Greenland in focus: the threat of global warming

[isismoon1405]

I personally don't think WE are the cause.. it has been proven that the SUN'S ACTIVITY causes the warming.. however.. people who think electric cars and "going green" are just propaganda consider this.. pollution is a threat to us, nature and the environment as well.. it isn't all about the political scam/religion of Global Warming.

[Anarchist86ed]

Mmmm, and us spewing unimaginable amounts of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere is just meaningless.

[1980PintoMan]

Not in the next 100 years. Did you catch that? Antarctica is growing. There is no proof that co2 causes global warming. co2 levels rise after warming, not before, historically. Islands are not currently drowning. Ocean levals are lower than 1000 years ago. CNN propoganda.

[aranmpy]

it,s the fuckin polar bears they can,t be trusted little pricks with their blow toarches and sniffen glue they want the world for themselves them and the penguins. and should,nt greenland be called iceland

[malagent]

I'm going to go start my Hummer and let it idle all night, then fill it up and let it idle more.

Then I'm going to just drive around for hours on end.

If anyone wants to buy some carbon credits from me I'll turn it off for an hour for each one.

[dominicandx]

your eather an ashole or you are retarded

[BreakingB85]

i'm really scared now very scared

[BreakingB85]

lostlittlebobby the bad is that the water will raise so much that the water will drown us all and we all would die and every creature too i am already scared

[louis12346]

35 of the scientific errors and exaggerations in Al Gore's movie. The first nine were listed by the judge in the High Court in London in October 2007 as being "errors." The remaining 26 errors are just as inaccurate or exaggerated as the nine spelt out by the judge, who made it plain during the proceedings that the Court had not had time to consider more than these few errors. The judge found these errors serious enough to require the UK Government to pay substantial costs to the plaintiff.

[iggysentyou]

oh, it's more than just sea level. The ocean currents will be screwed up, wjich will cause huge change in weather and climate. Remember Hurricane Katrina? expect to see that More often in coming years... and another thing: those people that live in the coast? we're talking millions of people here. That's nothing to joke about.

[TheRealInvaderZim]

Since this was posted,the 100 year data projection has been changed to 30 years.Remember Carl Sagan showing this over 20 years ago and our goverment at the time sweeping it under the carpet-saying that a long term study needed to be done????????

[nhatik]

if the earth is actually okay. if everything we are shown is a lie. why was climate change picked as the lie? why not global shrinking? that would work. the media could carry on their fearmongering... "as the world continues to shrink your property will be reduced in size! and will be worth less, and then the markets will collapse and then..." i think the truth is between the extremes. something is clearly changing. but no one can get the whole picture with much accuracy.

[ndhenghe]

Your views are based on Lomborgh theory that global warming is highly exaggerated by the media and environmentalist. Rains have failed for more than five years now in most developing countries, and what we are seeing is poverty, massive death of livestock and wildlife, malnutrition, diseases, floods,land & mud slides..... the list is endless. The developing countries are hard hit as they are poor and less prepared to adapt to climate changes.

[not2tees]

"Reverse the process?" What's he talking about?

[TSLCHARNA]

WE ARE NOT TO BLAME!! The whole notion that the climate is being modified by humans has been shown to be false. The fundamental argument being that the rise in Co2 causes an increase in global temperatures. The evidence clearly shows that any increase in Co2 happens 800 to 2000 years AFTER any temperature increase.

[jmeckle1]

Can you cite this evidence? Regardless of whether your statement is correct, would it pain you to push the government to design modern cities and public infrastructure in a environmentally positive manner? The city I live in, for example, is designed around the automobile, and very difficult to navigate in any other way due to suburban sprawl.

[jmeckle1]

... cont: It is nestled in the foothills of the Smoky Mountains which keep the wind from carrying the pollution out of the area. There is also traffic from the intersection of two of the nation's busiest interstates. As a result my city has one of the worst air quality ratings in the US.

[jmeckle1]

cont... Because of the sprawl, it is necessary to own a car to go most places which does nothing but contribute to the poor air quality. I personally hate this. I don't like driving or owning a car, but I have no option if I want to lead some semblance of a normal life here.

[jmeckle1]

...cont: I will say the pollution does make the sunsets really colorful, but come on, it's silly to think that the millions of cars traveling through my city on a daily basis are having no effect on the environment in the present. It may not have as dramatic an impact as many environmentalists trying to gain government funding for their causes say it has, but it is most certainly having some impact.

[Popop878]

I can't cite the proof, but I can tell you how he's somewhat right. But lets see: Why did we have ice ages? Because of the Earth being to hot. Or last ice age was 10k years ago. Last time I checked, 10,000 year ago, humans weren't blasting off Co2 into the air. It's just the way the Earth is evolving.