Is climate change real? Yes. Are we polluting the fuck out of the earth? Yes.
Are we going to destroy the earth with our pollution? Don't think so. This planet has survived much worse than us and it will do so long after we are gone. The only thing we are killing is ourselves. This planet will shake us off like the fleas we are and rebuild herself over us.
It's great how so many people are willing to raise other peoples awareness of climate change and call other people out but apparently the only solution is more taxes on corporations. The people who have the most to say never actually reduce their own energy usage or energy footprint.
You use that word 'never' pretty loosely. Obviously you are more on the liberal end of the spectrom. Have you ever taken a look at any of your democratic millionaires' revenue sourses? The very people who are preaching to you about global warming should be leading the way in reduction right?
Because that was a more accurate name for how we're fucking up the world? It doesn't cause uniform warming across the world, nor is that its only effect, so it is more accurate to say that humans are changing climates around the world, i.e. causing climate change.
We still don't know the full implications, but by the time we do, it would already be too late. The oceans are already warming and becoming more acidic, causing much coral bleaching.
God, you're an imbecile! FYI, in the NORMAL sun cycle of approx 22 years, world temperatures are already staring to FALL. (do you remember back in the 70s when everyone was worried about a new 'ice age'? What? No research?). Also, FYI, the world is now IN an interglacial period, ie, warmer than 'usual' for the planet, with minor fluctuations of temperature over the last couple of thousand years or so.
Excuse me, but the world's temperature has been besting itself in a world record consecutively since at least 2014.
2014 beat 2013 as the hottest year on record.
2015 beat 2014.
2016 is on the road to beating 2015.
Here is a gif of the temperature increasing from March of this year to 1856.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/gif/2016/05/12/773ea94ed1b50b78706d087c52c02310bdb76772.gif
There is also the problem of microscopic plastics polluting our waters, and the shit coming down the Mississippi is still encouraging widespread algal blooms.
Just so ya'll know the globe warming up actually means it's returning to it's more average state. Historically the only time the earth's been cooler was in an ice age. Most of time the earth has existed in a much warmer state.
Is the earth's more average state good? No. There wouldn't be icecaps and many of the cities you've come to think of as permanent would be underwater
Yknow orlando's seaworld?
You'd probably have a more literal form of the word because it'd be underwater in this "average " state
I'm not busting your chops or saying there aren't problems we will face but life existed just fine for the majority of that warmer climate. Humans as a species is known for it's adaptability, we will adapt and adjust with or without Seaworld.
I cannot understand why so many of you refuse to acknowledge even a possibility that the lies you've been fed in school could be wrong. What ever happened to critical thinking? When the scientific community can't even agree on something, and there are multiple PROVEN cases of fraud, maybe something's not kosher. In the seventies they said we were heading for an ice age inside of a decade. In the eighties they said we were warming and earth would be uninhabitable in a decade. In the 90s we were still gonna die in a decade. In the 2000s they started saying 50 years. In the 2010s when proof leaked out there had been no warming for more than a decade they started saying "climate change." Now there's talk of "global cooling" again and you just cannot accept any possibility that your religion is wrong?
Yeah it was a rhetorical question. I know the education system stopped teaching critical thinking skills quite some time ago. I understand why we are where we are, societally speaking, but the lack of curiosity dumbfounds me. No matter how certain I am of something, if I start running into contradictions I do a little research. And I do not flatly refuse to change my mind or to even listen to another possibility.
Actually, my school does teach critical thinking skills, as the rest should have had the climate change-denying government not cut Gonski funding for I-don't-know-what; I wasn't paying attention to politics half a decade ago. The same government that tried to keep the damage done to the Great Barrier Reef out of a UN report, caused by human activities rendering the waters around Australia unsuitable for coral to live in, calcifying or 'bleaching' them. Yes, the Earth has naturally had large differences in temperature, but the changes occurred over millennia. In the past century the mean temperature of the planet has changed more than in over a thousand years before then, provided I'm remembering my facts correctly. And if I'm not it's barely an exaggeration.
