What should the rest of the world do about America's Climate change denial?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

LOLOL!!!!

Is this a joke ?

Climate change is CLIMATE CHANGE. It's happened for eons. Once upon a time there was a great sea in the midwest USA. Then it drained. Whose fault is that?? Or how about the massive sea-level rises and falls that have happened time and time again, and swallowed huge amounts of human history?? Who do we blame for that??

I'm not some weirdo who thinks humans can rape and pillage the planet without reactions either, but c'mon now use some logic here. If you're really so worried about man-made environmental disasters there's a country in Asia you might want to consider researching. Maybe you've heard of it?? ------> CHINA

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Maybe the world could lead by example. Maybe China could reduce their pollution levels, even if it has an adverse effect on their economy. Maybe Brazil could stop clear-cutting rainforest and start replanting. Maybe other countries could organize an international effort to clean up that plastic island in the Pacific, and shame the US into joining.

If the US can't be a leader, maybe they can be a follower.

You have to remember that China went through their industrial revolution much later than most of the rest of the world. And they're just pulling out of it. Now they are at the forefront of fighting global warming...not because they want to save the planet, but because of how bad they're air pollution is. They understand that it's inter related.

Exactly. The already developed countries went through their revolutions from approximately 1800-1960s/70s. That's why we were super polluted until that period.

However, although we have cleaned up other types of pollution, such as coal particulates or some industrial waste, we still are emitting extremely high amounts of carbon dioxide through various routes. So in that sense we haven't cleaned up. China is only number one in that regard due to it's billion person population.

US is second, with 1/3 the population. If you took the US and added the emissions of let's say the EU, which together would still only TOTAL equal about 800 million people, the total emissions is far higher than China. That means that the West still wins for worst environmental impact, including climate change.

This is easily demonstrable by looking at the energy intensity per capita in western developed countries versus China or India. Or the emissions per capita. THIS, is the only valid way to judge the nature of a country's system.

pdf.wri.org...

"As described in the preceding chapter, countries
with large populations, large economies, or
both tend to be the largest emitting countries.
Under such circumstances, focusing only on absolute
emission levels only gives a partial understanding of
the greenhouse gas picture. Accordingly, this chapter
examines GHG emissions per capita.
Only a handful of the countries with the largest
total emissions also rank among those with the highest
per capita emissions (Figure 4.1). Among the 25
major emitters, per capita emissions vary widely, with
Australia, the United States and Canada having the
highest per capita emissions (ranking 4th, 6th, and 7th
globally). Their per capita emissions are more than
twice those of the EU (37th globally), six times those
of China (99th globally), and 13 times those of India
(140th globally). When all countries are ranked on
a per capita basis, the upper tiers show considerable
diversity (Figures 4.1 and 4.2):"

Looking at emissions per capita, China is ranked 99 in the world.

US is ranked #6. Notice that out of the top 25, only 4 are "developing:" Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Nauru.

Country CO2 Equiv.) (Rank) (Tons) (Rank)
Qatar 67.9 (1) 60.0 (1)
United Arab Emirates 36.1 (2) 25.2 (3)
Kuwait 31.6 (3) 26.8 (2)
Australia 25.6 (4) 17.3 (7)
Bahrain 24.8 (5) 20.6 (4)
United States 24.5 (6) 20.4 (5)
Canada 22.1 (7) 17.1 (8)
Brunei 21.7 (8) 13.7 (10)
Luxembourg 21.0 (9) 19.2 (6)
Trinidad & Tobago 19.3 (10) 16.7 (9)
New Zealand 18.9 (11) 8.6 (32)
Antigua & Barbuda 18.5 (12) 4.9 (62)
Ireland 17.3 (13) 10.9 (18)
Estonia 16.6 (14) 11.3 (17)
Saudi Arabia 16.4 (15) 13.4 (11)
Belgium 14.5 (16) 12.2 (14)
Czech Republic 13.9 (17) 12.1 (15)
Singapore 13.9 (18) 13.1 (12)
Turkmenistan 13.8 (19) 7.8 (40)
Netherlands 13.5 (20) 10.9 (19)
Finland 13.3 (21) 10.9 (20)
Russia 13.2 (22) 10.6 (21)
Palau 12.9 (23) 12.7 (13)
Nauru 12.8 (24) 11.4 (16)
Denmark 12.5 (25) 9.7 (27)
Germany 12.3 (27) 10.4 (22)
United Kingdom 11.1 (32) 9.4 (30)
South Korea 11.1 (33) 9.9 (26)
EU-25 10.5 (37) 8.5 (34)
Japan 10.4 (39) 9.5 (29)
Poland 9.8 (43) 7.8 (41)
Ukraine 9.7 (44) 6.3 (47)
South Africa 9.5 (46) 7.9 (39)
Spain 9.4 (47) 7.5 (44)
Italy 9.2 (48) 7.7 (42)
France 8.7 (50) 6.2 (48)
Argentina 8.1 (52) 3.9 (70)
Iran 7.5 (60) 5.3 (56)
Turkey 5.3 (75) 3.3 (78)
Mexico 5.2 (76) 3.9 (71)
Brazil 5.0 (83) 2.0 (100)
China 3.9 (99) 2.7 (88)
Indonesia 2.4 (122) 1.4 (111)
Pakistan 2.1 (131) 0.8 (132)
India 1.9 (140) 1.0 (120)
Developed 14.1 11.4
Developing 3.3 2.1
World 5.6 4.0

