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.
Historical data is lacking? I think we have enough to establish that we have a problem or we can study it for another 50 years and keep on generating CO2.
You're local weather patterns are irrelevant to Global Warming, these change frequently based on many variables. Global warming is a measurement of the average global temperature, without getting into a debate about the accuracy it has risen about 1 degree since the mid 1800's. While this is a small change it cab be significant on the global scale.
What's 1 degrees divided by 75 then times (2017-1800) and then again divided by 6 billion?
When I heard the so-called "testimony" of Hansen during June 1988 of the "greenhouse effect", or better yet "testilying," I practically fell over laughing. And this was before it became a left vs. right issue. Since then I have watched with alarm as this concept fused with the carbon tax, in its various guises. Evcen worse, this fused with the concept of global wealth redistribution schemes as exemplified by the Paris Climate Accords.
Most climate alarmists point to climate change in the high Arctic, Kilimanjaro or Antarctica,k where historical data is lacking.
Most people supporting the Paris accords haven't read them. They have a solution. In the virtually certain event that the Paris targets are not met we get to pay into a fund for climate adjustment coupled, believe it or not, with gender equity. The Europeans care about this since administering the fund will feed the Brussels bureaucracy now endangered by Brexit and France's near miss. As far as money that is distributed by the climate adjustment fund, I doubt we can trust them and distributees such as Mugabe and Kabika to use our money wisely. Seriously that's not touchy feely. It's straightforward theft.
By the way, I am repping both posts.
So you don't think that human activity causes climate change because of what? a speech you heard in 1988?
As far as your claims about the Paris Accord, that's the talking points of Heritage and National Review, odd for a democrat like yourself to be using source information from those websites, but in any case there are opposing views:
Its funny how the french president bragged about his handshake with President Trump, as if the kid made an impression or something. And turns out he made no impression at all
Every nation in the world except three, I believe, have signed onto the Paris Climate Accords. China is investing close to 325 billion in renewable energy.
The right-wing has been wrong on nearly every single environmental issue since the 80s, whether it was acid rain or CFCs. Conservatives used to be somewhat more open to environmental issues. Now they have become non-thinking automatons for anything anti-environmental.
I think the right-wing in this country considers itself "exceptional" in that they know better than the scientists and the rest of the world about global warming and the science behind it. They don't.
If you read the Paris Climate Accords you would know that the U.S. is about the only significant donor country to the "climate adjustment fund"? Given that is it any surprise that their is a clamor to sign and get on the gravy train?
Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100
Quote:
US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
WOW that's a major reduction in projected temperatures right there lmfao...
James Hansen the father of global warming says this:
Quote:
Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.
I wonder how the environment even became a left/right issue anyways and how conservative Christianity has become the bedrock of anti-environmental policies. From a Biblical perspective, God demands we take care of the earth. From a human perspective, we all want to live in a clean environment. Nobody wants to live behind a waste dump or a coal power plant. Opposing environmental policies are only in the interest of a select few very powerful industries. How were they able to convince people that A) it's against the Bible to care for the environment and B) environmental science is now some liberal conspiracy aimed at bringing about a one world government and destroying the economy of the United States?
The rational, secular thinkers among us would prefer that you leave your religious fairy tales out of the political debate. Thanks in advance.
Is this much ado about nothing, or a comedy of errors?
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.
