Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I assure you, even if I did, I'd hardly be the first to do so.
The problem I see with the climate change debate is both sides seem to have a need to over simplify it. It's either completely natural or completely man made for most people. I assert that it's realistically both. Every living thing impacts their environment and, by extension, the climate. Humans are not separate from nature and therefor are impact is just as natural as a tree's impact.
Sure, fossil fuels wouldn't be burned without human actions, but even if that's the root cause of climate change (which I assert is a gross oversimplification) nothing that has changed wasn't already possible, nor would a constant stable point be reached if the factor was removed entirely. And for obviously political reason, the concept of 'alternative energy' is almost always the focal point of climate discussion. But what is wind power going to do to address mass deforestation, constant rising of human population, and general wastefulness of man kind?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I'm far more concerned with the destruction of forests and general pollution of the planet than I am with the use of oil or coal. I do think that scientific and industrial progress demands of us that we are on a constant search for more efficient energy, but it shouldn't be due to the political thought of the time. Technology needs to be thoroughly tested before it's introduced to the masses. Not every American owned a car the moment the car was invented. Change takes time and to force it is to doom it.
Climate change is natural, and humans do effect it. An idiotic notion exists that humans are in some way separate from nature; we're not. We're just as governed by natural laws as any other living or non-living thing, and we are just as influential to the environment and climate as any other species.
I am sorry I believe something other than what you posted...
Quote:
Within the past couple of years alone, the concept of geoengineering has sparked a growing interest (which seems to be accelerating at a rapid rate) within the academic world. It’s also ignited a heavy interest in policy making, which is no surprise given the fact that we are talking about “geoengineering” the entire global climate in response to global climate change. That’s exactly what geoengineering is – a response to destructive human activity which we have yet to cease – and it involves injecting stratospheric particles/aerosols into the atmosphere to, again, reduce the effect of global climate change.
The northwest is hugely affected by El Nino/La Nina patterns.
Generally speaking El Niño brings: Cooler and wetter weather to the southern United States, warmer weather to western Canada and southern Alaska, drier weather to the Pacific Northwest, cooler weather to northern Canada and wetter weather to southern California.
We are experiencing an unusually hot summer here in the Seattle area. I woke up at 3AM this morning and had to use AC in my truck on the way to work. That is unusual for his region.
Yesterday a liberal friend commented to me that he was really concerned about global warming in light of our heat wave. On the way home from work, I listened to a local liberal radio talk host named Mark Rahner, who declared that the heat wave made him want to punch Sen James Inhofe in the neck. Inhofe is a noted "denier."
When we get record cold snaps we are lectured by liberals that weather<>climate.
Which is it?
Mother nature is taking her earth back because of our abuse lol Actually not funny at all. Seriously, we pollute this planet. I don't think anyone could deny that. What we disagree on is the degree of the damage. Democrats want to preserve this planet and do what they can whereas republicans just look out for themselves and deny the damage we do.
I assure you, even if I did, I'd hardly be the first to do so.
The problem I see with the climate change debate is both sides seem to have a need to over simplify it. It's either completely natural or completely man made for most people. I assert that it's realistically both. Every living thing impacts their environment and, by extension, the climate. Humans are not separate from nature and therefor are impact is just as natural as a tree's impact.
Sure, fossil fuels wouldn't be burned without human actions, but even if that's the root cause of climate change (which I assert is a gross oversimplification) nothing that has changed wasn't already possible, nor would a constant stable point be reached if the factor was removed entirely. And for obviously political reason, the concept of 'alternative energy' is almost always the focal point of climate discussion. But what is wind power going to do to address mass deforestation, constant rising of human population, and general wastefulness of man kind?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I'm far more concerned with the destruction of forests and general pollution of the planet than I am with the use of oil or coal. I do think that scientific and industrial progress demands of us that we are on a constant search for more efficient energy, but it shouldn't be due to the political thought of the time. Technology needs to be thoroughly tested before it's introduced to the masses. Not every American owned a car the moment the car was invented. Change takes time and to force it is to doom it.
Climate change is natural, and humans do effect it. An idiotic notion exists that humans are in some way separate from nature; we're not. We're just as governed by natural laws as any other living or non-living thing, and we are just as influential to the environment and climate as any other species.
well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
Mother nature is taking her earth back because of our abuse lol Actually not funny at all. Seriously, we pollute this planet. I don't think anyone could deny that. What we disagree on is the degree of the damage. Democrats want to preserve this planet and do what they can whereas republicans just look out for themselves and deny the damage we do.
rubbish. the democrats want more control over the people, where as republicans tend to want a balance between man and nature.
We are experiencing an unusually hot summer here in the Seattle area. I woke up at 3AM this morning and had to use AC in my truck on the way to work. That is unusual for his region.
Yesterday a liberal friend commented to me that he was really concerned about global warming in light of our heat wave. On the way home from work, I listened to a local liberal radio talk host named Mark Rahner, who declared that the heat wave made him want to punch Sen James Inhofe in the neck. Inhofe is a noted "denier."
When we get record cold snaps we are lectured by liberals that weather<>climate.
We are experiencing an unusually hot summer here in the Seattle area. I woke up at 3AM this morning and had to use AC in my truck on the way to work. That is unusual for his region.
Yesterday a liberal friend commented to me that he was really concerned about global warming in light of our heat wave. On the way home from work, I listened to a local liberal radio talk host named Mark Rahner, who declared that the heat wave made him want to punch Sen James Inhofe in the neck. Inhofe is a noted "denier."
When we get record cold snaps we are lectured by liberals that weather<>climate.
Really, tell me what republicans have done to preserve this planet.
The single most important piece of environmental legislation which would be the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act was basically written by the George H. W. Bush administration.
If you are going to live in a modern society you need to accept there will be environmental consequences. Environmental regulations need to be both practical and sane where the benefits outweigh the costs. The analogy I like to make is we could build cars that are 100% survivable in a crash but that is pointless if no one can afford the car. The same thing applies to environmental regulations.
Democrats want to preserve this planet and do what they can whereas republicans just look out for themselves and deny the damage we do.
You have it exactly backwards. Democrats don't give a crap about the planet. They just want your money and want to control your life. They want to take money and resources away from fighting real pollution because that doesn't increase your taxes. If Democrats cared at all about the planet their leaders wouldn't be polluting at a record pace.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
