Why not start a thread about the fallacy of human involvement in climate change and present facts that dispute the latest scientific findings?
It is. I mentioned that in the 4th paragraph of my post the top rated schools around here are mostly all magnet schools. I'm a big fan of the concept
Most of the poor people in the US are white. But they have poor white "privilege". Right? It's trite to try to turn pollution and our overall ecology into a racial discussion. Who has been driving these issues? Pacific islanders? Sub-Saharan Africans? Venezuelans? No, most of the progress on environmental issues and the reduction of pollution has been pioneered and driven by those horrible, evil, racist white people that so many are so quick to blame for everything. The discussion is tainted needlessly by this sort of blame game. If we are to insist on climate change (it seems to vary between warming and cooling quite a bit) as being the "fault" of humans, we need to go back to the beginning, when people started burning things. Otherwise the racial spin is just a feeble reach for moral high ground.
And start yet another global warming thread? Nah thanks, I'm not in the mood. Exactly. It's more divisive race baiting. Fostering a hostile us-verses-them culture.
than why do you keep bringing it up in these threads?????? it doesn't take a phd in climatology or very much intelligence at all to connect the dots, review the stats and info and understand it is a reality and humans are the main reason. Guess that really casts a big ? concerning the overall intelligence of those who deny it is happening. remember humans began to change the atmosphere when we began to domesticate animals and develop agriculture Why the fuck is that so bleeding hard for you and others to comprehend?????????????????????????????????
You don't provide any sources for your claims, but regardless. It is true that most of the poor people in the U.S. are white, but we must also realize that most of the people in the U.S. are white. The proportion of poor blacks verses poor whites in relation to how many there are of each group is another matter. As you can see from this chart 24.1% of all blacks are poor verses 9.1% of all whites. FSN The poor are more likely to be affected by climate change especially in low lying areas such as the Gulf coast and southern islands as water levels rise, and storms and temperatures increase. The effect of humans on climate and local weather does indeed go back many years. In the 1100's England restricted coal burning because of the pollution.
BULLDUST........The Peeps Most Likely To Be Affected Are WEALTHY WHITE PEEPS Who Own Condos And Other Valuable Waterfront Land......How Many Poor People Do You Know Who Have A "Pallis De Seafront"..??? Cheers Glen.
Millions of poor people in places like Bangladesh, which is very vulnerable to sea level rises, don't have any insurance. They already have problems with salination of agricultural land. https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/20/bangladesh-struggles-turn-tide-climate-change-sea-levels-rise-coxs-bazar
There are still a lot of poor coastal areas in the world Caribbean islands, central American coast, coastal and island areas in Asia, areas affected by Katrina that have lost tourist revenue, etc
I've never understood the climate change debate. Who cares if it's manmade or natural. Arguing about that seems to be distracting us from the real issue, which is that it is happening. We know for fact that the Earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles and that if we went back to living in caves, this would still happen. Best to accept the fact that the climate changes and thus changes the very face of the planet. We have to live within that framework. We should be coming together to figure out exactly how to do that instead of pointing fingers.
That's attributed to liberals telling people not to travel to fight global warming. It's hurting the tropical island tourist industry, and the islanders who work in those industries.
^bull shit. They are not going there because they do not want to for whatever reason they have.....so stop blaming the liberals for everything under the sun, already.
The argument goes, if it's a natural occurrence then it doesn't mater how much we pollute, it's going to happen anyway. But, if humans contribute to global warming, then if we cut back on our pollutants we can slow down, stop, or reverse the trend. If human pollution has no effect on global warming then we don't need to spend money on developing alternative energy systems or cleaning up our pollutants. That money can then be put to better use lining the top 1%'s pockets.
See I don't get that, because pollution is bad regardless. Just because climate change may not be manmade doesn't mean we can treat the planet like a cesspool.