The people ITT trying to obfuscate are idiots. The science IS incredibly simple. It's called the greenhouse effect. More CO2 in the atmosphere means hotter temperatures globally. There is no debate on this. Co2 is also absorbed by trees and the ocean, and other carbon sinks - these sinks are full. Hence more Co2 in the atmosphere.
Done. We need more sinks, (trees) and less co2. Forrest fires "empty the sink" into the atmosphere.
Now either you decide to put a trillion dollar plan in place to move off fossil fuels or accept mass droughts and the other highly predictable and obvious consequences that warmer weather will bring.
...We know for fact that in the days of the dinosaurs the planet was much warmer and more lush. All natural resources were in abundance. We then had a couple events outside the normal planet cycles (volcano's, meteors) that forced a rapid cooling on the planet. An Ice Age.
If you look at a graph and plot the planets temperature pre Ice Age and the period in between it look like 'V' but with the right arm (current date) much short then the left (pre Ice Age).
So tell me how do you know and provide evidence that if man never evolved and the planet stayed completely wild, how you know the planet would not naturally be progressing back to the same temperatures it was at pre Ice Age? When everything suggests that is where it was naturally prior?
So let's grant that for shits and giggles. Would it not then be quite alarming that the world is now suddenly and completely breaking from that in perfect correlation to the fossils burned, making every year hotter?The world is cooling at a rate of three degrees every twelve thousand years.
I find it bizarre that so many European nations are phasing out nuclear power while simultaneously legislating against fossil fuels and being in a dubious relationship with Russia.
So let's grant that for shits and giggles. Would it not then be quite alarming that the world is now suddenly and completely breaking from that in perfect correlation to the fossils burned, making every year hotter?
Voting Clinton because you believe in climate change shows the desperate need to overhaul this political duopoly.
Not us. Finland just did a contract with Russian Rosatom for a nuclear plant, despite the EU sanctions and the climate against nuclear power in EU.
Some Finnish people are crying: "Never a Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil!!", while ignoring the fact that we've had a functioning Russian nuclear plant on Finnish soil for 39 years and it has been working fine.
Every time this bizarre and flatulent deflection is expelled, more hot air is released into the atmosphere. It's such a fantastically bad try. Yes, the climate changes...the earth spins as well, and there's a moon too by garsh.Nobody is denying climate change, they are arguing the cause and the solution for it
Every time this bizarre and flatulent deflection is expelled, more hot air is released into the atmosphere. It's such a fantastically bad try. Yes, the climate changes...the earth spins as well, and there's a moon too by garsh.
Well I'm not going to vote Clinton because I don't believe in many of the things in her platform.
But seriously speaking, this is a HUGE problem and all humanity needs to wake up for this.
Never in human history has the CO2 levels been this high and they continue to rise at an alarming rate.
http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
I implore everyone to watch the Cosmos series (can be found on Netflix) or at least this episode.
Think of the approaches to dealing with the problem: direct regulations, changing incentives (through carbon taxes or something similar) for emissions, and/or subsidizing/incentivizing cleaner technology. The GOP has an inflexible opposition to all but that last of those, and they've already politicized that, as any program of subsidies--even a very successful one--will have some losers (like Solyndra). Of course, it's possible for a smart *conservative* to find acceptable solutions; but it doesn't appear possible for a Republican to.
My other issue is that USA is only one factor in this, it's hard not to throw your hands in the air when China and India are going to still pollute massively, when countries in Africa will still undergo major desertification, and Brazil will absolutely destroy the rain forest.
This topic makes me sad.
Im not agreeing that burning carbon is severely damaging the sustainability of life in earth.Believe it or not, I need you to dumb it down a little more. You're agreeing that we're severely damaging the sustainability of life on Earth while needing exact math on cost benefit analysis (in terms of your own creature comforts) before making a substantial effort to reduce the inter-species effects of benefits gained?
And this is the point.Nobody is denying climate change, they are arguing the cause and the solution for it
The way we deal with that is by making agreements, which we've been doing (with very good results).
The deals we've made and can make do not negate the fact that India's population isn't struggling to find where to plug their Tesla in, they are trying to simply get reliable electricity and have a refrigerator.
It's not possible to retard their growth due to them acknowledging that getting the 1.2+ billion population out of the slums and into a first world society.
Deals are important. Keep making them, but I fear the train has left the station.
To some extent, sure. Like, we've already seen a lot of warming and problems caused by it, and that will continue. But the future is looking way better than it was just a few years ago.