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

LOLOL!!!!

Is this a joke ?

Climate change is CLIMATE CHANGE. It's happened for eons. Once upon a time there was a great sea in the midwest USA. Then it drained. Whose fault is that?? Or how about the massive sea-level rises and falls that have happened time and time again, and swallowed huge amounts of human history?? Who do we blame for that??

I'm not some weirdo who thinks humans can rape and pillage the planet without reactions either, but c'mon now use some logic here. If you're really so worried about man-made environmental disasters there's a country in Asia you might want to consider researching. Maybe you've heard of it?? ------> CHINA

Please refer to my post directly above this one, and my earlier posts on this thread regarding China versus the West/US.

First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

What climate change? The temperature has not increased for over 15 years. I can't believe an ATSer drank the climate kool-aid! Ha ha ha ha ha CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

originally posted by: AnonymousRider
What climate change? The temperature has not increased for over 15 years. I can't believe an ATSer drank the climate kool-aid! Ha ha ha ha ha CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

Good point! If you believe all the hype about "Climate Change", maybe we should be concerned with "Water Flow", "Winter Snow", "Air Blowing", "Dogs Barking", "Liberals Lying", etc.

In fact...I've got a great one. "Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a huge problem that needs your attention or it may destroy us all. You see, we rely on the Sun to produce heat, light and more to keep our Earth going and to keep us alive. Without the Sun...we would indeed be extinct. But scientists have discovered something so horrifying that you need to be aware. The Sun is burning!!! Eventually, it will even burn out! We need to start building the longest hose ever constructed to save the Sun and therefore, we need you to donate to the cause. Please send your check to The Sun is Burning Foundation immediately. Remember, if there is no Sun, you son will have no chance." (queue ken burns image effects of sad children)

Yeah...nice!

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

Then let the rest of the world tax their people into poverty for something that is non-changeable even if it exists (not likely through anthropgenic means-either caused by or reversible by)...

Jaden

a reply to: LDragonFire

I really hope this is a trolling thread, otherwise...wow.

So you want the world to go to war with the USA which would cause incredible amounts of pollution/death/suffering, all because some people don't agree with the current climate change agenda driven fear mongering?

Your ignorance is truly astonishing.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Maybe the world could lead by example. Maybe China could reduce their pollution levels, even if it has an adverse effect on their economy. Maybe Brazil could stop clear-cutting rainforest and start replanting. Maybe other countries could organize an international effort to clean up that plastic island in the Pacific, and shame the US into joining.

If the US can't be a leader, maybe they can be a follower.

You have to remember that China went through their industrial revolution much later than most of the rest of the world. And they're just pulling out of it. Now they are at the forefront of fighting global warming...not because they want to save the planet, but because of how bad they're air pollution is. They understand that it's inter related.

Exactly. The already developed countries went through their revolutions from approximately 1800-1960s/70s. That's why we were super polluted until that period.

However, although we have cleaned up other types of pollution, such as coal particulates or some industrial waste, we still are emitting extremely high amounts of carbon dioxide through various routes. So in that sense we haven't cleaned up. China is only number one in that regard due to it's billion person population.

