etc. are attempting to impose upon the people of this Once great nation, I have no alternative but to believe that the final phases of this "hijacking" of the United States of America is inevitable? What do you think? How do you feel about this? What do you think, feel, or believe that the American People can/should do to save our country from a total takeover, and loss of all rights, freedoms, etc? "The wholesale looting of America and the transfer of wealth and power over to a private banking elite who are setting up a world government, along with the complete obliteration of any remaining freedom to protest, resist, or even speak out against this agenda, is now entering its final phase as numerous different pieces of the jigsaw puzzle fall into place and portray a clear picture of tyranny", as stated by Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet.com Monday June 29, 2009 We are about to sound the death knell for the United States if every one of the following attacks on our liberty, free speech, sovereignty, and right to not be ruled over by an unelected banking dictatorship is not fiercely opposed and crushed. RED ALERT 1 The passage of the “Climate Bill” by the House and its likely approval by the Senate represents the entrée for the complete and total subjugation of any freedoms we had left and the beginning of nightmare regulation and suffocating control over every aspect of our personal lives by millions of green stasi tasked with enforcing impossible to attain goals of 80% carbon dioxide reduction - all based on the manufactured threat of global warming. This bill will also sink the economy and create a new great depression, effectively obliterating America’s first world status. It represents a transfer of power and wealth from both the U.S. government and the American taxpayer over to the system of world government and global regulation now being erected by means of the climate change hoax. This is far worse than just a “new tax” as Republicans are complaining - this is the total takeover of the American economy by private banking interests through the carbon trading system. As we have attempted to warn, the major beneficiaries of the climate bill will be the elitists who own the carbon trading systems that will be used to handle the ‘cap and trade’ program, namely Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering. We must rally now to lobby members of Congress who voted for the legislation and demand they change their vote before July 2nd. Failing that, we must demand that the Senate does not rubber stamp this nightmare legislation. Failing that, we must support and organize to craft more legislation based on the example of Arizona, who recently passed state Senate legislation refusing to comply with insane climate laws coming from the federal level. RED ALERT 2 The seemingly endless economic “bailouts” represent the wholesale looting of the American taxpayer and the grand theft of trillions of dollars by private banking interests who refuse to even disclose where the money went. Not satisfied with stealing tens of trillions, under the Obama administration’....s new regulatory reform plan, the Federal Reserve is now trying to enrich itself with dictator powers that will give it complete control over the U.S. economy, handing them the authority to “regulate” and shut down any company whose activity it believes could threaten the economy and the markets. We must rally now and lobby more members of Congress to support Ron Paul’s H.R. 1207 bill to audit the Federal Reserve and highlight the fact that Bernanke is spewing financial terrorism when he threatens an economic collapse should the Fed be opened up to scrutiny. RED ALERT 3 Federal hate crimes legislation, which in reality would criminalize “thought crimes,” has cleared the House and now faces the Senate as S.909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act (officially, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act). S.909 is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It allows the federal government to prosecute people involved in “hate speech” transmitted over television, radio, and the internet. The House version of the bill states: “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)” In other words, if a talk show host engages in “hostile” speech against a person or persons of the above mentioned federally protected group that talk show host will face federasorry everyone who answered. I had to continue this question, and it just didn't work right..LOL. If you go to the second question posted, with the same title, there is a link to the entire article. Sorry again about the confusion. more

Resolved Question: Dems, why do you all support a government version of Enron? Didn't you learn from California about energy?

Enron caused a popular governor to lose his job as well as harming many towns across California. Why? Because Enron was trading "energy" options. Enron failed miserably! Fast forward a few years and you Obamabots are pushing through at breakneck speed the cap and trade bill which will in essence create a government version of Enron as energy is once again "traded" on the open market. Enron caused electricity and gas prices to spike while sending businesses fleeing in California; why then are dems unable to learn their lesson? I guess dems just want Americans to pay more for everything so they can feel better about some global warming myth. Heck, someone has to make Gore relevant after his 2000 loss to Bush. more

Resolved Question: What are the odds that global warming can be stopped?

