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.
So according to this article, scientists are now 95% sure that the earth is getting hotter and we are to blame.
My response, ok, so what? The article makes this alarming statement:
If this is true then it's time we wasting so much money and debate regarding climate change and just live out our lives the best we can in the present. If we can't do anything about it, then what's really the point of studying this trend? It doesn't benefit mankind one iota.
Can someone explain to me why I should care about climate change?
That is quite the defeatist attitude you have...Who says there is nothing we can do about it? Do you not think there might be a difference in consequences if we actually reduce CO2 emissions rather than doing nothing?
I think it's in how you go about reducing CO2. Do we offer incentives to evolve past coal-fired power plants, by either building more nuclear plant, and developing new reliable baseload power energy sources, or do we simply destroy coal and bankrupt anyone and everyone in the coal industry - before building alternatives to coal first?
0bama is destroying the entire coal industry without allowing anything to be built or developed to replace coal first.
0bama's approach is similar to the owner of a cab company deciding that his fleet of cabs don't get good enough gas mileage, so has them all destroyed without replacing any of them first.
I wonder how much longer Republicans can jam their fingers in their ears and go "La, la, la, nothing's happening. It's all a plot to put money in Al Gore's pockets!"
I wonder how long Democrats can keep screaming that our climate has always been stagnate.
I'm not sure why that is the plan. I mean, if we knew that a baby food company were putting poison in baby food, would the best plan of action to raise their taxes until they stopped putting in the poison?
If the UN really wanted to stop "climate change" why aren't they imposing actual limits for every country with no exceptions? Is it because there's no money in that?
That is an odd statement. Why should you care about anything? That is the question you have to answer for yourself.
Quote:
Even if we end carbon dioxide emissions today, effects could linger for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And certain changes may already be irreversible.
"Many aspects of climate change will persist for centuries even if concentrations of greenhouse gases are stabilized. This represents a multicentury commitment created by human activities today," the report states.
I think the point was, if the CO2 that has already been pumped into the atmosphere is irreversible and will endure for a hundred if not a thousand years, then why are we going ape **** over trying to destroy ourselves and our way of life, it looks like we have some time to study this, and find a sensible way forward.
I'm not sure why that is the plan. I mean, if we knew that a baby food company were putting poison in baby food, would the best plan of action to raise their taxes until they stopped putting in the poison?
If the UN really wanted to stop "climate change" why aren't they imposing actual limits for every country with no exceptions? Is it because there's no money in that?
It's like, assuming that baby food and powdered formula is causing autism, because babies eat baby food and drink milk.
That is quite the defeatist attitude you have...Who says there is nothing we can do about it? Do you not think there might be a difference in consequences if we actually reduce CO2 emissions rather than doing nothing?
There are approximately 192 countries in the world. The United States government gives foreign aid to over 150 of them.
So lest make them earn it by...................
Not cutting down rainforest
No illegal logging
No more poaching animals
Make sure there water and air meet the requirements
Also they have to do the same thing for marine life and parts of the sea that they control.
If they do not meet the requirements they get no money.
bankrupting everyone is lonely and so is a carbon tax. We just need to be smart about it .
Imagine you are stuck in an elevator with 20 people. There is no power and the fan has stopped working. Inevitably, it will get very hot in this elevator due to the presence of all those human bodies.
One of the people in the elevator decides that he really needs to build a fire. Others decide that they want to have a smoke while another couple of people desperately need to defecate into a corner. How will the rest of you feel about that, especially since you don't know for how long you will be stuck in the elevator?
You see, it does not matter so much whether climate change is man-made or not. What matters is that, IF climate change does occur, the consequences will be severe. What happens if areas traditionally used for large-scale agriculture are no longer viable? What happens if the availability of potable water shifts? Billions of people will be forced to relocate - wars and other unimaginable tragedies will be par for the course.
The question, then, is whether you just let the other people say "To hell with it" and let them do whatever they want because, after all, you're gonna get out some time, or whether you think that they may just, perhaps, hold off on making this fire, that the others don't need to smoke, and that defecating in a corner may have to wait? Do you all just do whatever you want by abandoning all care or do you think about trying to preserve what you currently have in order to make your existence in the elevator a bit more bearable for a bit longer?
I can only see that happening if you are relying on some bogus "renewable source" for your power supply....
I'm not sure why that is the plan. I mean, if we knew that a baby food company were putting poison in baby food, would the best plan of action to raise their taxes until they stopped putting in the poison?
If the UN really wanted to stop "climate change" why aren't they imposing actual limits for every country with no exceptions? Is it because there's no money in that?
British Columbia has a legislated target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33% by 2020 and achieve an 80% reduction by 2050 (from 2007 levels).....Our taxes have actually decreased. CAS - Home
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.
