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.
No. It was a smaller and less complicated problem, so it was easier to get the world united in solving it.
What you think is a scam is the carbon transfer scheme.
It wasn't a scam, but it was far too grandiose to ever work. Global warming could be modified by humans, but can only be achieved by many different, smaller plans that work the best for single nations more than groups of nations.
Trying to get the entire planet to agree on only one correction program is impossible.
Once those smaller plans are developed, there may be some that other nations can use very well, but there will never be one simple big plan that will work. That was carbon transfer's greatest failure.
For sure, some of the small plans will fail too, so there must be many different ones.
It always takes more than one wild dog to bring down the buffalo. The human pack is a lot smarter than any pack of wild dogs. One member makes many mistakes, but the pack makes far fewer.
Nothing can begin until everyone agrees the problem exists. Almost all of the scientific evidence says it does, but science has little to say about the ways to slow global warming until everyone agrees it is happening to them just as much as some other place on the planet.
It's only then, when everyone is saying the climate has changed, that ways will be found to slow the rate of change.
Fighting global warming is much like fighting cancer.
A person might not feel sick, but if they deny they have cancer, the longer they wait to see if they are going to feel sick the worse the cancer will be when it's finally begun to be treated.
When a person who still feels healthy begins cancer treatment, the odds are greater the cancer will be slowed. There's never a guarantee that cancer will be stopped, nor a guarantee that it won't return once its stopped once.
So, like cancer, there's no guarantee we will be able to stop the global warming.
But if we can slow it, then maybe we will have time to find better ways, and slow it even more. In time. Nothing is going to happen quickly.
If nothing it attempted, then nothing has any assurance of working.
Trying to find a sure-fire, 100% certain way to stop global warming is like searching for a miracle cure for cancer.
Waste time and money, and walk around feeling OK with cancer growing inside, unchecked. Pray for a cure, and then wait around for God to answer the prayers.
By the time the miracle cure obviously wasn't miraculous, the person is 3 steps from the graveyard with nothing that can be done to save him.
Cancer only kills one person at a time. Global warming will kill dozens, then hundreds, then thousands, then millions of us all at once.
The fundamental difference between ozone depletion and anthropogenic climate change is this: there was a relatively simple solution to ozone depletion, but we have no solution to global warming (unless we’re willing to run absolutely everything on nuclear power).
I disagree the solution to ozone depletion was complicated and there was push back from many of the chemical companies initially but there was agreement on the research. The reduction in fossil fuels and addressing climate change is much more difficult because of the power of the oil companies which only recently stopped their lobbying efforts. The main difference today is that many politicians in the US don't agree with the science from their own agencies. Some individual states are addressing this on their own while others fight the science and predictions.
This change will have much more impact on peoples lives so there is resistance to giving up dependence but we can already see climate change impacting peoples lives.
The article indicates that Patrick Moynihan informed Nixon of the problem back in 1969, Exxon knew this was changing our atmosphere. But here we are 50 years later still having a debate.
The oil companies didn't buy out the UN/IPCC....and it was the UN/IPCC that branded the vast majority of countries as "developing"...and it was the UN/IPCC that said "developing" countries get to increase their CO2 emissions
...in essence saying "developing" countries get to buy more oil, gas, and coal
The oil companies didn't buy out the UN/IPCC....and it was the UN/IPCC that branded the vast majority of countries as "developing"...and it was the UN/IPCC that said "developing" countries get to increase their CO2 emissions
...in essence saying "developing" countries get to buy more oil, gas, and coal
The UN/IPCC is your enemy....not the oil companies
The oil companies and the Koch brothers had a rather large add campaign the last 30 years, plenty of money went to lobbyists to contradict science. Even the Exxon CEO came around to admitting the problem with man made emissions a few years ago along with some other oil companies. We are around 30-40 years behind thanks to their disinformation campaign.
Sea levels and climate are forever changing and there is no climate emergency. Nobody is listening to the "Chicken Littles" who see their own impending extinction every time there's an adverse weather event. LOL. And we certainly aren't going to embrace socialism and the worldwide redistribution of wealth over the fear-tantrums of a panicked, teenage autist.
Satellite pictures show the world is green and thriving. That's a good thing despite the people who don't want you to consider any positive impact of climate change. Climate "Scientologists" go out of their way to argue there is absolutely nothing good about climate change and I had one not too long ago tell me that a greening earth produces difficulties in agriculture that far outweigh the benefits of having more arable land to feed a growing population. Really? I was thinking. "Do you hear yourself? Can you even think?" It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Also, the minute leftists associated climate change with economic justice, they let the cat out of the bag. It's always been about the destruction of capitalism and the implementation of a global socialist framework. I'll never support that. Ever. In fact, I will actively resist anything that even remotely looks like we are being nudged towards that end. I know leftists think they've found a lever in this climate change extinction dogma to force their ideology on us, but all they're really doing is poking a massive hornet's nest.
The oil companies and the Koch brothers had a rather large add campaign the last 30 years, plenty of money went to lobbyists to contradict science. Even the Exxon CEO came around to admitting the problem with man made emissions a few years ago along with some other oil companies. We are around 30-40 years behind thanks to their disinformation campaign.
and the UN/IPCC made the rules...not because of any ad campaign by anyone...
The UN/IPCC is your enemy...not the oil companies..or the Koch brothers
The UN/IPCC says developing countries get to increase their CO2 emissions...
The UN/IPCC was formed to lower CO2 emissions...
Since the UN/IPCC was formed in 1988....all of the increase in CO2 has come from developing countries
NPR > "In an unprecedented response to historically low numbers of Pacific cod, the federal cod fishery in the Gulf of Alaska is closing for the 2020 season."
NPR didn't report that the rest of the cod fisheries are above target....
NOAA > "The Bering Sea stock is above target population level. "
"The Gulf of Alaska stock is below target level and fishing rate promotes population growth"
"Estimated biomass has fluctuated over the past few decades; the stock increased rapidly, peaked in the 1980s, then declined slightly and stabilized."
January 31, 2019 Alaska cod: Under-60s land 5 million pounds in 10 days
Alaska’s inshore Pacific cod fishery opened Jan. 19 in Area O, near Dutch Harbor. As of Tuesday, Jan. 29, the record 36 participating pot boats had made 74 landings, tallying 5.1 million pounds.
Who is the world's authority on CO2?
Who is responsible for all of the increase in CO2?
.....both answers are the same
The IPCC, NASA, NOAA and other organizations are not the enemy, did you believe the same back when research indicated ozone depletion due to CFC's. The oil companies poured millions of dollars and lobbied in a massive disinformation campaign. The oil companies put profits over the damage they were inflicting.
Yes some developing countries are increasing but the major countries are responsible for almost half of the greenhouse gases. The Us has reduced their consumption but still have the largest per capita use.
Yes some developing countries are increasing but the major countries are responsible for almost half of the greenhouse gases. The Us has reduced their consumption but still have the largest per capita use.
China emits more CO2 than the US and EU combined..and the rest of the developing world emits as much as China....so no the "major" countries...whatever that is...is not true
..and per capita is exactly what I just said...that's a UN/IPCC rule...that developing countries get to increase their emissions because they have more people (per capita)
..using your logic...CO2 should not be measured in the atmosphere in ppm...but only by how many people
or we could lower our CO2 emissions..by just increasing our population
so from now on we no longer need to worry about how much CO2 is in the atmosphere..
...only how much per person
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.
