How Do We Protect The Environment With A Republican Clean Sweep? (eco-friendly, eco friendly)
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.
My house produces way less CO2 than America as a whole sum. I guess that means I'm some sort of super-environmentalist.
If you wish to believe that I have not problem. That is up to you.
But in the context of this discussion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanms3030
#1, the U.S. is nowhere near the top offender when it comes to pollution. China is hands down doing more to destroy the environment then the rest of the world combined and India and other developing countries are not far behind China and there is nothing Trump, Obama or any other U.S. president or elected official can do to change that.
And then RememberMee said that the US is the #1 polluter.
Why do environmentalists have to lie if they have a point?
I am going to assume that you posted this out of ignorance, so let me educate you. It has consistently (50 years or more) been known as climate change in the scientific community. Even when the media wrote those two stories in the 70s about cooling (one of which appears to be an internet hoax anyway [url=http://science.time.com/2013/06/06/sorry-a-time-magazine-cover-did-not-predict-a-coming-ice-age/]TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com[/url]), real scientists were still calling it climate change.
1976
Cess, Robert D. "Climate change: An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33.10 (1976): 1831-1843.
1977
Baes, C. F., et al. "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Uncontrolled Experiment: Possibly severe consequences of growing CO 2 release from fossil fuels require a much better understanding of the carbon cycle, climate change, and the resulting impacts on the atmosphere." American Scientist 65.3 (1977): 310-320.
1980
Madden, Roland A., and V. Ramanathan. "Detecting climate change due to increasing carbon dioxide." Science 209.4458 (1980): 763-768.
1971
Kent, Dennis, N. D OPDYKE, and Maurice Ewing. "Climate change in the North Pacific using ice-rafted detritus as a climatic indicator." Geological Society of America Bulletin 82.10 (1971): 2741-2754.
And those are just four of the over 164,000 peer reviewed papers that reference climate change as "climate change" published between 1970 and 1985. Please stop spreading misinformation, just because the media decided you weren't intelligent enough to understand the term "climate change" and decided to call it something else, does not mean the terms have changed usage or meaning in the scientific community.
As a matter of fact, the premier American science journal was already talking about anthropogenic climate change and the fact global cooling was a misnomer in 1976.
Damon, Paul E., and Steven M. Kunen. "Global cooling?." Science 193.4252 (1976): 447-453.
"This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. "
Your response Old Guard? I know your attention is selective.. just want to make sure you see this one..
You do realize that the study you linked-to was from a single location? It is hard to extrapolate that to the entire planet.
It's a known fact that the Eemian Period was much warmer than the present Holocene.
In fact, it's known that the previous Inter-Glacial Periods were all warmer than the current Inter-Glacial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
As to the proper question to ask, what I always want to know in this debate are three things;
1) do you believe the earth is warming?
Of course, the Earth is warming....you're in an Inter-Glacial Period. That's what happens during an Inter-Glacial Period. Without an Inter-Glacial Period, Earth would look like this...
That is truly an environmental disaster for Earthlings.
Count on at least 3/5th of the Population to die of starvation/famine and the remaining 2/5th to live constantly in near-famine conditions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
2) if 'yes' to (1), do you believe it is caused mostly by human activity?
3) if 'yes' to (2), do you think we should do anything about it?
"No" and "No".
The Earth naturally warms during an Inter-Glacial Period. There is nothing unusual about the current global temperatures, except that they are colder than normal.
I am going to assume that you posted this out of ignorance, so let me educate you. It has consistently (50 years or more) been known as climate change in the scientific community. Even when the media wrote those two stories in the 70s about cooling (one of which appears to be an internet hoax anyway TIME Magazine Cover Warning of Coming Ice Age Is a Fake | TIME.com), real scientists were still calling it climate change.
1976
Cess, Robert D. "Climate change: An appraisal of atmospheric feedback mechanisms employing zonal climatology." Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 33.10 (1976): 1831-1843.
1977
Baes, C. F., et al. "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: The Uncontrolled Experiment: Possibly severe consequences of growing CO 2 release from fossil fuels require a much better understanding of the carbon cycle, climate change, and the resulting impacts on the atmosphere." American Scientist 65.3 (1977): 310-320.
1980
Madden, Roland A., and V. Ramanathan. "Detecting climate change due to increasing carbon dioxide." Science 209.4458 (1980): 763-768.
1971
Kent, Dennis, N. D OPDYKE, and Maurice Ewing. "Climate change in the North Pacific using ice-rafted detritus as a climatic indicator." Geological Society of America Bulletin 82.10 (1971): 2741-2754.
And those are just four of the over 164,000 peer reviewed papers that reference climate change as "climate change" published between 1970 and 1985. Please stop spreading misinformation, just because the media decided you weren't intelligent enough to understand the term "climate change" and decided to call it something else, does not mean the terms have changed usage or meaning in the scientific community.
As a matter of fact, the premier American science journal was already talking about anthropogenic climate change and the fact global cooling was a misnomer in 1976.
Damon, Paul E., and Steven M. Kunen. "Global cooling?." Science 193.4252 (1976): 447-453.
"This article points out that the Northern Hemisphere cooling trend appears to be out of phase with a warming trend at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere. The data are scanty. We cannot be sure that these temperature fluctuations are be not the result of natural causes. How it seems most likely that human activity has already significantly perturbed the atmospheric weather system. The effect of particulate matter pollution should be most severe in the highly populated and industrialized Northern Hemisphere. Because of the rapid diffusion of CO2 molecules within the atmosphere, both hemispheres will be subject to warming due to the atmospheric (greenhouse) effect as the CO2 content of the atmosphere builds up from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the differential effects of the two major sources of atmospheric pollution, the CO2 greenhouse effect warming trend should first become evident in the Southern Hemisphere. The socioeconomic and political consequences of climate change are profound. "
Wow, you seem to have really fallen for the scam. Bet you're the life of a party!
Wow, you seem to have really fallen for the scam. Bet you're the life of a party!
Insulting people is a sign that you acknowledge you have neither logic nor fact on your side. But if makes you feel better to think you are the life of the party while being uninformed , rest assured science does not need your belief.
If you have a problem with people being on this forum you should contact a moderator.
I was actually encouraged to come here by the people who set up this board. If you notice the right side of your display when you enter a thread you will see a list of some recent posts from around the forums with hot links. If you click on the hot link it will take you to the thread.
If the owners/operators did not wish this they would remove it.
Maybe you can tell us why you actually are using a computer and the internet when they are bad for the environment?
It's just not that easy to repeal so many laws, pass new ones and hammer out the regulations. I predict that a lot of the environmental quality legislation from the new Congress will be symbolic, but still deeply distasteful. The hand wringing about climate change is unnecessary. There's not much of substance to undo, in force, proposed, or working its way through the courts when it comes to reducing GHG emissions. Nothing - something = nothing.
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.
