We are an immediate loan specialist in Urbana, and we are quicker and more advantageous than run of the mill retail facade banks since we're based on the web and are open constantly. No compelling reason to sit tight for "ordinary business hours" or invest energy flying out to the store — our short application can be finished in not more than minutes. You can even apply from a cell phone while you're in a hurry!
We can loan up to $500 to Urbana occupants, in view of qualifying elements. On the off chance that endorsed, your credit will be expected on your next payday that falls in the vicinity of 10 and 31 days after you get your advance. Nitty gritty data with respect to expenses and reimbursement is accessible on our Rates and Terms page. As you consider whether an advance is proper for your prompt needs, you ought to likewise investigate other subsidizing alternatives. A payday credit is a genuine budgetary duty, and not an answer for long haul issues. Getting from a companion of relative may be a superior alternative.
How serious do you think this problem is and what should we do to get the word out? --------------------------- This is to branch off the original one started by Al Gore. If you noticed, he has had a HUGE response so far, leading to over 95 pages of response (almost 3000 at this time). (Note to Yahoo: Please find a better way to scan through the answers or display them - maybe brief heading for each??) Please continue your thoughts on this topic here. Communication is key to finding a solution.
My suggestions: 1) Determine how many are ready and willing to do something about it right now. For every effort made by 1 person, 10 others around the world may be undoing it. Find ways to overcome this obstacle. 2) Create a game plan. Draw it out: "HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO". Then let those that take it to heart, do their part. 3) Expand Earth Day to a daily, weekly, monthly thing. Create teams, challenges, and competition. Reward and recognize efforts. Make it fun and doable and make it a part of our daily life. 4) Gauge the results. Post results of competition and the status of the environment. Show progress. 5) Get leadership involvement. Infrastructure, laws, policies, compliance, influence, and incentives can help the process. Anything else?
GLOBAL WARMING/THE ENVIRONMENT ohio GENERAL Any and I mean any environmental cause or approach must be grassroots in nature. Having PhD's talk about global warming and having those representing industry interests debunk these present theories is a high level and almost an entirely futile effort. Don't get me wrong, it is great that someone with Al Gore's connections and exposure is getting the word out. However, people are people they want to see results. Yes, the expression is now trite but still true, "Thing Globally, Act Locally". Watching the sky over a city, town or even a more rural area become darkened by smog has local impact, people take note and actually see A PROBLEM. A problem that can measured in terms of air quality or perhaps an AIR QUALITY HEALTH INDEX like the one that the provincial government in Ontario, Canada is in the process of implementing. You can measure results (however small) in terms of air quality and the affect it has on the health care system (those with breathing problems, doctor's visits, etc). It certainly speaks to the advantage of a UNIVERSAL health care system (however, actually implemented) as it actually makes sense to improve the environment as it keeps people healthy (a humanitarian cause) and when health care it publicly funded it affects the public coffers when people become ill therefore it even makes better financial sense to keep the environment a top priority. Plus any approach must be entire with a complete overall plan (the big picture). Including recycling initiatives, energy solutions (alternatives/renewables can now present a real potential financial threat to the big oil companies and even power companies...), government involvement at all levels, public transit, greener vehicles in general (Hybrid, Hydrogen, Conventional electric, bio-diesel, ethanol), conservation in all energy arenas, ETC! Economic viability is the real sell as many of these solutions are just that economically sensible (ensuring we look at the entire picture). Yes as more people use solar, wind and other renewable energy sources the cheaper the technology will get. Two of the newest billionaires have earned a large portion through renewables Solar (India I believe) and Wind (China I believe). Yes in many ways developing nations and economies will be the first and early adopters of such renewable tech as they are just building much of their infrastructure. So what do we all need to do? GET INVOLVED ! Contact your local government about improving your recycling program, contact provincial/state/federal government about the adopting of these new technologies (renewables such as solar/wind), buy gas with ethanol in it and demand it, use and demand bio diesel, buy products with less packaging and demand manufacturers to reduce packaging and to offer a price break as a result. More ECONOMIC VIABILITY! After all energy diversity just like economic diversity is the safest and best bet for good long term results and return on investment. Joe... KEEP IT UP MR. GORE THE POLAR BEARS NEED YOU FIRST **GRIN**.
