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 idea how you arrived at that conclusion, every country in the world needs to do more including China, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the US pointing fingers at China. Co2 lasts around 100 years in the atmosphere so our pollution from a century ago is still exists.
Yes our consumption has dropped since our peak in 1973 because of gas shortages spurred action, still we are are way behind in our efforts. We were the worst polluter in the past so of course there was room for improvement. Germany which is a good comparison as another industrialized county has half our per capita consumption.
We need to do our part and stop rolling back methane restrictions on oil rigs, increased mileage requirements on cars and more EV production. Many things we could be doing but it becomes a political fight to keep the status quo.
of course you don't.....per capita = population
China's population is ~4 times more than the USA.....China has increased it's CO2 emissions over 10 times the USA
Global warming is a scam for the simple minded.....if global warming was really dangerous....no country would be increasing their emissions..much less have a world organization telling them they can increase their emissions...because of per capita
China has a atmosphere...China has a climate...China has a sea coast....China is not stupid....China does not believe in global warming at all
only someone simple minded would fall for this crap
So scientists are flabbergasted over 16 years of data. In the scope of the earth's history...16 years is a blink.
Is that really true ? Are they really scientists ?
They just guess jess. While i give the true facts jack. Just a short normal 1500 year warming cycle that no one has lived thru so they don't understand man
I've just read 6 pages of BS. Not one poster posted the fact that the "70 degress change was from "80 below zero to 10 below zero". The phony media wants you to think that it was 70 degress ABOVE zero in the Antarctic. Phoney news, phoney reporting, phoney climate change numbers. Do not fall for this BS.:smac k:
The title is 70 degrees warmer than average. If you thought it implied something else that is on you. So why would anyone comment on the obvious?
People need to read more about the geologic history of the Earth for perspective. There were many periods in the earth's history when there were no frozen poles at all. It didn't mean an end to the planet, or to life. Life thrived during periods of 'greenhouse times.'
Prior to the Oligocene, and into the Mesozoic, the world had little or no polar ice (there is still debate as to the exact measure of ‘little or no’). Probably, there were small amounts of ice at least part of the time, for even in the late Cretaceous (generally regarded as a ‘greenhouse’ time) there were oscillations in sea level of a few tens of metres that seem best ascribed to the melting and re-forming of small polar icecaps.
The proportion of true ‘glacial’ time (even if mostly essentially unipolar) in the last 100 million years, however, may be taken as about one-third.
Point is that the Earth has its own dynamic climate cycles far surpassing the impact of what any one species does on its surface.
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.
And?