US is second, with 1/3 the population. If you took the US and added the emissions of let's say the EU, which together would still only TOTAL equal about 800 million people, the total emissions is far higher than China. That means that the West still wins for worst environmental impact, including climate change.

This is easily demonstrable by looking at the energy intensity per capita in western developed countries versus China or India. Or the emissions per capita. THIS, is the only valid way to judge the nature of a country's system.

pdf.wri.org...

"As described in the preceding chapter, countries
with large populations, large economies, or
both tend to be the largest emitting countries.
Under such circumstances, focusing only on absolute
emission levels only gives a partial understanding of
the greenhouse gas picture. Accordingly, this chapter
examines GHG emissions per capita.
Only a handful of the countries with the largest
total emissions also rank among those with the highest
per capita emissions (Figure 4.1). Among the 25
major emitters, per capita emissions vary widely, with
Australia, the United States and Canada having the
highest per capita emissions (ranking 4th, 6th, and 7th
globally). Their per capita emissions are more than
twice those of the EU (37th globally), six times those
of China (99th globally), and 13 times those of India
(140th globally). When all countries are ranked on
a per capita basis, the upper tiers show considerable
diversity (Figures 4.1 and 4.2):"

Looking at emissions per capita, China is ranked 99 in the world.

US is ranked #6. Notice that out of the top 25, only 4 are "developing:" Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Nauru.

Country CO2 Equiv.) (Rank) (Tons) (Rank)
Qatar 67.9 (1) 60.0 (1)
United Arab Emirates 36.1 (2) 25.2 (3)
Kuwait 31.6 (3) 26.8 (2)
Australia 25.6 (4) 17.3 (7)
Bahrain 24.8 (5) 20.6 (4)
United States 24.5 (6) 20.4 (5)
Canada 22.1 (7) 17.1 (8)
Brunei 21.7 (8) 13.7 (10)
Luxembourg 21.0 (9) 19.2 (6)
Trinidad & Tobago 19.3 (10) 16.7 (9)
New Zealand 18.9 (11) 8.6 (32)
Antigua & Barbuda 18.5 (12) 4.9 (62)
Ireland 17.3 (13) 10.9 (18)
Estonia 16.6 (14) 11.3 (17)
Saudi Arabia 16.4 (15) 13.4 (11)
Belgium 14.5 (16) 12.2 (14)
Czech Republic 13.9 (17) 12.1 (15)
Singapore 13.9 (18) 13.1 (12)
Turkmenistan 13.8 (19) 7.8 (40)
Netherlands 13.5 (20) 10.9 (19)
Finland 13.3 (21) 10.9 (20)
Russia 13.2 (22) 10.6 (21)
Palau 12.9 (23) 12.7 (13)
Nauru 12.8 (24) 11.4 (16)
Denmark 12.5 (25) 9.7 (27)
Germany 12.3 (27) 10.4 (22)
United Kingdom 11.1 (32) 9.4 (30)
South Korea 11.1 (33) 9.9 (26)
EU-25 10.5 (37) 8.5 (34)
Japan 10.4 (39) 9.5 (29)
Poland 9.8 (43) 7.8 (41)
Ukraine 9.7 (44) 6.3 (47)
South Africa 9.5 (46) 7.9 (39)
Spain 9.4 (47) 7.5 (44)
Italy 9.2 (48) 7.7 (42)
France 8.7 (50) 6.2 (48)
Argentina 8.1 (52) 3.9 (70)
Iran 7.5 (60) 5.3 (56)
Turkey 5.3 (75) 3.3 (78)
Mexico 5.2 (76) 3.9 (71)
Brazil 5.0 (83) 2.0 (100)
China 3.9 (99) 2.7 (88)
Indonesia 2.4 (122) 1.4 (111)
Pakistan 2.1 (131) 0.8 (132)
India 1.9 (140) 1.0 (120)
Developed 14.1 11.4
Developing 3.3 2.1
World 5.6 4.0

That is the most asinine B.S. I've ever heard...we're talking about global warming, not per capita area warming. Let's say that AGW is real (not likely) Let's say we can do something about it (again, not likely), Then you have to limit the total amount of the cause. That means the places that emit the largest amounts have to limit their output the most. That's per square mile, not per capita... The U.S. and China are ~ the same size, so China needs to limit their production more.

