|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 8, 2018 21:59:09 GMT -6
I'm willing to admit its a problem to be dealt with..As new countries industrialize I'm not sure we can change anything though.. And here you have it, NASA's "evidence". You notice they CONVENIENTLY leave out ANY history prior to "centuries"............. Like I said, study the totality of the evidence, not just the little bit under your microscope lens. We are nowhere close to record CO2 levels.........
|
|
|
Post by dumdave on Aug 9, 2018 9:54:26 GMT -6
I heard from my brother in Southern California. There is a 6000+ forest fire near him going away from where he lives. I told him to buy a mask as he walks 3 miles every day. The weather isn't as hot where he lives. Plus, he loves hot weather.
|
|
|
Post by stiggy on Aug 9, 2018 14:27:48 GMT -6
I must preface what I say with an admission that I do not know all the details and nuances in reference to the issue of global warming. I must say that I'm very much in favor of a clean environment and keeping the world wide ecosystems in tact which equates to limiting the carbon footprint of everyday living to a minimum as to curb global warming if it in fact is proven to be adversely affected by mankind as a whole.
That having been said, I believe there are fortunes and a fair amount of power that would come with an all out assault on what is perceived to be global warming. This is what raises the red flag of skepticism for me.
The U.S.A. has a relatively successful track record in regards to cleaning up the air and water. The rest of the world? Not so much. China, for example, isn't the least concerned with their carbon footprint as it relates to global warming. Their (China) contributions towards global warming, if you are to believe the so called climatology experts, are far and away more prevalent than the U.S. and our leaders and global warming believers really don't seem to want to make nearly as big of a deal about that fact as they do about how harmful our personal transportation preferences and the burning of coal around the world.
There are literally millions of poor people in underdeveloped countries that are living much less healthy lives as a result of them literally burning cow manure to cook and to keep warm. I honestly believe that the health benefits or burning coal and living with the emissions that are a byproduct would far outweigh the adverse affects of the coal emissions. I'm not advocating for the widespread proliferation of coal burning but we must weigh the good against the bad, even here in America. There is a limit to how much the common folks here in the U.S. can pay for energy and coal is much more affordable and dependable than some of the emission free alternative forms of energy. On the same token, at the same time, we must be working toward developing energy alternatives that are going to be affordable to both the general population and to industry as to keep jobs and the economy on the right track.
There are no simple solution's but we must keep things in perspective as to the big picture in regards to the energy trade off's that can adversely effect us economically as opposed to environmental concerns.
|
|
|
Post by Blue Star on Aug 9, 2018 14:35:30 GMT -6
I must preface what I say with an admission that I do not know all the details and nuances in reference to the issue of global warming. I must say that I'm very much in favor of a clean environment and keeping the world wide ecosystems in tact which equates to limiting the carbon footprint of everyday living to a minimum as to curb global warming if it in fact is proven to be adversely affected by mankind as a whole. That having been said, I believe there are fortunes and a fair amount of power that would come with an all out assault on what is perceived to be global warming. This is what raises the red flag of skepticism for me. The U.S.A. has a relatively successful track record in regards to cleaning up the air and water. The rest of the world? Not so much. China, for example, isn't the least concerned with their carbon footprint as it relates to global warming. Their (China) contributions towards global warming, if you are to believe the so called climatology experts, are far and away more prevalent than the U.S. and our leaders and global warming believers really don't seem to want to make nearly as big of a deal about that fact as they do about how harmful our personal transportation preferences and the burning of coal around the world. There are literally millions of poor people in underdeveloped countries that are living much less healthy lives as a result of them literally burning cow manure to cook and to keep warm. I honestly believe that the health benefits or burning coal and living with the emissions that are a byproduct would far outweigh the adverse affects of the coal emissions. I'm not advocating for the widespread proliferation of coal burning but we must weigh the good against the bad, even here in America. There is a limit to how much the common folks here in the U.S. can pay for energy and coal is much more affordable and dependable than some of the emission free alternative forms of energy. On the same token, at the same time, we must be working toward developing energy alternatives that are going to be affordable to both the general population and to industry as to keep jobs and the economy on the right track. There are no simple solution's but we must keep things in perspective as to the big picture in regards to the energy trade off's that can adversely effect us economically as opposed to environmental concerns. Can you expand on this. It seems a little confusing... "I honestly believe that the health benefits or burning coal and living with the emissions that are a byproduct would far outweigh the adverse affects of the coal emissions."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 15:51:47 GMT -6
I'm willing to admit its a problem to be dealt with..As new countries industrialize I'm not sure we can change anything though.. And here you have it, NASA's "evidence". You notice they CONVENIENTLY leave out ANY history prior to "centuries"............. Like I said, study the totality of the evidence, not just the little bit under your microscope lens. We are nowhere close to record CO2 levels......... As you pointed out I believe if we look at it in the term of centuries we are..Can you find numerically certain years with extreme volcanic meteor or wildfire activities where it was higher,surely you can..But long term this is the record..