For sake of argument lets say that global warming is happening and human beings are the major cause of it. Do think that doing things like the cap & trade bill is really going to have much of an effect? Don't forget the United States is not the only country creating pollution, yes it is the worst polluter. Do you think that countries like China who is number two is going to change? Also what is to stop companies from moving their plants to 3rd World countries that don't have pollution laws? What are the odds that enough countries through out the world will agree to accept the cost of changing and what are the odds they will do it before it is too late? I put it at slim and none. more

Resolved Question: Do you think global warming will cause a population explosion in Canada?

Voting Question: Global Warming Is Planet Earth in Peril?

FOR the people of Tuvalu, a group of islands no more than 13 feet above sea level, global warming is, not abstract science, but “a daily reality,” says the Herald.* Thousands have already left the islands, and many more are preparing to go. Meanwhile, Robert, who lives in Brisbane, Australia, can water his garden only on certain days, using a bucket—not a hose. And unless he goes to a car wash that recycles water, he can wash only parts of his car—mirrors, windows, and registration plates. Why such restrictions? Robert lives in a part of the country that is suffering from what has been called the worst drought in a century. Other areas are even worse off. Are the problems in Australia and Tuvalu evidence of global warming? What Some Predict Many believe that human activities are a major cause of global warming, which may have catastrophic consequences for the climate and the environment. For example, large-scale melting of land-based ice and the expansion of the oceans as water warms could cause sea levels to rise drastically. Low-lying islands such as Tuvalu could disappear, as could large parts of the Netherlands and Florida, to name just two other areas. Millions of people could be displaced from such places as Shanghai and Calcutta, as well as parts of Bangladesh. At the same time, rising temperatures could intensify storms, floods, and droughts. In the Himalayas, disappearing glaciers—from areas that feed seven river systems—could cause shortages of freshwater for 40 percent of the world’s population. Also at risk are thousands of species of animals, including polar bears, whose hunting grounds are largely on the ice. Indeed, reports already indicate that many bears are losing weight and some are even starving. Rising temperatures may also foster the spread of disease by enabling mosquitoes, ticks, and other disease-carrying organisms, including fungi, to spread farther afield. “The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons,” says the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. “The effects may be less dramatic in the short term . . . , but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival.” Adding an even more ominous note, some scientists believe that changes attributed to global warming are occurring faster than they had expected. What are we to make of these predictions? Is life on earth really at a crossroads? Skeptics of global warming say that such dire predictions are groundless. Others are not sure. So, what is the truth? Is earth’s future—and ours—in perilhttp://www.watchtower.org/e/200808/article_01.htm more

Voting Question: Is it true the EPA suppressed a study that concluded CO2 IS NOT a significant cause of climate change?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons. You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here. In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf more

Voting Question: what is global warming 20 characters?