Actually, I don't believe that humans can have more than a negligible impact one way or the other and I don't believe that anyone has shown substantial risk that that will change in the near future.

China has problems in their most congested areas that DIRECTLY affect the health of their citizens, that is much more important to address than some make believe 'we need to control you more' b.s.

Jaden

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: LDragonFire

I really hope this is a trolling thread, otherwise...wow.

So you want the world to go to war with the USA which would cause incredible amounts of pollution/death/suffering, all because some people don't agree with the current climate change agenda driven fear mongering?

Your ignorance is truly astonishing.

The idea for the thread came from a Bill Maher Q&A YouTube video and it was one of the questions asked by a student. I thought it was a good question.

Never in this thread did I say that the world should attack the USA, so if my ignorance is truly astonishing I would have to say the same thing about your reading comprehension.

Anyway here is the video and the questions asked are interesting. BTW Maher answered the question there is nothing other countries can do.

a reply to: LDragonFire

You posed the question. No need to run away from it.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: LDragonFire

You posed the question. No need to run away from it.

I agree with Bill, there is nothing the rest of the world can do about it.

How am I running away from the question I posted?

originally posted by: LDragonFire
a reply to: Metallicus

China and India are not publicly and politically denying climate change. I expect they are being forced into action because of real world events.

It doesn't matter that they are not "publicly and politically denying climate change"

It matters what they are doing to stop their pollution, which is next to nothing.

So, go ahead and blame America. Then go talk to people who lived in Los Angeles in the 70's and ask them if they prefer it now or then.... We've done MORE than our share.

Go pester China, India, Mexico, and any other country that spews pollution, but then they are not such an easy target as we are are they?

Go lecture to the South American countries destroying the rainforests.

No, too easy to just blame America.

I really do not get your logic in this. Except to be in the current America hating trend.

Pollution is a real problem, CO2 can be easily handled through simple reforestation.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

Except that most of the scientists that are bought and paid for and lying are bought by big oil, coal and power companies and that most of the scientists...even from universities and organizations that are highly respected are telling us that man made global warming is real. The true measure of a person's understanding of climate change is if they invoke the name of al gore...as if he invented this. No...we're talking about real scientists doing real scientific research.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Maybe the world could lead by example. Maybe China could reduce their pollution levels, even if it has an adverse effect on their economy. Maybe Brazil could stop clear-cutting rainforest and start replanting. Maybe other countries could organize an international effort to clean up that plastic island in the Pacific, and shame the US into joining.

If the US can't be a leader, maybe they can be a follower.

You have to remember that China went through their industrial revolution much later than most of the rest of the world. And they're just pulling out of it. Now they are at the forefront of fighting global warming...not because they want to save the planet, but because of how bad they're air pollution is. They understand that it's inter related.

Exactly. The already developed countries went through their revolutions from approximately 1800-1960s/70s. That's why we were super polluted until that period.

However, although we have cleaned up other types of pollution, such as coal particulates or some industrial waste, we still are emitting extremely high amounts of carbon dioxide through various routes. So in that sense we haven't cleaned up. China is only number one in that regard due to it's billion person population.

US is second, with 1/3 the population. If you took the US and added the emissions of let's say the EU, which together would still only TOTAL equal about 800 million people, the total emissions is far higher than China. That means that the West still wins for worst environmental impact, including climate change.

This is easily demonstrable by looking at the energy intensity per capita in western developed countries versus China or India. Or the emissions per capita. THIS, is the only valid way to judge the nature of a country's system.

pdf.wri.org...

"As described in the preceding chapter, countries
with large populations, large economies, or
both tend to be the largest emitting countries.
Under such circumstances, focusing only on absolute
emission levels only gives a partial understanding of
the greenhouse gas picture. Accordingly, this chapter
examines GHG emissions per capita.
Only a handful of the countries with the largest
total emissions also rank among those with the highest
per capita emissions (Figure 4.1). Among the 25
major emitters, per capita emissions vary widely, with
Australia, the United States and Canada having the
highest per capita emissions (ranking 4th, 6th, and 7th
globally). Their per capita emissions are more than
twice those of the EU (37th globally), six times those
of China (99th globally), and 13 times those of India
(140th globally). When all countries are ranked on
a per capita basis, the upper tiers show considerable
diversity (Figures 4.1 and 4.2):"

Looking at emissions per capita, China is ranked 99 in the world.

