Yes we must act before we get ALL of the data. That is becuase the datat that we do have makes it clear what course of action to take, second additional data is going to be of the same kind so it would not help either way, third it is not going to be possible to know the whole data ever. So the rational course of things is to begin to revert to status quo, You never need data to revert to status quo which worked out well for about 5 billion years. Only past 100 yrs made things worse.
Well if my fossil fuel availability is incorrect, can you tell me how much is still available (in circulation, production, and not yet obtained) on our planet? We do know more now than we did in the 70s. However, back then everyone was scared about “Global Cooling”, not Global Warming. No, the study of climate change did not start in the 70s as you say. It started back in the early 1800s with Joseph Fourier. Then, a couple years later Louis Aggasiz discovered the ice ages.
I don’t need to believe in that. That’s my job, that’s what I do.
CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the main drivers, yes.
Your note on the fossil fuel availabality is incorrect, sorry. And it has nothing to do about the “green movement”.
What you say that we still lack knowledge about our climate is only partialy correct. We do know a lot more than in the 70’s, when this whole thing about climate change (”global warming” at that time) started.
Sources are necessary for facts or data. What I have presented is common sense or rational thinking. I have already answered your question why it is foolish to keep waiting for test results before starting to deal with the matters. We need not prove any theory here, we are simply trying a resuscitation. Action not data is needed.
It is necessary to be perfectly correct, because we are still extremely unsure about many aspects of our climate. If we make hasty decisions without knowing exactly what could happen, we might trigger something to happen that would be far worse than the theorized Global Warming, which has been largely unproven by the majority of the data now. Seems foolish to cling to a failed theory that has lost much credibility.
Now you have taken up the other half of the project that has been taken by Cuddlendance. The issue you are talking about is known as NCD pandemic. This pandemic of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, coronary disease etc., is causing serious health consequences and at the same time harming the environment. Exercise through taking bike instead of car are good for both the planet and people. Great idea. More on my website name is same as my youtube handle with a com at the end.
Yes my friend, I did not make any typo or rash conclusions when I wrote -It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters!
We might perish long before we would precisely figure out how atoms work. Rest of the response is on my website. The link is on my channel and is the same as my youtube handle with a com at the end.
People eagerly scarf down a supersized big mac meal, and then do little or no exercise…so they become dangerously overweight! People drink six packs of sodas every day, while others get drunk every night. And you’re worried about air pollution effecting our health? People live longer today than they did 500 years ago! It is quite clear that most people care very little about their health. If they did, fast food, sodas, and alcohol would not be a lifestyle choice for them. Exercise would.
It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters? We still lack a great deal of knowledge about how our climate works. There is still quite a bit of unknowns. Meaning that if we are not absolutely, 100% certain about something with our climate…acting on these situations with incomplete knowledge could be devastating, more so than what is actually occurring. It is absolutely necessary that we understand everything perfectly before hastily acting.
Sure the facts are fairly conflicting But that does not mean no one knows facts. It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters. There is plenty of data avaialble. I would provide you direction if you need them.
Thinking belongs in the area of psychology or psychiatry.
Air pollution is a climatology matter and belongs in scientic realms.
Therefore the question has to be answered through facts.
Air being a part of the climatic changes has profound bearing on it.
By the very definition of it air pollution amounts to climatic change.
That way your answer lies in the question itself. What we need to learn is
the manner of air pollution huring our health. That needs reading.