Hi, I have to do a debate on global warming, I'm first speaker and I have to speak for four minutes. However, all I can speak about is what global warming is. I cannot go into detal about greenhouse gases/CO2 levels or talk about the effects that it is having on our world. Can anyone give me some advice on how to pad my speech out? This is it so far: Hello, my name is _____ and this is ____ and _____. Today we will be presenting a debate to you about why global warming is not a myth. I will start off by going over what each team member will say and then conclude by explaining what exactly global warming is, hopefully this will be help you better understand our reasoning. ___ will then explain in detail greenhouse gases and why our CO2 levels rise and fall and ___ will conclude by listing the ways in global warming has effected our earth, with proof that it can simply not be a myth and how global warming will continue to effect us if something is done. The technical definition for global warming is: An increase in global average surface temperature due to natural or anthropogenic climate change. This basically means that global warming is a rise in the global temperature, which then leads to changes in our climate. Our Earth is warmed by solar radiation; this helps to regulate our climate. The Earth absorbs this radiation and then sends back out infrared radiation. This is a natural process. However, global warming is not natural. Due to so much pollution by caused by humans and other activities, the CO2 in our atmosphere has increased and our atmosphere layer had got thicker. Therefore, instead of releasing back out the infrared radiation, some of it becomes trapped and heats up the Earth. Human activities such as burning fossil fuels or deforestation release more CO2 and other substance into our atmosphere. Al Gore best explains global warming in the documentary The Inconvenient Truth. In particular, a diagram of the CO2 levels. This diagram is known as the ‘jagged red line.’ It shows how the CO2 levels are increasing each year and where they will undoubtedly end up. The reason the line is jagged; with the levels falling rising slightly each year is because CO2 is used by vegetation for photosynthesis. As most of the vegetation is the north when the northern hemisphere is tilted to the sun, the vegetation inhales CO2 and the levels drop. When the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the sun, this no longer happens and the CO2 levels rise. This is like the Earth is breathing in and out once each year. Global warming is not taken as seriously as it should because, for the everyday person, they do not see how it is affecting their life. However global warming increases the climate of everything – from oceans to landmasses. Our climate affects every part of life. If global warming is affecting our climate then we can also say that global warming is also affecting every part of our life. more

Resolved Question: 2012 Question somewhat of a debate?

I am somewhat afraid of some of the things that I have read about 2012. I found a list of possibilties on the internet. Pick some of them and tell me you beliefs and or none beliefs. I guess I am looknig for a reason not to believe because I have seen so many movies where there is a future. Human * Flu Pandemic * Nuclear War / WW3 / Biological War * Large Hadron Collider * Nanotechnology * Religious Apocalypse * Nuclear Accident * Rise of the Machines * Genetic Modification * Time Travel Error From Space * Nearby Supernova * Explosion from the black hole at the center of our galaxy - read about how something similar could have caused the recent tsunami * Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) * Asteroid/Meteor/Comet * Coronal Mass Ejection (CRE) from our Sun * Cosmic Rays * Solar System Falls Apart (butterfly effect) * Alien Invasion From Earth * Magnetic Pole Shift * Crustal Pole Shift * Supervolcano - ie Yellowstone * Ice Age * Global Warming more

Voting Question: What is causing the SAME Global Warming on Mars, thats melting their Polar Ica Caps at the same rate as Earth?

What is causing the Ice Caps on Mars to melt at the same rate as on Earth? Also, Why is Mars's Warming on the same exact scale of warming as Earth? Are their people or aliens on Mars that we didnt find yet that are polluting the air? What could the explanation be thats causing the exact same warming thats Mars and Earth are having? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=0DF9B3CD-802A-23AD-4984-5AC0C6D42605Steve - What facts are wrong? more

Voting Question: Are we going to implement a "Cap and Trade" bill on Mars also, Since it is experiencing Global Warming?

Mars is also experiencing Global Warming, should the Obama Administration and Congress also impose a "Cap and Trade" bill to stop Global Warming there also? Are we responsible for helping the "Martians" curb their global warming, or should the citizens on Mars deal with thier own causes of Global Warming? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html " In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. "Carls - Then what is causing the Global Warming there? Its warming at the same pace as earth is. more

Voting Question: Would you consider this sufficient EVIDENCE to STOP Cap&Trade legislation in the Senate?

I'll present exhibits A, B, C, and D: The bill is called The American Clean Energy and Security Act. (aka HR 2454) A) The administration has chosen to ignore over 31,000 U.S. scientists who disagree with the "global warming" hypothesis http://www.petitionproject.org/signers_by_last_name.php As well as all the scientists that have dissented from United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/607 B) The EPA suppressed contradicting evidence that concluded CO2 IS NOT the leading cause of planetary warming. (The REDACTED version of the report is the primary basis of current climate change legislation) http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons. You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here. In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf C) NASA has concluded that ALL the planets in our solar system are currently warming. http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html D) Growing number of skeptics = hasty passage of "climate change" bill http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. more

Voting Question: What is the most hardline scientific data proving that global warming is caused by man?