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 9, 2018 17:15:32 GMT -6
And here you have it, NASA's "evidence". You notice they CONVENIENTLY leave out ANY history prior to "centuries"............. Like I said, study the totality of the evidence, not just the little bit under your microscope lens. We are nowhere close to record CO2 levels......... As you pointed out I believe if we look at it in the term of centuries we are..Can you find numerically certain years with extreme volcanic meteor or wildfire activities where it was higher,surely you can..But long term this is the record.. Did you look at the graphs I posted? We aren't even CLOSE to anything that could be called record territory with either CO2 or Temperature. Unless of course you are examining the environment under the microscope of centuries........ The part I still find curious is if these people are such "Environmentalists", then why is their ONLY solution a tax? Seems like preservation of greenery, planting trees, golly, actually REDUCING the population density of those "heat islands", would be a much more common sense, direct way to "save' the Earth. But that wouldn't preserve their power, now would it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 17:25:46 GMT -6
Well you know I don't agree taxation is the solution to all mans problems.But like many of our friends I am sure those in power assume money is only thing most people understand.We can go back and forth forever but I tend to believe the scientific community on this.And yes they exaggerate also but I think overall the Earth is warming,the climate is changing and mankind will have to deal with it from here on out.Fortunately we are a very adaptable species..
|
|
|
Post by super on Aug 9, 2018 19:10:21 GMT -6
Yes we are, and it will always be changing. What is the plan when we head into another ice age? How will we warm the planet?
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 9, 2018 21:00:36 GMT -6
Yes we are, and it will always be changing. What is the plan when we head into another ice age? How will we warm the planet? If you look at the historical graphs, we haven't fully recovered from the last Ice age, now the idiots think we are going to burn up...........
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 9, 2018 21:02:23 GMT -6
Well you know I don't agree taxation is the solution to all mans problems.But like many of our friends I am sure those in power assume money is only thing most people understand.We can go back and forth forever but I tend to believe the scientific community on this.And yes they exaggerate also but I think overall the Earth is warming,the climate is changing and mankind will have to deal with it from here on out.Fortunately we are a very adaptable species.. Which scientific community? The one that ignores the data? Quit thinking and start studying the data. It is clear.
|
|
|
Post by stiggy on Aug 9, 2018 21:58:43 GMT -6
I must preface what I say with an admission that I do not know all the details and nuances in reference to the issue of global warming. I must say that I'm very much in favor of a clean environment and keeping the world wide ecosystems in tact which equates to limiting the carbon footprint of everyday living to a minimum as to curb global warming if it in fact is proven to be adversely affected by mankind as a whole. That having been said, I believe there are fortunes and a fair amount of power that would come with an all out assault on what is perceived to be global warming. This is what raises the red flag of skepticism for me. The U.S.A. has a relatively successful track record in regards to cleaning up the air and water. The rest of the world? Not so much. China, for example, isn't the least concerned with their carbon footprint as it relates to global warming. Their (China) contributions towards global warming, if you are to believe the so called climatology experts, are far and away more prevalent than the U.S. and our leaders and global warming believers really don't seem to want to make nearly as big of a deal about that fact as they do about how harmful our personal transportation preferences and the burning of coal around the world. There are literally millions of poor people in underdeveloped countries that are living much less healthy lives as a result of them literally burning cow manure to cook and to keep warm. I honestly believe that the health benefits or burning coal and living with the emissions that are a byproduct would far outweigh the adverse affects of the coal emissions. I'm not advocating for the widespread proliferation of coal burning but we must weigh the good against the bad, even here in America. There is a limit to how much the common folks here in the U.S. can pay for energy and coal is much more affordable and dependable than some of the emission free alternative forms of energy. On the same token, at the same time, we must be working toward developing energy alternatives that are going to be affordable to both the general population and to industry as to keep jobs and the economy on the right track. There are no simple solution's but we must keep things in perspective as to the big picture in regards to the energy trade off's that can adversely effect us economically as opposed to environmental concerns. Can you expand on this. It seems a little confusing... "I honestly believe that the health benefits or burning coal and living with the emissions that are a byproduct would far outweigh the adverse affects of the coal emissions." Sure thing. After reading it I would agree, it is a bit confusing. The point of this statement is that people living in underdeveloped areas of the world would benefit, both economically and also the health aspects, from the use of coal as opposed to burning manure for cooking and warmth. The opposition to the use of coal by environmentalists, even in underdeveloped areas of the world, is relatively strong. Here in the States coal can be a reasonably priced answer to damage that would be done to our economy and to the middle and lower class by huge increases in energy costs. Coal should be viewed as a bridge to the development of reasonably priced environmentally friendly alternatives, not as a permanent energy component. Some of the things that have been suggested, such as a carbon tax on all fossil fuels, is an economic killer until a more environmentally friendly solution is developed. Problem is, the wacky environmentalists are hell bent on policies that would exponentially increase electric and transportation fuel bills which would put a severe burden on a huge segment of the population. The short term detrimental effects that these increases would have on the economy and on everyday Americans far outweigh the environmental downside of materials such as coal.
|
|
|
Post by OutlawwithaSnipeSniper on Aug 10, 2018 9:41:08 GMT -6
Quick question to Y'all, which country has lowered CO2 emissions more than any other country?
Hint, they were roundly scorned by the rest of the world for opting out of the Paris Climate Accord.........
Yea, those bastages..........
|
|
|
Post by dive61364 on Aug 10, 2018 10:31:30 GMT -6
answer me this...............how many trees and plants does it take to support human life on earth? with deforestation and loss of plants on earth a long with the increase of humans when do we start to polluting more then the trees can replenish with breathable air? the Mayans are thought to have caused their own demise by the same thing we are doing today only at a very much larger scale. the Mayan civilization was very advanced for their time yet they contributed to their own destruction without realizing it till it was too late.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 10:31:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by super on Aug 10, 2018 11:37:52 GMT -6
answer me this...............how many trees and plants does it take to support human life on earth? with deforestation and loss of plants on earth a long with the increase of humans when do we start to polluting more then the trees can replenish with breathable air? the Mayans are thought to have caused their own demise by the same thing we are doing today only at a very much larger scale. the Mayan civilization was very advanced for their time yet they contributed to their own destruction without realizing it till it was too late. They should have kept better control of their cattle 🐄
|
|