Question for the Al Gore fans, and global warming scare tactic people.?
I know most of you will avoid answering these SIMPLE questions, but I'll ask anyways. I am well aware that humans CONTRIBUTE to greenhouse gases, but I want to know if you agree or disagree to the following:
1. Do you agree that the vast majority of greenhouse gases are caused by volcanic activity and the sun?
2. Do you agree that methane gases from farm animals contribute to more greenhouse gases than all of transportation combined (as the independent U.N. study shows)?
3. Do you agree that the earth has been warming since before humans enhabited it (hence, the ice ages are over)?
4. What percentage of greenhouse gases do YOU THINK are caused by humans?
5. Do you think Al Gore is politically, and/or financially motivated in his cause (profits to the 100 million dollar documentary and his "salary"?
explanations are welcome, but PLEASE answer the questions. They are simple, and straightforward, and will help you be taken more seriously.
- Paul SLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Well, the fact that you decided to address this to "scare tactic people" tends to make it likely that you are simply going to attract the polar ends of the debate... and maybe that's what you wanted. Though I don't think that's going to get you much in the way of answers or reasoned thought.
But on to the questions!
1 - Of course, I don't think this was ever in doubt as both of these create water vapor. Water vapor is the most common of the green house gasses, and while human kind probably have an effect here, it's not such that this is what has caused so much worry.
2 - Farm animals account for about 4% of all green house gasses. CO2 output from ALL transportation is a diffiult number to gauge, because part of the power output used in transportation comes from other sources (many car batteries are charged from power that comes from power plants, refineries that process fuel for cars create output and use electricity from other sources, etc). The studies I have read would depend on how much of all methane output you attribute to farm animals and the accuracy of predicted CO2 from transportation. But, even if you accept those numbers, the actual CO2 output caused by transportation would be greater than that just put out directly from transportation. Further, you must take into account that people are deforresting large parts of the earth, which make the planet less able to deal with CO2 - so even at constant levels, we would be experiencing a net increase.
3 - Warming and cooling trends have come and gone many times in the planet's history. The current trend though clearly shows abnormalities in the speed at which it is happening which should be cause for great alarm. If you observe natural systems, they work very well when in balance. When out of balance they will work with a degrading efficency for a time, but then they tend to react quite violently. If the worst outcome of being "greener" were cleaner air, it seems like that is not such a bad thing. When the best outcome could be long term survival, I think it's something you HAVE to consider. The reality is probably between the two extremes, but short term economic gains for certain industries seems like a poor trade off even for just cleaner air.
4 - Going back to your second question, it's not just adding to green house gases, but also the affect of the planet not recycling as much CO2 as before. And there is also the issue of a "tipping point." The amount could be quite small in theory... imagine sitting in a hot tub that is heated to 105 degrees. Now, a secondary heating system is added that adds another 15 degrees making it at least uncomfotable to quite dangerous! Would you really want to hear the argument to ignore the secondary heater as it's only responsible for 15 degrees and that 15 degrees is really quite cold? CO2 makes up between 10-25% of greenhouse gasses, depending on what source you look at. WIth all gases you could probably go with a nice easy 20% for what people contribute to. Though you could easily figure more too (if you accept that farm animals are a major problem, then you must also trace back the fact that they are being raised in the numbers they are by people). The percentage is interesting, but it's also ultimately not as relevant as the final effect.
5 - I've not had a close look at Mr. Gore's finances, though all public statements indicate the money being made from this cause is going back into the cause, and he is not profitting. Of course, that overlooks secondary profitting... he would enjoy a tax benefit since he is making a large donation. However, there are many better ways to achieve a tax benefit and the amount of time and personal funding he has put towards this cause would not reach a break even point unless he has no value for his own time. The other personal gain would be political capital should he plan on seeking office. I wouldn't completely discount this, though so far he's passed on all points to make the most of this, and his involvement here dates back before the most visible part of his political life. I would be far more questioning of the financial motives of the opposite side which has produced studies funded by the groups representing the industries that would be most affected by environmental legislation.
- diogenese_97Lv 51 decade ago
1. No. Though a good deal comes from that source the amount of hydrocarbons (which we contribute) has increased to far more than natural sources.
2. Yes, a lot also comes from plant life (rice is a contributor to methane release) and there are pockets under the ocean that also add to the amount of gas.
3. No. If anything it has fluctuated. There was a little ice age that lasted some 400 years that ended at the time the industrial revolution started.
4. Not as much as people think but that is not the point. As third world nations industrialize the contributions will increase logarithmically. Since the U.S. is one of the biggest contributors we need to lead the world in alternative methods of energy use.
5.No. Al Gore was always passionate about this subject and the popularity of his documentary has more to do with people becoming aware of the problem and less from his celebrity.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Correctomundo you are. Furthermore, greenhouse gasses (human generated or otherwise) are not even the whole picture of global warming.
Global warming is a complex issue.
Reading the popular media can lead a person to conclude that "global warming" is:
o- either a hoax to promote business opportunities, politicians agenda and scientists grant money.....
o- a problem related to overpopulation, industrialization and fossil fuels whose solution options lie in solar power, wind power, geothermal power and nuclear fusion....
However, the correct answer may be altogether different:
NASA has released never-before-seen images that show the sun's magnetic field is much more turbulent and dynamic than previously known. The international spacecraft Hinode, formerly known as Solar B, took the images. Hinode was launched Sept. 23 to study the sun's magnetic field and its explosive energy. National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists said the spacecraft's uninterrupted high-resolution observations of the sun are expected to have an impact on solar physics comparable to the Hubble Space Telescope's impact on astronomy. "For the first time, we are now able to make out tiny granules of hot gas that rise and fall in the sun's magnetized atmosphere," said Dick Fisher, director of NASA's Heliophyics Division. "These images will open a new era of study on some of the sun's processes that effect Earth, astronauts, orbiting satellites and the solar system." Hinode is a collaborative mission led by
the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and includes the European Space Agency and Britain's Particle Physics Astronomy Research
Council. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., managed the development of the Hinode's scientific instrumentation provided by industry and federal agencies.
>>> as regards alternative energy methods, I favor development of the technology for nuclear fusion using lunar Helium 3Source(s): http://www.nasa.gov http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/07031... http://sci-e-research.com/geophysics.html http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html
- 1 decade ago
Global warming and greenhouse gases are so passe.
You're not up on the new doomsdays scientific forecast. It is now believed that the earth's core is hot because of nuclear fussion. In other words, the earth's core is believed to actually be a nuclear reactor.
This nuclear reactor was kept cool by the oil that used to be in the ground. Since we pumped all the oil out of the ground, the reactor is over heating and causing the oceans to warm up, which is melting the ice caps.
The predictions now is that the earth's core is going into a nuclear meltdown and will explode.
Will these people ever stop with the doomsday crap?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- bildymoonerLv 61 decade ago
4. 2 or 3%
5. Yes and may I add he belongs in an insane asylum.
- rmagedonLv 61 decade ago
I am not a fan but would like to answer anyway.
less than 0.5% I believe
- Anonymous1 decade ago
I agree, but you will never get LIEberals to read the truth of your questions.