US is ranked #6. Notice that out of the top 25, only 4 are "developing:" Trinidad and Tobago, Antigua and Barbuda, Palau, Nauru.

Country CO2 Equiv.) (Rank) (Tons) (Rank)
Qatar 67.9 (1) 60.0 (1)
United Arab Emirates 36.1 (2) 25.2 (3)
Kuwait 31.6 (3) 26.8 (2)
Australia 25.6 (4) 17.3 (7)
Bahrain 24.8 (5) 20.6 (4)
United States 24.5 (6) 20.4 (5)
Canada 22.1 (7) 17.1 (8)
Brunei 21.7 (8) 13.7 (10)
Luxembourg 21.0 (9) 19.2 (6)
Trinidad & Tobago 19.3 (10) 16.7 (9)
New Zealand 18.9 (11) 8.6 (32)
Antigua & Barbuda 18.5 (12) 4.9 (62)
Ireland 17.3 (13) 10.9 (18)
Estonia 16.6 (14) 11.3 (17)
Saudi Arabia 16.4 (15) 13.4 (11)
Belgium 14.5 (16) 12.2 (14)
Czech Republic 13.9 (17) 12.1 (15)
Singapore 13.9 (18) 13.1 (12)
Turkmenistan 13.8 (19) 7.8 (40)
Netherlands 13.5 (20) 10.9 (19)
Finland 13.3 (21) 10.9 (20)
Russia 13.2 (22) 10.6 (21)
Palau 12.9 (23) 12.7 (13)
Nauru 12.8 (24) 11.4 (16)
Denmark 12.5 (25) 9.7 (27)
Germany 12.3 (27) 10.4 (22)
United Kingdom 11.1 (32) 9.4 (30)
South Korea 11.1 (33) 9.9 (26)
EU-25 10.5 (37) 8.5 (34)
Japan 10.4 (39) 9.5 (29)
Poland 9.8 (43) 7.8 (41)
Ukraine 9.7 (44) 6.3 (47)
South Africa 9.5 (46) 7.9 (39)
Spain 9.4 (47) 7.5 (44)
Italy 9.2 (48) 7.7 (42)
France 8.7 (50) 6.2 (48)
Argentina 8.1 (52) 3.9 (70)
Iran 7.5 (60) 5.3 (56)
Turkey 5.3 (75) 3.3 (78)
Mexico 5.2 (76) 3.9 (71)
Brazil 5.0 (83) 2.0 (100)
China 3.9 (99) 2.7 (88)
Indonesia 2.4 (122) 1.4 (111)
Pakistan 2.1 (131) 0.8 (132)
India 1.9 (140) 1.0 (120)
Developed 14.1 11.4
Developing 3.3 2.1
World 5.6 4.0

That is the most asinine B.S. I've ever heard...we're talking about global warming, not per capita area warming. Let's say that AGW is real (not likely) Let's say we can do something about it (again, not likely), Then you have to limit the total amount of the cause. That means the places that emit the largest amounts have to limit their output the most. That's per square mile, not per capita... The U.S. and China are ~ the same size, so China needs to limit their production more.

Actually, I don't believe that humans can have more than a negligible impact one way or the other and I don't believe that anyone has shown substantial risk that that will change in the near future.

China has problems in their most congested areas that DIRECTLY affect the health of their citizens, that is much more important to address than some make believe 'we need to control you more' b.s.

And, i can sense that you really aren't highly educated on both the issues nor the proposed solutions and negotiations. Everything I am saying is what is actually being discussed between all of the countries. You can ignore it, and therefore not learn, or show some humility and learn today.

Jaden

Excuse me, this is what the actual experts analyze.

To measure the actual impact of a country, you have to look at the emissions per capita. Per person, people in the US are impacting the environment FAR more than in China. This means that the US has to do a lot more per person as far as change.

It's the same thing. Economists more accurately measure the GDP per capita to analyze the issues.

Third, you guys keep ignoring the fact that China is barely first ONLY due to a population of over a billion. The US is 2nd, with 1/3 the population! If you combine the environmental impact of the developed countries, especially the west, it is factually true that they are responsible for FAR more impact than the developed world combined, including China.

I understand that these facts are hard.

originally posted by: Masterjaden

originally posted by: LDragonFire
With the threat from climate change a worldwide issue that will only get worst, what should the other countries of the world do about the climate change denial from the USA?

