Because somewhere along the lines decades ago, politicians utilized environmental issues as a tool to win elections. They have zero interest in actually correcting the issue or providing funding, instead they use it to their advantage to please certain groups of individuals for votes.
Environmental issues and research never had a political agenda, it was about providing a better world for everyone and wildlife. We lost that goal....
A scientific law doesn’t depend on who agrees or disagrees with it. A scientific law is simply something that can be observed to repeatedly happen under experimental conditions.
Global warming is a consequence of the most powerful of all laws of science – quantum mechanics. Any number of people could oppose the theory of global warming, this doesn’t alter the physics of why it happens.
Note that global warming is a theory even though it’s governed by laws. A theory in science has a specific meaning, it’s not a guess or speculation but something that is established by a set of rules and principles and which can be demonstrated and observed. Some things you may think are scientific laws are actually theories – light, electricity, gravity, atoms etc; there’s no disputing they exist but in science they are theories not laws.
When it comes to the issue of global warming, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists see it as a problem and there isn’t a single scientific organisation on the planet that disputes it. The reality is that science is very firmly aligned behind the theory of global warming, anything to the contrary is misinformation and propaganda originating from those who oppose science.
Should we be addressing global warming? Absolutely, it’s already here and we’ve seen the consequences right around the world. Unless we deal with it then things can only get worse.
Dealing with it needn’t be a big issue, we actually have the technology already and we could confine global warming to the history books in just a few years; and at a fraction of the cost of dealing with the consequences.
You’re quite right that we should be tackling the other issues such as garbage and toxic waste, but not to the exclusion of other pressing matters like global warming.
OK, lets look at the first 2000 years of man. Trash n garbage was being burnt up and as the smoke rises nature's chemicals separate all into nothingness. Now its being buried and 20 years later when the gases seep up through the earth after homes and whatever is built, then you'll find out younguns and other will die from the seeping gas. So the alternative is to burn up all garbage and recycle the trash. But who listens dont have the power to do anything about it and as for the toxic materiels, I dont know anything about this. Mike
In the developed countries garbage and toxic waste are managed a bit but in most developing countries they are damp into the rivers, lakes and in the sea .
What do you mean by "Global Warming?" The earth having a "Global Warming" is fact. Earth is warming and ice is melting at tremendous rates. People question whether or not fossil fuel use is to blame though.
Organisms are dying off...bees, birds, fish, plants and we are affected.
Ahh... Because it's EASIER to Focus on a Disaster that hasn't really HIT Us yet, -than on the One We're Sitting in the Middle Of... ;)
There is much more money to be had by way of the catastrophic, man-made global warming scam than there is in cleaning up litter.
Oh and by the way, the 97% consensus claim was exposed as being incredibly flawed. The result of amateurish, sloppy research and methodology. In reality, there is no consensus supporting CAGW. The 97% babble is simply an often repeated lie......don't fall for it.....Please!
We have already dealt with most of the crap going into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the main exception.
Speed the money wasted on research to drill for water and help the poor people the alarmist are against
How is over 98% in agreement not agreeing on something?
Since all scientists can't agree on somthing means it isn't scientific law so why don't we focus on the stuff we know is a big problem.
we can do both
and should
