Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dismiss it? What else should we do with "climate change"?? The climate has changed for hundreds of thousands of years. Nothing we as humans do will effect it unless you buy into the CO2 nonsense. So all we can do is adapt which by the way we can. If it comes to a point that we can't then we as a species will die out. It really is that simple. Thinking that breathing is hurting the environment and contributing to super storms and asteroids is pure isnanity. Oh and pay me and we can fix it. LOL. A sucker born every day though to pay that bill.
Dismiss it? What else should we do with "climate change"?? The climate has changed for hundreds of thousands of years. Nothing we as humans do will effect it unless you buy into the CO2 nonsense. So all we can do is adapt which by the way we can. If it comes to a point that we can't then we as a species will die out. It really is that simple. Thinking that breathing is hurting the environment and contributing to super storms and asteroids is pure isnanity. Oh and pay me and we can fix it. LOL. A sucker born every day though to pay that bill.
Seems I recall dirty air in salt lake city on the news a few weeks ago. Seems I recall destruction of the ozone so the republican savior Reagan regulated cfcs.
Humans impact the environment. Does CO2 effect it? Jury is out, but as someone who thinks humans screw up just about everything we touch, I say the less, the better.
So your of the belief we should stop breathing and that will save the environment?? Your talking about pollution and trying to make the dance over to co2 is pollution like the EPA has done. It's pure nonsense. I've never seen anyone who thinks global warming is pure BS all in for pollution have you? We adapt and try and reduce pollution. Paying somebody for carbon credits to shell out the same amount of CO2 is doing nothing but, well, paying somebody for nothing.
Limiting human impact on the environment is a good thing. We screw everything up, so environmentalism was a conservative issue.
Should we destroy the economy to do it? No, but limiting impact of humans is always a good thing. And as most kniw with climate change, it leads to larger swings of extreme weather. Like any other heat exchange system.
In my opinion, those that dismiss that fact are as idiotic as those who think we should end all carbon emissions tomorrow.
Ending all cabon emissions tomorrow would end in 5 billion people starving to death in about a year.
doing nothing about CO2 will end in almost no deaths.... if any.
AND in 20 to 40 years we will see technology shifts that will lead to a very different energy economy with far less exposure to fossil fuels so really the do nothing people are nowhere near as bad as the do everything now people.
So your of the belief we should stop breathing and that will save the environment?? Your talking about pollution and trying to make the dance over to co2 is pollution like the EPA has done. It's pure nonsense. I've never seen anyone who thinks global warming is pure BS all in for pollution have you? We adapt and try and reduce pollution. Paying somebody for carbon credits to shell out the same amount of CO2 is doing nothing but, well, paying somebody for nothing.
I didn't say that, in fact I said limiting human climate pollution, with no economic impact is what's needed. Not stop folks from breathing, because we are a part of the environment. However, large coal plants releasing gases at rates not normal to the environmental rate of carbon emissions is not natural. Doesn't mean we should shut coal down, but it means regulation that doesn't hurt the economy is a good thing.
What is normal? CO2 is not a static thing in the atmosphere and never has been. Nobody can say what is normal just like nobody has ever told me what the optimum temperature for the earth should be. You have to have a baseline to start from but we just see all kinds of fancy squiggly graphs plotting thirty years here or a hundred years there and saying it has warmed or cooled when in the big picture a hundred years isn't anything. That is why IMO it's all nonsense. How many points in time has co2 decreased and water vapor or methane or what have you increased to keep the greenhouse effect going? The earth has survived volcanoes and meteors and all kinds of crap a few coal plants isn't going to destroy the damn thing. If these global kooks cared about stopping coal emissions they would be demanding China do something but they aren't. They just want to get paid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
