1. Filtering factory smoke emission tubes.
2. Reforestation after deforestation
3. Proper segregation of biodegradable and non biodegradable waste materials.
4. Knowledgeable burning of products.
5. Recycling
6. Social media support in promoting awareness on the does and don'ts about global warming.
For you alone, you can help by planting trees by yourself or in a group, like outreach program, also number 3, 4 and 5 are things that you can do as well.
In small steps, people will be able to be educated on this, and thus information dissemination is possible.
This would be tricky as this phenomenon does not exist.
There is no scientific consensus
A noticeable characteristic of the climate alarmist position has been the tremendous efforts made to close down the scientific debate.
From very early on, even before the 2001 IPCC report, the alarmist position has been to stridently claim the ‘the science is settled’. Any suggestion that a scientist might disagree with the theory that we are undergoing catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is met with accusations that they must be cranks, paid stooges or right wing deniers.
This is a political manoeuvre made necessary because if the true degree of uncertainty and disagreement in the scientific community about the nature and causes of climate change (recent or past) were aired in public it would undermine the alarm that the alarmist are seeking to whip up. What the alarmists want is no scientific discussion just a continuous stream of sensational scare stories about the future.
The notion that the science of climate is settled is patently absurd. Climatology is a science with no agreed understanding of even basic phenomena such as, for example, why ice ages start or end, why the interglacial temperatures of the last 10,000 years have varied so much or why the global temperature appeared to decline for nearly three decades in the middle of the 20th century. And yet the alarmists say that the science is settled and we can predict with certainty what the climate in 100 years will be like.
Here is a list of 500 peer reviewed scientific papers that support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or skepticism about the alleged environmental or economic effects of climate change. This is a list of full papers and does not include any Addendums, Comments, Corrections, Erratum, Replies, or Responses.
The inclusion of a paper in this list does not imply a specific position to any of the authors. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.
A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
- Craig Loehle
- Reply To: Comments on Loehle, “correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies”
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle
A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 213, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.
Many climate scientists have successfully proven that a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the Industrial Revolution began is a non-factor in "forcing" Earth's global average to rise.
http://climateclash.com/the-limits-of-ca...
" ... It is ironic that the only substance on which all life on earth depends should be so demonized and that analyses such as this one should be required to dispel the misconception of its great potential for harm. It imparts a small contribution to overall greenhouse effect and greenhouse effect is a small contribution to the overall heat to the atmosphere. Also, its effect per unit CO2 addition decreases with each addition (as shown in Figure 6) so it is physically difficult to achieve any significant effect. ... "
" ... The elevated temperatures claimed by AGW proponents depend on positive feedback. Water vapor’s greenhouse effect frequently increases more in a day than CO2 can increase in decades. Thus, if positive feedback were possible the world cataclysm that AGW proponents predict would have occurred centuries ago due to water alone. And nature’s feedbacks are predominantly negative. Both history and physics are aligned against the assumption of positive feedback. ... "
Impacts of anthropogenic climatic change are observed worldwide and have been linked to observed climate using rigorous methods. Such impacts have occurred in many ecosystems on land and in the ocean, in glaciers and rivers, and they concern food production and the livelihoods of people in developing countries. Many changes occur in combination with other environmental problems (such as urbanization, air pollution, biodiversity loss), but the role of climate change for them emerges more clearly than before.
No one has bothered to define Climate Change in a legal or scientific method. How can you write any report on something that is intangible? It is impossible. You might as well write a report on your fairy god mother.
Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming
(and why Deniers are Liars)
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirica...
Recommend that anyone who believes this lie should seek mental help.
No
