I guess you don't care what happens to your grandchildren and humanity if this AGW scam is successful.
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Quote by Maurice Strong, a billionaire elitist, primary power behind UN throne, and large CO2 producer: “Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Quote by Gus Hall, former leader of the Communist Party USA: "Human society cannot basically stop the destruction of the environment under capitalism. Socialism is the only structure that makes it possible."
Go around in ignorance. The people of Australia did and they woke up burdened with excessive taxes that went straight to the UN and got nothing for it. And don't cry when you are reorientated, and all over a scam.
Go ahead and be made a rube of. Al Gore laughs at you every time he flies over you with his CO2 spewing jet on his way to the bank with our money. Paint a big X on you house so he can say, "SUCKER!" when he flies over it.
All it takes for evil to win is for good men to sit on their hands and let it all happen.
You do understand that medical research has been finding out that a lot of our asthma and other issues are not because of pollution, but from a too sterile society. We have some people that are so afraid of germs that they kill even the healthy ones that we need to live.
You are also ignoring the facts that since the late 1960's we have cleaned up the really bad pollutants to pretty much base line released by nature. People want to reduce the output even more causing us to try to go below baseline.
In the United States and Canada, acid rain has been fixed through pollution controls in the 1990's. As for the fine particulates, how small do you want to go? Also you do realize that in the Spring and Fall, nature can produce far more fine particulates then all of the burning of fossil fuels do?
As for China, have you looked at their art work from 2000 year ago? The winds blowing West to East pick up a lot of dirt from the Gobi Desert and the high plains deserts and dump it on Eastern China where everyone lives. When the China coast gets an Easterly wind, the skies clear up and everything gets better.
It is kind of like living in Oklahoma, down wind of the desert, where you get natural particulates in the air.
I could go on, but you seem to be listening to the Ecoterrorists who for the most part ignore actual facts and science.
The debate continues primarily because as long as scientific theories are submitted, there should be debate. Debate is a critical part of science. The ideas submitted to the public are theories, after all. The pretense may be that they are irrefutable. Theories are forever as subject to being proven incorrect, as they are to being proven correct.
The number of scientists agreeing with any theory and acceptance by the scientific community have nothing to do with science. The widespread acceptance of theory has only to do with how scientists feel about the theory. Feelings happen in the part of the brain that has nothing to do with logic.
Whenever debate ends, science ceases to function. Religion takes over. It happens in the scientific community regularly. Everyone knows that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second, right? Except when it isn't. The speed of light fluctuates. It just isn't talked about. The chaos that would be caused from such discussion? What would happen to theories that rely on the constant speed of light? Junk science? The religion of Darwinism is another example where religious acceptance is expected.
Why did climate debates go from global cooling to global warming to climate change? Most likely because climate data are intrinsically flawed due to errors in the collection process, making the data virtually useless for scientific discovery. Erroneous data will always be debated, endlessly and uselessly.
Climate debate is effectively distracting the general public from the serious problems of air and water pollution. Who is talking about them?
Question EVERYTHING, for as long as you live.
When I first read a little about the stonewalling that Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre were up against, I figured there was something sinister going on. The climate "scientists" that were trying to dictate policy wouldn't, couldn't, reveal their sources of information. They had made it up! They admit it, too. It is a figment of imagination that has caused increases in the cost of energy for billions, and resulted in death for many that were otherwise benefitted, and greedy businessmen and politicians want to milk their cash cow 'til it drops. They don't care who they hurt, because their prime objective, besides making money, is population control.
WAKE-UP CALL= Global Warming ended in 2012, confirmed by our Satelite reports 11/28/2012 that ICE Accumaltion has returned to earth after 36 + years of Global Warming. My Global Teams from all walks of life ran Experiments for me at a specific location where the true cause of Global Warming was in 2008. They found the Cause to be an ALIEN Organism and yes we found one way to destroy it, but it would have taken a long time, but since my Teams were fired upon, I pulled them out and had them implement my Global solution around each of their continents and later I figured out a Solution to help feed the hostile continent that Global Warming was located on= ( location of Global Warming= each time it was shut down in 2008, In all frozen territories freshwater on top on saltwater from melting Glaciers and the Glaciers froze, so we knew we had the exact location)= by me emailing this hostile continents Embassy my Triple Output solution that grows 4 times more food per farm, per year and when they implemented it. It turned off Global Warming and now all 4 seasons have returned to normal naturally. The way the climate is now is the same as it was in the 1970's before Global Warming. Get used to it. (Environment= All non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness, so the sun's ray's can warm earth as it rotates so all plants grow for food and oxygen so all species can survive.) Global Command
Global warming is fundamentally a different phenomenon than air pollution. Your additional remarks mix up the two. Where they overlap is what causes them; our burning of fossil fuels.
