Politics, Politics, Politics

Incorrect. We aren't producing any carbon - THAT wasn't already here. We are, however, producing CO2 when we burn fossil fuels and that's why the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing.

Exactly what I said -
Here, let me quote what I said
We are releasing it by burning fossil fuels.

I simply pointed out we don't "produce" (make more) it, we are simply releasing what is already here. You claim I am incorrect and then repeat what I stated to begin with. Makes me highly question your reading comprehension. I pointed that out because I think this is part of the bigger issue, people are uneducated, or misguided as to what is actually going on. Another example; The ice in the arctic is reseeding, but what they don't tell you is the ice in Antarctica is increasing. It's on NASA's web site, not posting a link because if you really want to learn you will do your own research or you can continue to swallow the BS the media feeds you.

There are many, MANY factors that contribute to global climate change, man is but a small part and many would argue an insignificant part. most of these factors are out of our control. The climate will change, if you don't want it to then move to Dubai.




 
Climate change denial is based on ignorance and there is absolutely no excuse. It takes 5 minutes to review the science, but it seems it is largely Americans and more specifically Republicans who regard it as a leftist plot.
Now read this link and then tell me which parts of the science you don't agree with. I've chosen a respected American organisation in the hope that it will carry more weight with you than the rest of the 99% of scientists who understand that climate change is real and almost certainly man made.




18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year


Here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the “green holy day” (aka Earth Day) started:
1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”
2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.
3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”
4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.
8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”
11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to *******.
12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.
13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).
14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”
15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”
18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
 
Climate change denial is based on ignorance and there is absolutely no excuse. It takes 5 minutes to review the science, but it seems it is largely Americans and more specifically Republicans who regard it as a leftist plot.
Now read this link and then tell me which parts of the science you don't agree with. I've chosen a respected American organisation in the hope that it will carry more weight with you than the rest of the 99% of scientists who understand that climate change is real and almost certainly man made.

I don't dispute weird things are happening to the environment with more powerful hurricanes and the melting ice caps. The question is is it the fault of mankind after the industrial revolution, which started as early as 1760, so let's say 259 years as 2019-1760=259, or is it the fault of a multi century cycle? After all there was global warming 600 and 1000 years ago as seen courtesy of the paleoclimate data of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's website (NOAA) below. And there was no industrialization or the abundant burning of fossil fuels then that I am aware. So the fault could be cast onto an abundance of flatulent cows spewing methane in the atmosphere, the excessive volcanic or solar activity. Could those forces could also be at work causing this? Is this mankind's fault? Or is there anything else that is overlooked? To me the jury is still out as to who are the culprit(s) at hand?

:unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure: :unsure:

NOAA_DATA.jpg

 
Last edited:
"Ice caps in the North Pole" is a bizarre wording, but presuming you were attempting to say the polar ice in the vicinity of the Earth's North pole.....Every cubic inch of ice for hundreds of miles around the North Pole could melt and it wouldn't raise the ocean level a single millimeter.
Care to expand on your logic there? Not that I would initiate such an experiment by dropping a thermal nuclear bomb on the polar ice in the vicinity of the Earth's North pole. But the continued path of warming would suffice. After massive melt of ice and snow the question is where would that water go? Would there be a considerable displacement causing the sea levels to rise much like ice cubes melting in a glass? Or would there be other forces at work? Seeing that the planet is the largest working biosphere we are familliar with perhaps other unexpected forces might come into play like evaporation perhaps? Or would you have another explanation @hoping hubby ?
 
Care to expand on your logic there? Not that I would initiate such an experiment by dropping a thermal nuclear bomb on the polar ice in the vicinity of the Earth's North pole. But the continued path of warming would suffice. After massive melt of ice and snow the question is where would that water go? Would there be a considerable displacement causing the sea levels to rise much like ice cubes melting in a glass? Or would there be other forces at work? Seeing that the planet is the largest working biosphere we are familliar with perhaps other unexpected forces might come into play like evaporation perhaps? Or would you have another explanation @hoping hubby ?
This is very basic physics known since about 250 BCE. Google Archimedes' principle and learn for yourself....hint, your statement about ice cubes melting is a glass is a key analogy.
 

Common response is to through money at it. (mean while keeping a large sum for themselves).
When I ship packages there is a "Emissions offset fee". This fee some how nullifies the CO2 emissions from the delivery truck. Farmers have already been paying a methane tax for X number of cows, didn't seem to help with the effects so I guess it is perfectly logical to tax the consumer next, see if that works. ?
 
Common response is to through money at it. (mean while keeping a large sum for themselves).
When I ship packages there is a "Emissions offset fee". This fee some how nullifies the CO2 emissions from the delivery truck. Farmers have already been paying a methane tax for X number of cows, didn't seem to help with the effects so I guess it is perfectly logical to tax the consumer next, see if that works. ?
If you can't solve the problem, there is good money to be made by taxing it!
 
Kind of easy to falsely create nonexistence problems to make money. The earth's weather is changing constantly I agree, climate control or Global Warming is being used by wealthy unnamed sources to greatly add to their wealth. My point is are the minions, average people of this world being sold untruths about global warming for huge financial gain? I believe they are.
 
A former campaign staffer for Michigan’s Democrat Attorney General Dana Nessel allegedly said he used Ukrainian hackers to manipulate the election and help Nessel win the state’s closest race in 2018.
The bombshell allegation was buried in a federal extortion lawsuit against Dmitriy Movsesyan, who worked on Nessel’s campaign at various points in 2017 and 2018. (Full disclosure: This columnist funded an independent expenditure against Nessel’s eventual 2018 Republican opponent, Tom Leonard, during the GOP nomination campaign.)

 
Back
Top