2016 Was The Hottest Year Ever. It’S The Third Year In A Row Of Record-High Heat

I am trying to keep this short this time.

Well you see, there is the problem. Fossil Fuels ... CO2 is a problem for global warming, or so some say. Fossil fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas are high in carbon. when it is burned it produces major amounts of carbon dioxide aka CO2. These things mean money for governments and also means you can drive you car, heat your house. are you doing your part in this to cut down on your consumption? China is not. There are economic benefits to CO2, but we don't want to get off topic here. CO2 is economical. trust me this is a vicious circle. it is about money and I don't know if you want to go down this.

but some say CO2 is the biggest cause of global warming so this is an issue.

 

Well if it does cause global warming then we won't have to worry about that anymore.

 

people use gas to heat their homes. Natural Gas... in Canada this is used. Natural gas is very clean burning but when it is released into the air as uncombusted methane it is a potent greenhouse gas.

 

so the alternative is releasing it in the ocean.

 

Pigs are also a big problem and cows. Chickens, Pig and cow Emmissions. Yes... their farts is a big problem. There was a scientist in Guelph I think it was that had produced a pig that was genetically altered to not fart... this was a huge deal for him and the possibility of reducing green house gases. GODS OWN METHANE is an issue, that is how bad it has become. We need animals that don't let out gas. Maybe this is a reason to become a vegetarian? eat less meat ... they won't bread so many gassy animals, thus reducing greenhouse gases.

Studies show that live stock generate more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivelent. 18 percent than transport. Methane is 20 percent more potent at trapping heat from the sun than CO2

 

But if you eat all of the animals then they cant produce methane.
Wait a minute...why are we trying to save all those farting endangered animals?

 

At a time when we all can witness the oceans rising ( like in Florida ), the arctic ice melting, and drastic weather patterns, that something is changing. IF IT IS anthropocentric global warming, like most scientists agree, don't you think it would important to try a slow it down and hopefully come up with a whole different way of living (not consumed with consumption )? Maybe it is too late, and our grandchildren will have to find a way to survive. Maybe it is just a long phase of climate change that the earth has done many times in the past. But the logical thing to do is play it on the safe side, and actively try to remove the "humans did it part".? Lets just try to find a way to live more simply. It really could be an adventure if everyone started to work together to change our habits and attempt new ways of living.
And look what has happened in America. We now have the supreme result of a society that fell asleep at the wheel ( well over 50 years ago ) a man who embodies the raping of the earth for profits to lead our country. When we most need to pull together on this issue, we are going to have 4 years more of business as usual meaning "let's keep consuming". I have no idea what is in store, but i can feel we are headed into a very chaotic time. Hey, this a "hip" forum, and the people here are very bright, and imaginative. We better not get too smart, or the NSA will take it down!

 

the majority of members of the American Institute of Architecture believe in the official 9/11 story

 

Great point. I don't believe it. But don't you acknowledge we are experiencing a big climate change?

 

I don't think it's possible to know. Has any climate in the world actually changed dramatically in the last hundred years?

Short term fluctuations have always been a part of the evolution of the planet's climate. It's not possible to say one way or another whether or not any of the short term variations from our measurements point to a dramatic, irreversible flip in our climate. if there is one, it will happen fast.

There have always been extreme localised weather events too. We've always experienced a lot of storms in the UK owning to our position in between four chaotically fluctuating weather systems. There is no evidence to suggest storms are becoming more frequent.

I doubt it can be argued that man is not influencing the climate, however the question is how much.

Climate experts are good at cherry picking evidence and pandering to the media, but the fact is the bigger picture is so complex that it's just impossibe to know how the climate will evolve.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38546998

 

Seems like we are still in the dark ages...and not on the page we should be by now...

Instead of coming together as a world to fix things...well, I don't have to say what we are doing instead.............for everyone....and I just don't know if we are ever going to turn the page in time. I have my doubts...though.... but I am one of the ones who will keep on trying....

 

You mean the over 1,000 scientists who were redacted from the IPCC report because they did not share the "official" explanation?

 

Do you know how to read, or is your redneck ass too ignorant to read properly? I said the weather has only been recorded for a couple hundred years. That is not the same as ice core samples, which by the way prove the lie of man-made global warming to be complete and utter bullshit. The ice core samples show that in the past the co2 levels lagged behind increases in temperature. Therefore co2 has no fucking relation to temperature changes. Plants fucking breathe co2, and plants release oxygen into the air. Just not in the mind of frauds like Al Gore and the libtard idiots who mindless go along with frauds like him because they don't have the brains to ask questions for themselves.

 

So what is the evidence?

 

I don't really believe you're interested

but here is a start. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

this website is dumbed down a bit but if you scroll down there are some links to actual research

If you don't trust NASA you can look up research from another country. here's one http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/

I don't really care though like I said earlier, I'm not interested in debating climate change or changing anyone's mind. I respect your viewpoint. We all have access to the same material and can draw our own conclusions.

I actually think the subject of climate change is entirely too politically polarizing and I think we need to address the devastation humans are doing to the environment in other terms. People will gladly waste their lives arguing climate change rather than actually doing anything, but no one can really argue the negative impact industrialization and consumer culture has on the environment. Most people don't want to read comprehensive scientific research, but they CAN see what coal ash waste or oil leaks can do to the rivers and lakes around their home, they can look at pictures of electronic waste lands in Africa and Asia, etc. So I think it is better to frame the environmental conversation within a concrete context that everyone can see and understand anyways.

 

There were 52 UN scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 summary for policy makers. There are over 1,000 scientists who disagree with those 52 UN scientists. Perhaps those 1,000 scientists are blatantly ignorant, mind muddled conspiracy theorists who are simply not intelligent enough to comprehend the science behind this stuff. Or perhaps not. Who knows? At any rate, here is something on that:

http://www.cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

 

Sorry for the multiple posts, but as I was trying to post, I would get an "Oops, we cannot reach this page" notice, and I tried over and over getting the same notice.