EricHiggin said:
What about periods like the "dust bowl" in America? Some poor farming methods are partially to blame, but mostly extended drought. Did man made climate change cause the drought, and did the drought ever end? How could it if things are just going to keep getting worse?
Agricultural land isn't vegetation of significance? That explains a lot...
You didn't answer the question for the most part, and you don't say how much worse the extra fires are getting, if at all. Will other vegetation adapt as well?
Aren't humans an invasive species...? Does that 'problem' need to be solved?
More like too much of both, unrealistic green objectives and general power grabs on the side while they're at it.
So President Trump would be better than no leader at all? What about Hitler?
Just because you're benefiting yourself, doesn't in anyway guarantee you're benefiting others as well, like your customers.
So 75 years for the seas to rise 1 foot then? How many islands that would be impacted by this aren't burning fossil fuels anymore, and haven't been for quite some time? If it's a worldwide problem, and they have little control or power over the seas, how many have left the islands knowing that's the smart thing to do, like you said, by predicting what's coming and do what's necessary in your power to stop it or avoid it if you can't stop it.
The planet used to be much warmer and had much more CO2 in the air, and wasn't near as green if you go far enough back. How did the planet cool itself down to where it was a couple of hundred years ago?
Climate scientists, not all scientists. To expect that people don't think certain scientists won't put forth BS for their careers sake is being unrealistic. It also doesn't necessarily mean you're anti evidence, because you just may be 'anti politics' for example, and therefore, due to their connection and ridiculous propositions, like the new green deal, not to mention corruption in general, many may just be skeptical, and rightfully so.
What if Einstein wasn't skeptical about Newtons science? Or should I say 'science'?
Sure, implement green policies for things like recycling or energy efficiency, but leave climate change out of it then. Trying to solve climate change would be a major undertaking and would cost a ton of money and time, only to find out it was all for nothing? That doesn't sound smart to me, yet it does sound overly cautious at the expense of others. Should America have been cautious by rounding up the Japanese during WWII and putting them in internment camps?
So then there's no political stance to blame then, since either side can do good sometimes, and other times not so much?
97% of what, .01% of the total? How certain are those climate scientists, and what are they willing to gamble to prove their certainty? Scientists don't control the world and certainly aren't politicians. I also think most would trust a businessman over a politician because at least they're taking a risk.
Musk owns and runs a green energy auto, battery, and solar company, as well as a space exploration company. If Musk really thought climate change was going to be a serious problem in his lifetime, don't you think he would've put the space company on hold before it's inception, and focused fully on green energy and renewables? If he by some chance wasn't sure back then, if it became evident now or shortly, would he put the space company on hold, since we're so far from achieving another planet to call home?
Yet the blame always goes to the guns, and guns are where 'progress' is made, by the politicians. The same politicians who make it clear that climate change is an immediate threat and if we don't do everything we can now we're all doomed.
But I thought they were all part of the problem. Why isn't the rest getting fixed? Why isn't it even mentioned? Why is it being allowed to get worse?
Don't be a 'climate denier', say the politicians... along with, you're just a 'conspiracy theorist'.
Proven science is 100%, is it not? Theorized, proven mathematically, and physically, multiple times by different people, correct? You apparently have 97% of the climate scientists who agree, and only on the theory for the most part. The math and physical scientific proof is far from 100% accurate.
Then the 'climate believers' can be the one's to profit. Just think about how wealthy they will all end up. Except, wait... they won't, because they are typically the type of people who believe in equality, like free everything for everyone?
Hmmm.
|