Scientists have changed their opinions over the decades as their methods and information have changed, and any report you see today claiming that climate change is a falsehood will have been cherry-picked by either scientists undeserving of the title, or the corporations paying for their 'studies.'
The oceans are becoming more acidic, coral reefs are bleaching, glaciers and ice caps are melting at a rate observable on a yearly basis, and you have the nerve to say this is natural? This evidence and that which was given by others above (some even with sources, rather than an IB student's memory in the middle of the night) is what scientists have used to find the truth in climate change. As I said before, it is referred to as climate change instead of global warming because it's not a uniform warming if the world, and nor is heating of the world the only observable effect.
Humanity has run this planet into the ground, and it is scum like you that make it so hard to even try to fix it.
"In the past century the mean temperature of the planet has changed more than in over a thousand years before then." How do you know? How does anyone know, for that matter? Records have barely even been kept for the last century much less the last millennia. This is conjecture based solely on computer models, which have been proven wrong several times.
For one, they do not take natural climate cycles or solar activity into account, and they have no idea whatsoever where the zero point is - just what IS normal?
Ice samples can be taken and analysed for oxygen content, allowing for estimation of ambient temperature when that ice froze. Other methods also exist, but I'm too angry to think of what they were right now. I'll admit to not actually giving a source for that information, but you've not even taken the main point of the sentence into consideration. You speak of not knowing what the midpoint is, but the rate of change is only affected by a midpoint if it's not in an isolated system, like a kettle with the lid off. Annual mean temperatures increasing at a ridiculous rate and an unknown all-time mean temperature have a very strenuous connection, if one at all. Now, if you'll excuse me, my phone is dying and I'm shaking with rage so hard that I can barely type.
As you say; estimates.
You know you really should seek professional counseling for that. You sound like a cult member in need of deprogramming.
I'm sorry you are suffering a mental health issue, but hopefully you can come to understand that your violent reaction to someone simply asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies in your belief system is not normal. There are plenty of well trained mental health counselors out there that can help you; you just need to ask.
God bless.
I was going to apologise for calling you scum, but now I see that you actually deserve it. Alas, you have cursed me to join you in ad hominem arguments.
My rage was not violent, but indignant. My "belief system," if it can be called that, amounts to nothing more than what seems to have the greatest amount of scientific evidence and I am willing to change my opinions when more reliable, peer-reviewed research is brought to my attention. Also, while I'm not terribly offended, I'd hardly call Asperger's Syndrome a mental health issue when it's both diagnosed and as mild as I have it; instead merely a condition. Stop being so fucking patronising when you know nothing about the person you're addressing (though I guess I'm being a hypocrite now, aren't I?).
Oh, also, of course the temperatures are estimates; you can't very well stick a fucking thermometer in a chunk of 500-year-old ice and say that the ambient temperature was about 0°C, not to mention the fact that there's always a margin of error in any measurement.
Non-appology accepted. And pointing out your irrational reaction was not an attack of any sort.
My point is that "scientists" say the sky is falling, but other "scientists" say it's just an acorn. Why do you believe only what the first scientists say and not even question what the second scientists are saying? When the evidence is conflicting more questions are in order.
Hey, hay0, in the manner you're describing, yes, it is. Ever heard of sun cycles? How about Milankovitch Cycles? No? How about you educate yourself, instead of parroting the bullshit used by greenies to justify the taking of billions (yes, BILlions) of dollars world-wide on a scam of epic proportions. Besides, the sun cycle SHOWS it's actually starting to COOL, about now.
Is climate change happening? ...yes. has it been happening long before humans?...yes. have humans impacted the change of the climate?....yes. is the human imact bad? Debatable and full of politics!!! Here's the question to which i would love an answer!: If you uber-environmentalists had supreme power to sculpt the world into whatever you want, what does your perfect world look like?