Folopo2, do you believe that CO2 drives temperature change? Our resources are FINITE, but not quite as FINITE as the media and environmental extremists would like us all to think. If we continue consuming fossil fuels at the rate we do now, we will still have 450 years worth of fossil fuels. The reason that they say we only have 50 more years worth is based on location of fuels, as well as the Green Movement effects from forcing its moral beliefs on the entire world population.
regarding my “definition” to climate change, this is impossible to answer with 500 characters.
but I look towards “climate change” basically as a need + opportunity to change some of our habits and patterns. regardless of climate change caused solely by “humans”, there is another great crisis behind all the discussions related with climate change, that is “Energy security”. relying on FINITE resources cannot be prolonged over the lung-run…climate change is not only about “temperatures”…
yes, in a way, what the human species has done with thousands of other species it is indeed “natural selection”.
and it is also because of climate change (regardless to which extent it is “our” fault – of course it is not all because of us) that natural selection will play a role with us, once more. it won’t be the first time, but maybe it is the last.
let’s just hope our species can shift once more to a higher step of conscious awareness, as it happened with our acenstors in the past…
exterminated forever? I would say that is natural selection at work. I wish we still had those species around, but I also wish we still had saber tooth tigers and woolly mammoths. What do we need to do? How is air pollution exactly effecting our climate?
I agree that there is no need to believe when someone knows the facts. But most people don’t know the facts, and therefore believe what they think to be the facts. I know the theory behind global warming…which was renamed climate change when the temperature started to go down, starting 12 years ago. So what is your definition of “climate change”?
btw, what about all the major changes that human has caused in the environment, including the extermination of all the species exterminated FOREVER by mankind, including the air pollution, water pollution…
maybe you also need a “theory” for that, right?
wake up bro. regardless of “climate change”, we need to do something.
dear PainTrain87, for facts there is no need to “believe”.
I don’t believe that humans are playing a major role in the “global warming” (although the problem is not global warming itself, is climate change as a whole). I know it.
If you are interested in knowing the theory, you can google it. Or go back to your books, which is always nice.
Always question what you believe, sou you can get to KNOW the facts.
What do you mean? You asked if I can believe that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions and I said yes. Otherwise I wouldn’t be in an environmental school (they teach about environ ethics)
Yes we must act before we get ALL of the data. That is becuase the datat that we do have makes it clear what course of action to take, second additional data is going to be of the same kind so it would not help either way, third it is not going to be possible to know the whole data ever. So the rational course of things is to begin to revert to status quo, You never need data to revert to status quo which worked out well for about 5 billion years. Only past 100 yrs made things worse.
So are you telling me that we should take action before we have the data?
Well if my fossil fuel availability is incorrect, can you tell me how much is still available (in circulation, production, and not yet obtained) on our planet? We do know more now than we did in the 70s. However, back then everyone was scared about “Global Cooling”, not Global Warming. No, the study of climate change did not start in the 70s as you say. It started back in the early 1800s with Joseph Fourier. Then, a couple years later Louis Aggasiz discovered the ice ages.
Hi Paintrain.
I don’t need to believe in that. That’s my job, that’s what I do.
CO2 in the atmosphere is one of the main drivers, yes.
Your note on the fossil fuel availabality is incorrect, sorry. And it has nothing to do about the “green movement”.
What you say that we still lack knowledge about our climate is only partialy correct. We do know a lot more than in the 70’s, when this whole thing about climate change (”global warming” at that time) started.
Keep up your studies bro.
Sources are necessary for facts or data. What I have presented is common sense or rational thinking. I have already answered your question why it is foolish to keep waiting for test results before starting to deal with the matters. We need not prove any theory here, we are simply trying a resuscitation. Action not data is needed.
It is necessary to be perfectly correct, because we are still extremely unsure about many aspects of our climate. If we make hasty decisions without knowing exactly what could happen, we might trigger something to happen that would be far worse than the theorized Global Warming, which has been largely unproven by the majority of the data now. Seems foolish to cling to a failed theory that has lost much credibility.
Now you have taken up the other half of the project that has been taken by Cuddlendance. The issue you are talking about is known as NCD pandemic. This pandemic of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, coronary disease etc., is causing serious health consequences and at the same time harming the environment. Exercise through taking bike instead of car are good for both the planet and people. Great idea. More on my website name is same as my youtube handle with a com at the end.
Yes my friend, I did not make any typo or rash conclusions when I wrote -It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters!
