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.
Want to help the environment and curb climate change?
Go after the real polluters. China and India to start.
Here is the US, we have such strict environmental laws already. Making them even tougher, while ignoring the biggest polluters is not effective.
They are both addressing their pollution problems although China more aggressively so why do I have knowledge of that but you do not? Google is your friend.
Oh, did you hear the latest? It’s not about the climate now, it’s about the bugs that are dying. Soon there will be NO FOOD, because the farmers use fertilizer and pesticides. Of course, farmers don’t think about ecology, right?
I believe there is climate change and there always has been. As a result, the coastlines change and things die. Eventually, maybe what dies will be us, but I don’t intend to spend any time worrying about it.
This is the latest of roughly five "meta" studies regarding AGW done with peer reviewed climate papers....
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Somebody better get cracking on climate change solutions PDQ and if the GOP is too dumb to recognize the problem then the Dems better get serious. We are probably too late to head off some of it but we better salvage what we can.
.....what are the downsides of pursuing a cleaner environment and more efficient ways of generating energy?
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the way we limit it is by driving up the costs emissions. This has the side benefit of lowering emissions from other pollutants that can cause health risks because of the lower usage rate. If your goal is to drive down other emissions it's a very poor way to go about that. There is no practical way to address CO2 emissions other than increasing costs.
We don’t have the technology to geoengineer the planet,
If you going to ague man has changed the climate we have in fact demonstrated technology capable of geoengineering.
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.
