|
marjan15 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
Depends about what you care more: living or non living nature. For living nature diversity higher temperatures are better.
sniker45 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
new zealand has just elected a government who doesnt beleave in climate change i would urge all consumers in europe and the united states to boycott all food products from new zealand due to carbon miles and the right wing greed merchants we have elected.
TheRealArchAngel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
**ALL of our reliable scientific institutions basically agree**
Check again, As the Sky continues not to fall between 1991 and now even the IPCC has changed there "Doom and GLoom" senerio and almost everyone realize that a lot of Al Gorwee's "IFs'" hasn't happpen between 1992 when he wrote his book and 2007 when the MOvie won awards
*dire if greenhouse gas emissions aren't decreased*
And When "CO2 Scrubbers" take Co2 in air back to preindustrial levels and there is still "Global Warming"?
militaryminded85 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
climate change is inevitabl nomatter what we do we as an intelagent form of life can only pospone slow the proses the moon is distancing 2 inch a year this is nothing to do with us this was going to happen with or without us we can only do wat we wer desighned to do adapt to are surounding we will live on the strongest will suvive sorry about the spelling im drunk
humanrightstruth (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
To learn more about WORLDBANK plans/Climate Change =
google search YouTube video :
"PROTEST-Indigenous Peoples "2nd MAY REVOLT" at the UN"
belmont162 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
'scaremongering' -- supposedly part of a global conspiracy to exaggerate the impacts of climate change to secure more funding (presumably to do yet more scaremongering). Ironically, the emergence of consensus views on climate change should ultimately mean an increase in funding to address the problem, not study it.
For a long time now, the media have also given a skewed account of the science. Although the scientific literature abounds in debate about the effects of climate change and ...
stinknuts24 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"The notion that if you're ignorant of something and somebody comes up with a wrong answer, and you have to accept that because you don't have another wrong answer to offer is like faith healing, it's like quackery in medicine -- if somebody says you should take jelly beans for cancer and you say that's stupid, and he says, well can you suggest something else and you say, no, does that mean you have to go with jelly beans?"
- Prof. Richard S. Lindzen, MIT
stinknuts24 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
How dare you accuse someone of "grasping" for evidence? All you have done is made a brief attack on a scientist who DARES to have a dissenting opinion by providing NO evidence whatsoever.
This is the real problem with the idea of Global Warming: people who have no idea what they are talking about are yelling nonsense to convince the world that they know something. Lindzen was a member of the IPCC so I think he might know a little about climate.
belmont162 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
"Climate scientists often find their work challenged by all manner of people, from political leaders and fossil fuel proponents to the person-on-the-street. Never mind that the findings have been worked through the rigorous and sometimes drawn-out peer-review process.
If the results have significant implications -- such as rising sea levels, increased cyclone intensity, bleached coral reefs, and prolonged droughts -- the anti-climate science brigade will dismiss the work as ...
garyowen4ever (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)
hey kids, school's around the corner so start you diary on your parents brown sins so they can be RATTED OUT TO ALGORE, of the local GREEN GESTAPO OFFICE, where you'll find milk and cookies and valuable prizes OR YOU can wait and see you school's WAFFEN SS OFFICER and get a gold star on your permanent record. AWESOME.....WAY COOOOOOL. |