We might perish long before we would precisely figure out how atoms work. Rest of the response is on my website. The link is on my channel and is the same as my youtube handle with a com at the end.
People eagerly scarf down a supersized big mac meal, and then do little or no exercise…so they become dangerously overweight! People drink six packs of sodas every day, while others get drunk every night. And you’re worried about air pollution effecting our health? People live longer today than they did 500 years ago! It is quite clear that most people care very little about their health. If they did, fast food, sodas, and alcohol would not be a lifestyle choice for them. Exercise would.
It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters? We still lack a great deal of knowledge about how our climate works. There is still quite a bit of unknowns. Meaning that if we are not absolutely, 100% certain about something with our climate…acting on these situations with incomplete knowledge could be devastating, more so than what is actually occurring. It is absolutely necessary that we understand everything perfectly before hastily acting.
Sure the facts are fairly conflicting But that does not mean no one knows facts. It is not necessary to be perfectly correct to start dealing with matters. There is plenty of data avaialble. I would provide you direction if you need them.
Thinking belongs in the area of psychology or psychiatry.
Air pollution is a climatology matter and belongs in scientic realms.
Therefore the question has to be answered through facts.
Air being a part of the climatic changes has profound bearing on it.
By the very definition of it air pollution amounts to climatic change.
That way your answer lies in the question itself. What we need to learn is
the manner of air pollution huring our health. That needs reading.
How do you think air pollution is effecting our climate?
Folopo2, do you believe that CO2 drives temperature change? Our resources are FINITE, but not quite as FINITE as the media and environmental extremists would like us all to think. If we continue consuming fossil fuels at the rate we do now, we will still have 450 years worth of fossil fuels. The reason that they say we only have 50 more years worth is based on location of fuels, as well as the Green Movement effects from forcing its moral beliefs on the entire world population.
Let us discuss people, How is air pollution exactly effecting our climate?
regarding my “definition” to climate change, this is impossible to answer with 500 characters.
but I look towards “climate change” basically as a need + opportunity to change some of our habits and patterns. regardless of climate change caused solely by “humans”, there is another great crisis behind all the discussions related with climate change, that is “Energy security”. relying on FINITE resources cannot be prolonged over the lung-run…climate change is not only about “temperatures”…
yes, in a way, what the human species has done with thousands of other species it is indeed “natural selection”.
and it is also because of climate change (regardless to which extent it is “our” fault – of course it is not all because of us) that natural selection will play a role with us, once more. it won’t be the first time, but maybe it is the last.
let’s just hope our species can shift once more to a higher step of conscious awareness, as it happened with our acenstors in the past…
exterminated forever? I would say that is natural selection at work. I wish we still had those species around, but I also wish we still had saber tooth tigers and woolly mammoths. What do we need to do? How is air pollution exactly effecting our climate?
I agree that there is no need to believe when someone knows the facts. But most people don’t know the facts, and therefore believe what they think to be the facts. I know the theory behind global warming…which was renamed climate change when the temperature started to go down, starting 12 years ago. So what is your definition of “climate change”?
btw, what about all the major changes that human has caused in the environment, including the extermination of all the species exterminated FOREVER by mankind, including the air pollution, water pollution…
maybe you also need a “theory” for that, right?
wake up bro. regardless of “climate change”, we need to do something.
dear PainTrain87, for facts there is no need to “believe”.
I don’t believe that humans are playing a major role in the “global warming” (although the problem is not global warming itself, is climate change as a whole). I know it.
If you are interested in knowing the theory, you can google it. Or go back to your books, which is always nice.
Always question what you believe, sou you can get to KNOW the facts.
So CO2 drives climate change?
What science do you base your theory, that CO2 drives climate change, off of? Please explain the science as well as the proof.
What do you mean? You asked if I can believe that climate change is caused by CO2 emissions and I said yes. Otherwise I wouldn’t be in an environmental school (they teach about environ ethics)
What exactly are you basing this off of?