But, global warming is mainly a result of the CO2 that comes from using fossil fuels like oil and coal and gas, and CO2 is clean in the sense that it is not at all part of the dirty smoking smoggy air that causes respiratory diseases in 1800s London, or Chinese cities today (even though the stuff that causes that smog also comes partly from burning fossil fuels). The main solutions to smog are scrubbers and converters that burn up the particulates and other half-burned emissions and turn them into CO2. Other sources of smog are NOx and SOx, which also have essentially NOTHING to do with global warming. Acid rain is an EFFECT of one kind of air pollution, and it also has NOTHING to with global warming.
SO, first get this straight: Global Warming NOT EQUAL air pollution. Then read on here.
Much of the "debate" is an artificial hyping-up by the news-media, but what underlies that is also important. There are legitimate scientific debates on the details but not on the basic reality of global warming nowadays being mostly man-made and seriously negative for us. The news media generally do a poor job of separating the real scientific debate on details from a pretend debate on the basics. The basics were debated 50-100 years ago, but scientific knowledge has advanced over the decades and centuries. There is also a legitimate POLICY disagreement about what to do in response to the negative consequences and risks of anthropogenic global warming, and the news media also generally do a poor job of identifying people whose REAL issue is disagreement with most likely polices on climate, but who instead of arguing that directly, lie about the science in order to try to say that there is no good reason for considering any such policies.
Top scientists have had consistent conclusions for over twenty years that the unusually rapid global climate change of the past century has been mostly human-caused, and for the past 10 years nearly all indications are that this is likely to have significantly negative long term consequences for the global economy. Fossil Fuel companies have often denied this science and Republican politicians in the U.S. have been adamant lately in espousing such anti-science denial. A range of anti-science con artists, pretending to be the "other side" of a scientific "debate" on whether anthropogenic climate change is a serious long term issue, are prevalent on-line. Yahoo Answers is loaded with deniers-in-training trying to copy-paste such deception. They are all over this very page. It is advisable to do your own homework on this subject. Here are some links, first on the general science.
For more information relating to your question about why people keep denying this see the links under sources below.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_...
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index...
http://www.amazon.com/Rough-Climate-Chan...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument...
There is no debate, the planet is warming, science has proved that. The people who choose to try and rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic are not debating they are just trying to impress each others, they are not scientists.
Because conservatives refuse to see facts.
Do people really not understand what pollution is doing not just to earth but us!??
As an environmental consultant and geologist, I probably know more about it than the average bear.
There's disastrous effects on human health from all of the air pollution we cause (land and water as well).
Say what? What disaster have you noticed. Humans have cleaned the environment so much that much of our disease and health problems seem to be related to an immune system that is out of control looking to protect us from something and often simply attacking our own body or harmless pollen or other compounds. We live in a pristine environment, at least I do. My wife ensures that.
I've never heard anyone debate that.
You just did
It causes disease and death.
Pollution causes some death but our species is reproducing so rapidly it is silly to suggest we are dying of pollution. We are thriving. You should visit 18th Century London if you really want to witness pollution.
It poisons our water supply. It causes acid rain, which essentially leads to genocide of plants, animals, and damages our structures.
Our water supply is safe and healthy. There are naturally toxic things in water that are unhealthy but thanks to modern technology most of those dangers have been all but eliminated. We have no more parasites or so few that again our immune systems are freaking out looking for something else to fight.
It ruins our farm land as population is expanding at exponential rates.
I doesn't ruin our farm land.
And as far as climate change, it's going to happen at some point.
Climates change. That is what they have always done.
Ignorance seriously pisses me off too
CO2 is not pollution. It is only described as such because the 'man-made' CO2 will cause global warming. So if global warming is natural, then everything else you say is true with regards to pollution, but irrelevant with regards to CO2. The man-made global warming is important because it means to stop global warming you have to address man-made CO2 emissions.
As an aside, population is not expanding at exponential rates, and is expected to peak and decline in a few decades.
Please read this before responding. Why do people focus so much on whether climate change is caused by nature or people? It's like one side doesn't care because it's not us so we may as we'll not worry about it at all, while the other side spends all their time arguing trying to prove it. Do people really not understand what pollution is doing not just to earth but us!?? There's disastrous effects on human health from all of the air pollution we cause (land and water as well). I've never heard anyone debate that. It causes disease and death. It poisons our water supply. It causes acid rain, which essentially leads to genocide of plants, animals, and damages our structures. It ruins our farm land as population is expanding at exponential rates. And as far as climate change, it's going to happen at some point. So why do you think we keep this stupid debate going? Sorry for the rant but this ignorance seriously pisses me off.
I agree with you on pollution, but CO2 is not pollution it is essential for all life, it is plant food, it helps plants use water more efficiently, it is helping deserts to recede, it is producing record food crops, it is causing not only an increase in vegetation but also an increase in healthy soil. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/th...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
You cannot change it . Man thinks he is being arrogant
believing it changed something .