And do you know the figures on how much obama's purposal is going to effect the american economy financially? i heard a trillion dollar bill is trying to be passed but what about unemployment from this also? more

Voting Question: Is the REAL reason "climate change" legislation is being rushed thru congress because they're losing converts?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation. If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons. You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here. In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf more

Voting Question: Whose representatives are making a mistake AUSTRALIANS or AMERICANS (one is for cap&trade, the other isn't)?

Resolved Question: What proof can you provide that 'global warming' is real and will cause catastrophic damage if ignored?

Al Gore does not impress me the least bit. more

Voting Question: Was this new "climate change" legislation based on faulty science and/or suppressed scientific studies?

It would appear the EPA's April 17th study was rather important......but, what if the study was an edited political document that suppressed findings that didn't fit the political agenda?? http://www.examiner.com/x-5705-LA-Lean-and-Green-Business-Examiner~y2009m6d26-The-sweep-of-history--climate-change-legislation It’s difficult to keep up with the recent developments in confronting climate change, both regulatory and legislative. The EPA announced an historic decision on April 17, ruling that global warming pollution “endangers” American’s health and well-being. The agency is already working on national emission standards for manufacturers of the largest sources of global warming: cars and coal-fired plants. Meanwhile, Congressional action has taken center stage. The American Clean Energy and Security Act is a strong bill aimed at reducing global warming emissions by 83% by 2050. This is an amount that scientists believe would significantly reduce the threats of global warming, combined with efforts by other countries. Congress is shuttling bills through their own peculiar labyrinth of committees, House, Senate, and compromise legislation. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/06/023915.php The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the "endangerment" to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons. You can read the comments that the CEI submitted to the EPA on EPA's proposed endangerment finding here, along with the emails. The censored report, by Alan Carlin and John Davidson, is here. In their report, Carlin and Davidson point out that the EPA has not done its own evaluation of the global warming theory. Rather, it has relied on analyses by others, mostly the U.N.'s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report. That report, however, was a political document, not a scientific one. Knowing that current scientific research disproves the anthropogenic global warming theory, the U.N. ordered that no recent research be considered in the IPCC report. This is a scandal of which too few people are aware. As science, the U.N. report is a bad joke. http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf more

Resolved Question: If climate change is real, why is the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its cap and tax plan?

Resolved Question: Will the world face overpopulation someday? Or will all the countries stabilize their demographic growth soon?

And why the birth rate in the less devellopped areas of the world is so high? Is overpopulation the main cause of poverty, famine, global warming, wars...? more

Resolved Question: Why isn't polluting the Earth a sin?

* Do you religious folks realise what pollution lead to? Global Warming!!! And disruptions of many ecological systems! Yet here we all are using computers (which contribute to global warming and rise in CO2 concentration) and driving vehicles every single day; and none of you had to repent for it, why is this? Do you realise what pollution has done to the marine environment? Increase of CO2 released by human industrial uses causes the ocean to decrease in pH which causes the solubility of CO3 ions which is vital for the marine life to make its carbonate shells such as molluscs, corals and phytoplanktons.@dudeman: i think the point went over your head... i'm not trying to persuade everyone to not use computers and cars... I'm trying to make a point why religious people say this and that is a sin yet *pollution* of the earth is not. more

Resolved Question: do you ever thought that global warming can be caused by wars?

Voting Question: what is the cause of global warming?

Resolved Question: What makes one person believe in Global Warming & another one not believe it at all?

Is it denial or wisdom.....I know people are like this about their own health issues. We have smokers who don't believe it is worth quitting. We have diabetics who won't stay on a diet cause they feel great. What causes us to look at things like this in different ways? more