In your accusations, you're confusing the word 'polititian' with 'realist'. I asked the question because there will be an endless string of holes in a theory of enviromental utopia. You see, it's incredibly easy to sit back and condem businesses for "not caring for the enviroment". Its much more impossible to sustain 7 billion lives on this planet without disrupting the ecosystem while still having the advancement in quality of life that allows you to be reading this on your precious iphone while sitting on an indoor plummed toilet. It's hypocrisy at its best. You hate big business but you sure like what big business provides....
Because what other choice do we have? Everything is provided by big buisness. Clothing, food, streets, and more. But we can still care about our impact, and we can still tell big buisness to take more care in what they do. Sure politicians will never be reasonable. But if we don't say anything, nothing will change. And change should start with renewable energy and nuclear energy. And an end to microbeads, because who the fuck thought using small plastics as an exfoliant would be a good idea?
Thats my point. Everyone loves to complain about it. Put your energy, time, and money where your mouth is and go build a greener company. Complaining about other people not doing what you want is just whining.
Fission is more attainable, though. Through the use of special reactors, we can even use nuclear waste, making the waste safer to store than it would normally be, while generating power. However, it would be hard to get such a project off the ground with so much opposition.
True. And although I believe the process of fission is currently much safer, fusion is much better in the long run due to the lack of nuclear waste. In the longer run, though, I think that direct mass-energy conversion is the best way to go.
*jokes*
Are we going to destroy the earth with our pollution? Don't think so. This planet has survived much worse than us and it will do so long after we are gone. The only thing we are killing is ourselves. This planet will shake us off like the fleas we are and rebuild herself over us.
Global warming is a myth. Why do you think they started saying "climate change" instead?
This is nothing but politics.
2014 beat 2013 as the hottest year on record.
2015 beat 2014.
2016 is on the road to beating 2015.
Here is a gif of the temperature increasing from March of this year to 1856.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/gif/2016/05/12/773ea94ed1b50b78706d087c52c02310bdb76772.gif
Yknow orlando's seaworld?
You'd probably have a more literal form of the word because it'd be underwater in this "average " state
The oceans are becoming more acidic, coral reefs are bleaching, glaciers and ice caps are melting at a rate observable on a yearly basis, and you have the nerve to say this is natural? This evidence and that which was given by others above (some even with sources, rather than an IB student's memory in the middle of the night) is what scientists have used to find the truth in climate change. As I said before, it is referred to as climate change instead of global warming because it's not a uniform warming if the world, and nor is heating of the world the only observable effect.
Humanity has run this planet into the ground, and it is scum like you that make it so hard to even try to fix it.
For one, they do not take natural climate cycles or solar activity into account, and they have no idea whatsoever where the zero point is - just what IS normal?
You know you really should seek professional counseling for that. You sound like a cult member in need of deprogramming.
I'm sorry you are suffering a mental health issue, but hopefully you can come to understand that your violent reaction to someone simply asking questions and pointing out inconsistencies in your belief system is not normal. There are plenty of well trained mental health counselors out there that can help you; you just need to ask.
God bless.
My rage was not violent, but indignant. My "belief system," if it can be called that, amounts to nothing more than what seems to have the greatest amount of scientific evidence and I am willing to change my opinions when more reliable, peer-reviewed research is brought to my attention. Also, while I'm not terribly offended, I'd hardly call Asperger's Syndrome a mental health issue when it's both diagnosed and as mild as I have it; instead merely a condition. Stop being so fucking patronising when you know nothing about the person you're addressing (though I guess I'm being a hypocrite now, aren't I?).
My point is that "scientists" say the sky is falling, but other "scientists" say it's just an acorn. Why do you believe only what the first scientists say and not even question what the second scientists are saying? When the evidence is conflicting more questions are in order.
nuclear is kinda dangerous IMO.