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.
Yep! The first time I heard of the "too much CO2" theory was in an educational film shown to us as sixth-graders in my generally conservative (but forward-thinking) school district; the time was the spring of 1961.
The phenomenon is real, but it has been skewed and manipulated by those with a distinct political agenda, and motivated primarily by a desire for power.
I don't recall that particular format, but the sponsor was, indeed, AT&T/Bell; perhaps the presentation had been altered by the time I saw it back in '61 (in the auditorium of Salem Township Elementary, Berwick (PA) School District, so long ago).
If the IPCC really believed that CO2 was this poison that was going to kill us all....
....they would have never set up a plan where developing countries get to increase their emissions until they are developed...and that's exactly what the UN/IPCC did
Obviously those 100's of scientists at the IPCC do not think the price we pay is going to be enormous...or even of any consequence at all
Scientists don't do policy, politicians do. So separate out policy from the problem. The important thing is to recognize there is a problem so that we can stop arguing whether CC is real and figure out the best way to solve it. Solutions will be trade offs as they always are. Nobody wants to pay for it, basically. So politicians figure out what is palatable for most people and push that. But the reality is we will all pay something.
The policies the UN/IPCC put into place were backed by the "100's of climate scientists" that participated in the IPCC reports....not a single one of them have ever come out against the IPCC policies..and every one of them were consulted as to it's contents..and every one of them wrote in mitigation in their chapters
The IPCC policies state that there are over 200 "developing" countries...and they get to increase their CO2 emissions until they are "developed"...
The only point of the UN/IPCC was to lower CO2 emissions...and the IPCC was formed in 1988
What were CO2 emission in 1988?..and what are they now? and where have the only increases in CO2 come from?....developing countries
No other country has lowered it's CO2 emissions more than the USA...the USA has lowered it's CO2 emissions back to where there were in 1990...2 years after the IPCC was formed
Either the UN/IPCC and their climate scientists are saying CO2 is not dangerous..and all these 200+ developing countries can increase their emissions....
..or.....everyone in Bangladesh be damned....China and the developing world's economies are more important
Our planet is doomed. And I am okay with Trump backing out of the Paris Climate Accord Agreement. The US has done plenty with curbing emissions, but until the whole world's human population is diminished greatly, humans are going to kill our planet. Maybe Mother Nature will take care of the problem by wiping us out with a couple of good pandemics. Or maybe an asteroid will hit our planet. But I am very frustrated that no whole leader has the balls to tell developing countries to stop having large families and overbreeding. Not only are they killing our planet with creating more humans than their countries can ever support, but their countries will never improve and stop being sh*tholes to live in, as long as they have too many people in their countries. And First World countries should not be guilted or forced into taking their excess human beings.
Even if America went entirely electric and stopped using petroleum and coal products, Earth will still be f*cked because of all the Third World people making so many babies. In fact, we should withhold all aid to those countries until they embrace birth control and planned parenthood methods.
Why don't you ask how many people believe that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second? No one on this board has the ability to measure the speed of light. Scientists have told us how they measured it, and what the result was and.....we believe them. Because they have the knowledge, training and equipment to make such measurements.
If you took a poll and the majority said no, that's not the correct speed of light, it would mean nothing. And if they say global warming is a hoax, it also means nothing. Because ya'll know nothing.
We are having climate change, same as happened over the past millions of years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leona Valley
Idiots. In the 70’s it was Time magazine front page: The Big Freeze....and global cooling. Then it became global warming......then simply climate change. Next it’ll be global stagnation. Anything to make a buck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansProof
And even if it is real, why is that necessarily bad? Because? Just because?
We can tell via fossil records that each time earth's temperature has risen, it had a direct correlation repeatedly, again and again, on expanding life. I mean not even linearly but exponentially. That's fact.
Why are climate wackos anti-life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Yep! The first time I heard of the "too much CO2" theory was in an educational film shown to us as sixth-graders in my generally conservative (but forward-thinking) school district; the time was the spring of 1961.
The phenomenon is real, but it has been skewed and manipulated by those with a distinct political agenda, and motivated primarily by a desire for power.
And suddenly when you least expect it, Al Gore shows up.
Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher, is quoted as saying "change is the only constant in life." This saying has also been translated to "the only constant is change." He was a theorist who created doctrines about the constant change and flux of life. He lived in Ephesus, near modern Kusadasi, Turkey, around 500 B.C.
I think that we are the chief cause of present climate change, so I totally disagree. Scientists are telling us that it is changing at the most rapid rate in history. What other factor would be contributing more than us?
I agree that it's changing at the most rapid rate known and that mankind's population explosion, pollutions, alterations and destructions are the contributors that have caused that rapid change. But I do not agree that mankind has caused the present climate change, which is what your poll is about. It's not possible for mankind to cause it, it can only contribute to it.
Climate change already existed and has changed from one extreme to another over and over again since long before mankind came into existence, it's always been an ongoing, ceaseless thing since the beginning of Earth's existence, It's never stopped so we cannot possibly be the cause of something ceaseless that has existed and been ongoing since before we existed.
But yes, mankind's over-population, alterations and pollutions has definitely caused the rapidity of the extreme changes that are happening this time around and we have done so in a very, very short period of time, just since industrialization and then the population explosion that started 150 years ago. I don't know how any intelligent people could not recognize that except that any people who don't recognize it are simpletons.
.
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.