An opinion counter to those who believe Global Warming is pure fiction: "The viewpoint that we are not accountable for any part of global warming is a strange viewpoint to take. You and sites like junkscience, counter the facts with your own junk science. Here's my question to you, 'What if you are wrong in your model of the Earth?' Do you understand every nuance of the inbound energy to the Earth? Do you have figures to show the amount of energy radiating back into space over the last million years? Do you know exactly how much carbon dioxide is reabsorbed by the various mechanisms and how much heat is now hitting the surface for a second time? No you don't, none of us have the global temerature figures for the last several million years nor do we have an accurate model which includes every aspect of the complex energy and climate systems of our Earth. That said, can we afford to take the chance with the only atmosphere we have? We, the human race generate millions of tons of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases into our atmosphere. We are systematically removing the rain forests, we pollute the oceans and rivers and show no signs of slowing down. Meanwhile, waiting in the wings are the carbon gases locked up in the permafrost, the methane locked up in the methane hydrate at the bottoms of oceans and again, in the polar permafrost, and the recent discovery that trees can emit methane when under thermal stress. You spout facts and figures, using long important sounding words, referencing other doctors and scientists who have their own viewpoints for their own reasons yet the reality is, you don't really know. Neither side really knows for sure but you are taking the side that would have us continue to add to the problems instead of being on the side of caution just in case we are pushing the system out of balance. I hope you are right, I hope that you never have to say 'oops, guess I was wrong' because that means we are all up the creek without a paddle. You being wrong means that our children are bereft of a future, that millions will be homeless or dying. It means that our Earth has been pushed off it's climactic balance. I really, really hope you are right and that you are a better and cleverer scientist than the many others who are trying to reverse the trend." -Author unknown
First and for most we should know the root causes of global climate change. Is it of natural causes, radiation from the sun or man-made. Those that are old enough should remember their was a time when they thought we were coming to an Ice Age. National Academies 2001 report, “the changes observed over the last several decades are "likely" mostly due to human activities, BUT we CANNOT rule out that some SIGNIFICANT part of these changes is also a reflection of NATURAL variability.” Notice the words likely: Definition= plausible :Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability. In other words they are not sure and this is from scientists. I have read they need at least 1000 years of RELIABLE surface temperature to make an conclusion, but they have only 156 years, only 16% of the data needed. NO scientist worth their salt will make a conclusion of the causes of global climate change with only 16% of the data. Hearings on the subject of global warming before the House Committee on Small Business made public the following findings, all documented in the scientific literature: * The climate models used to predict future warming have NOT been validated; current models CANNOT handle clouds and other important climatic parameters *The warming effect of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere was OVERESTIMATED by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by 15 percent. *The Kyoto Protocol (proposed reduction of carbon dioxide emissions) will have NO DISCERNIBLE impact on global temperature, even 50 years from now. *There is no "scientific consensus". More than 17,000 scientists in the United States, including 2,300 specialists in the field of climate change, have signed petitions AGAINST the Kyoto Protocol. After all that said and done, it is better to be safe then sorry we should conserve energy, look for alternative energy sources, clean our rivers, lakes and oceans. Put in laws to make companys to do the same without hurting these same company so they don't go out of business or raise their prices on their products.
Q a)How serious do you think this problem is b)what should we do to get the word out? a) not very ; big warming numbers come not from measurements but from computer models. These computer models and their output are passionately defended by the modeling clique and frequently derided by empiricists -- but the bottom line is that models make an enormous range of assumptions. Whether all the assumptions, tweaks and parameter adjustments really collectively add up to a realistic representation of the atmosphere is open to some conjecture . Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term). Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems.. b) Tell the truth
Sadly, it will take several catastrophes...cataclysmic events...such as Florida and the 9-11 memorial site in New York being submerged by rising ocean levels....extreme weather conditions, such as abominable hurricanes, etc. Logic and the scientific method are insufficient to persuade those who don't want to be persuaded. As more and more events start unfolding in accordance with the logic of "An Inconvenient Truth," gradually the masses will come around. Yet, it will take the displacement of hundreds of millions of people before the "hard-headed-know-it-alls" see the light. Only then will people realize that the most serious problem confronting the earth today is global warming, not the bogeyman terrorists. Only through incredible catastrophes, which global warming will indeed produce over the coming 10 - 50 years, will the "mental chilling (aka stupidity)" of today begin to dissipate. In the meantime, enjoy the ride in the hummers of the republican party being driven by the most inept, most incompetent, worst president in US history - ie Bush and his team of thugs (Cheney, Rove, Rice, Rumsfield, Powell, Wolfowitz and Fox News)!
I do believe this is a serious problem. As a university student and someone who is currently working for an energy company. I would advise that communication is key in getting it out. Although some schools are creating Sustainability and Energy Conservation programs, it needs to be an issue at every school. If you start with university students and get them passionate, they can get administration to make changes towards energy purchasing. So much energy is wasted by university/college students and there is so much that can be done. Yale is a great example of a school that is taking initiative towards a greener campus, they even track their savings on their website. If we start with our institutions of learning and get them to consume less energy, it will be a good start. Eventually we may find a way to reverse global warming, but until then we definitely need to work on a way to slow down the pace of it for now.
The previous poster is right. As a matter of fact, the ozone layer in the far north has actually reversed and is no longer depleting. Plus, you need to look up the terms aphelion and perihelion before coming to a conclusion. The Earth has an 11,000 year warming and cooling cycle. Greenhouse gases simply accelerate the warming to a degree, but does not cause global warming. Mother nature causes it. The elliptical egg-like shape of the distance of the sun in relation to Earth over an 11,000 year span causes this. NOT HUMANS. Why did the glaciers in the Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, parts of Illinois and Iowa) retreat thousands of years ago if greenhouse gases were not the cause? Scare tactics is all this is.
In the space of around 200 years we have put back into the atmosphere the carbon dioxide that plants - via photosynthesis - took hundreds of millions of years to remove from it. It is naive to think that we can reverse this. It is naive to think that the plants alive today will reverse it by more than a few years worth of carbon dioxide photosynthesis. And it is naive to think we will stop consuming oil. But it is plain arrogantly stupid to think that we will find a technological solution as George Bush suggests. We can do only two things: 1. everything we can to move from oil to sustainable energy sources; to do this would require high levies on oil to deter its use, which will only become politically acceptable when we have lost a city or two 2. hope that it won't be that bad
Natural selection is the solution, and the answer to a question that doesn't exist. We, and everything else on the Earth will continue to live and ADAPT to our surroundings. If the Earth becomes 150 degrees F, then the plants, humans, etc. will live at that temperature comfortably and we will find better ways of doing things. Chill out, dude- God is still on the throne.
The Bush government is in denial....so therefore many Americans are in denial. Governments have to recognize global warming and the dangers we will face now, not just in the distant future. It is easier to make laws against smoking in public than to make laws that would help us curb our living styles that add to global warming. We cannot take steps to help mend a problem unless it is recognized and in it's recognition....cared about. If governments do not care, than people need to be educated so they can force governments to take action. I don't hold a great deal of faith in this country's (USA) abilities to care enough.....and THAT is scarey!!!!