I don't think the rest of the world has the political will to militarily attack the USA on this issue.

I wonder if the countries of the world could band together and force the USA to comply threw economic means?

NOTHING! There isn't a damn thing the rest of the world can do about it!

The US leads the world when it comes to climate change denial, but most of the world believes its happening now, and something should be done about it.

Then let the rest of the world tax their people into poverty for something that is non-changeable even if it exists (not likely through anthropgenic means-either caused by or reversible by)...

Jaden

It is changeable, and there are a lot of well-researched solutions. But it sounds like people like you have no interest in educating yourselves on these issues. It's willful ignorance.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: LDragonFire

The world should mind its own business, and frankly so should the USA. If the rest of the world wants to see results, they should set an example for the US to follow...but that wont happen, because climate change is not man made, and so far all efforts to stop this boogeyman have turned out to be tax collection schemes.

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: LDragonFire

What part is the one to be debated, LDragon the fact that the earth is going into a global cycle of climate change or the debate that we humans are the ones that is causing it and should be paying for it, so somebody else (no earth) will profit from it.

SIGNATURE : Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.

originally posted by: projectbane
a reply to: LDragonFire


Climate change haha

Please grow up and see that climate change is natural. Its the world changing and cleansing if you will. Not man made. But the dawn of the next extinction.

Then let the rest of the world tax their people into poverty for something that is non-changeable even if it exists (not likely through anthropgenic means-either caused by or reversible by)...

Jaden

I simply can not fathom these beliefs. There is no debate nor evidence to the contrary that the climate change we are observing and experiencing is man made.

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." -American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." -American Chemical Society (2004)

"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." -American Geophysical Union (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." -American Medical Association (2013)

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." -American Meteorological Society (2012)

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Climate change is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." -American Physical Society (2007)

"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." -U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2005)

This page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus.

The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many many many more.

The following national or international scientific bodies that reject anthropogenic global warming:

The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations. Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world's environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community. No one should underestimate the imagination that will be required, nor the scientific effort, nor the unprecedented co-operation we shall have to show. We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.

—Margaret Thatcher, 1990

It is changeable, and there are a lot of well-researched solutions. But it sounds like people like you have no interest in educating yourselves on these issues. It's willful ignorance.

couldn't have said it better myself.

on topic, there is little the world can do about america's prevalent denialism. it is up to america to educate itself, and listen to those who are actually in a position to make a judgement on the scientific evidence. not possesing relevant scientific knowledge disqualifies anyone from having the right to make claims disputing the scientific consensus.

a lot of people do not even understand the basis of scientific method, let alone the definition of its terms. "it's only a theory" is an argument i hear a lot. understanding the difference between a scientific theory, and a regular theory would dispell the majority of science denialists' agruments.

scientific theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

regular theory: something someone made up to explain what they don't understand.

a reply to: amazing

No we're not we're talking about another faction getting PAID.
AND shooting down papers and IDEAS that might interrupt the flow off cash in the name of scientific method.

whoops, wrong thread

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE
First...I don't believe in man-made, end of the world, OMFG climate change as others do. Yes, the climate changes and yes it is changing in cycles. But the "Global Warming" crowd bought off some scientists and told lies and now says..."but this time with climate change it is real". Forget it! You guys and Al Gore can go hang out together.

But...while the USA is being environmentally concerned and active in many areas, why do we need to lead or follow on this? The rest of the world on one day wants us out of their business...the next day its "come and fight our war" or "give us money". The rest of the world can go to hell (for the most part). I'm kinda sick of being the parent when everyone is there to pick up their allowance and protection, but never there for anything else. Like a bad kid.

Except that most of the scientists that are bought and paid for and lying are bought by big oil, coal and power companies and that most of the scientists...even from universities and organizations that are highly respected are telling us that man made global warming is real. The true measure of a person's understanding of climate change is if they invoke the name of al gore...as if he invented this. No...we're talking about real scientists doing real scientific research.

Are you serious?

The oil/energy/gas companies have been buying out scientists and politicians to claim global warming is NOT real. You have to be crazy to think the pro-global warming people are energy company paid for. It's the opposite. That's half of the reason that we've made so little progress.

The energy companies and corporations have WAY more money to throw at it.