Yep. I don't doubt that data might indicate the Earth is warming, but I'm not so sure it's entirely because of fossil fuels. Co2 actually expedites plant growth.

If the Earth is warming, concrete and deforestation are a huge contribitor. Most of the thermometers used for temp data are on friggen airports.

Climate is an incredibly complex and dynamic system. Humans certainly have an impact on the environment, no one can deny that. But global warming seems more to do with implementing a new tax to battle congress's feverish appetite for growth.

indeed, that's always how it's seemed to me. I'm too cynical about people, particularly powerful people in politics, to see the washington side of the environmental debate as anything but a new power base, the liberal alternative to military spending - an arbitrarily large hole into which money (and with it, favors, influence, and power) can be funneled, and which will likely never become obsolete, unlike more practical problems, which tend to eventually be resolved if serious energy is invested in them, and so make a poor long-term investment for political parties. Fix a practical problem, and sure, people are happy for a while, but before you know it, it's "what've you done for me lately?"

Never waste a chance to exploit a disaster.

Or however else it goes..

Co2 actually expedites plant growth.

To a certain point. It's not always the limiting factor, but it is in most places.

Most of the thermometers used for temp data are on friggen airports.

Wasn't this a moot point since they rolled out many, many new ways of measuring?

But global warming seems more to do with implementing a new tax to battle congress's feverish appetite for growth.

How else would you suggest paying for pollution and clean-up?

Wasn't this a moot point since they rolled out many, many new ways of measuring?

New methods won't count for a while. It takes decades for data to become meaningful.

How else would you suggest paying for pollution and clean-up?

I don't want the United States federal government to do anything else. They have done enough harm to the world already. The best way to curb fossil fuel consumption would be to give them less money, not more.

The best way to curb fossil fuel consumption would be to give them less money, not more.

Or, maybe, to cut back on the stupid government sanctioned subsidies for non-renewable resources, and instead reallocate that wasteful spending towards renewable energy subsidies. That way you create more jobs in the renewable energy sector, cut back on pollution, and curb the contribution of man made carbon dioxide poolution. Also, cut the umbilical between OPEC and the auto industry, and allow for cars with 100+ MPGs to be manufactured. This is already a thing, but super efficient cars cuts into OPEC nations profits.

I bet there are over a dozen things, easy things, that can be done to better curb our pollution. For fucks sake, if we are talking about cleaning up our pollution, let that be a community service program designed to help illegal aliens with no prior violent convictions to expedite their nationalization. That would help the immigration process, it woukd lower the already stressed judicial services, and would clean up our nation all at the same time, all without spending absurd amount of extra money.

As with a lot of things, the solutions are simple, and easily obtainable. But, TPTB dont want the general population in on this secret because then they wouldnt be ablebtobjustify their extra taxes or their usurpation of powers and authorities.

It takes decades for data to become meaningful.

Why?

The best way to curb fossil fuel consumption would be to give them less money, not more.

Give less money to the government? So it should go to a private entity? Or are you saying we should do something else like end oil subsidies? I could get behind that!

EDIT: I was downvoted for...?

EDIT: I was downvoted for...?

Because you still don't understand.

So it should go to a private entity?

I don't want my money used to combat climate change. I don't believe that is an appropriate use of my money, primarily because lifestyle changes would be more effective.

Because you still don't understand.

So you downvote people after you confuse them? How rude! This sub boggles my mind sometimes.

I don't want my money used to combat climate change. I don't believe that is an appropriate use of my money, primarily because lifestyle changes would be more effective.

But which is more practical in today's global society?

Cry me a fucking river.

And your response to my second question?

This.

Wrong video?

The problem with massive problems like this is that they are going to require "impractical" solutions, at least in terms of modern lifestyles. Basically we have to stop burning fossil fuels, and start geo-engineering. Even then it's probably too late. :(

NASA's data shows the overall temperature of the Earth is increasing. Measurements from the British Empire shows a correlation between the increase and the industrial revolution. However, neither side will help with unbiased research. And yes, Florida would be underwater, no ice caps, and the Old Ones released from Antarctica wouldn't be enough evidence for the deniers. And the supporters are just as bad, trust me, I'm one of them.

Just because the temps have risen over the past few decades does not indicate why the temps are rising, nor does it mean they will continue to rise. And it certainly doesn't mean our federal government can fix the situation. They will only make it worse. They will only make it fucking worse! Not trying to be rude here, but it scares the shit out of me when people talk about "fixing" global warming.

So what's your solution to combat climate change (global warming, ocean acidification, etc)?

I'm saying the problem solves itself.

More humans = environment destruction = less humans.

Considering continued destruction of the planet would wipe out humanity (in the long run), I wouldn't call that "problem solved".

wipe out humanity

Are you kidding me?

We've only finite resources, no?

Did I mention anything about fixing it? No. Calm down.

The main issue is whether the global warming is anthropogenic (manmade) or not.

The issue some scientists and people have with manmade climate change is that it has been proven that earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling, naturally. Also, CO2 is not the strongest greenhouse gas. In fact, 95% of the major contributions to the greenhouse effect is because of water vapor. Only 0.28% is because of humans additional contribution to the natural order of things, and a little more than half of that human contribution is because of human made carbon dioxide.

Yet, carbon dioxide is the "culprit" targetted by the media and politicians. Opponents to anthropogenic climate change argue that because of this, humans cant possibly be the main reason why our climate is changing.

They go further to point out that the illegit targeting of carbon dioxide by the media and politicians is only good for justification for their "carbon tax" laws they are trying (and i think they already succeeded) to pass, which is a setup itself, allowing a few select individuals to make a shit ton of money through the carbon credit exchanges.

Also, by demonizing carbon dioxide, the federal government has successfully duped the world to justify their nationalization of the energy industry, accounting again for larger profits for a select few.

This political trend, along with the scientific data of the real greenhouse gases contributions tend to make folks question the authenticity of anthropogenic climate change proponents arguments. Especially since they always seem to conveniently "forget about water vapors role in climate change."

I'm not burnt out on the subject of man-made global warming, I'm keenly interested in watching the absurd theory as it slowly falls apart. I've always known that AGW was a crock of shit, but in the early years of the quasi-religious cult of AGW, there was little resistance to the absurdities. Then, gradually, their lies and deceptions began to be exposed by skeptics, their computer models failed one after another, their prediction did not come true, and people began to realize that it was all a big lie, designed to control people and manipulate them for political power and financial gain. But lately the wheels have come off AGW, as we enter the 18th year with no global warming. I'm eagerly looking forward to watching a stake being pounded through the black heart of this social vampire.

You seem a little polarized.

One side won't admit it is real until Florida is under water.

Well, I don't think the people who deny climate change will ever change their mind unless Big Oil stops lining their pockets.

The other side won't admit their efforts to stop it have no practical chance of working.

What makes you say that? Most people on "the other side" just want to reduce pollution and shift to renewable resources.

[deleted]

You're just saying things won't reverse, though. The practical goal isn't reversal for the near-future; it's a slow-down in trends. Followed by a plateau. THEN a reversal of trends.

Co2 actually expedites plant growth.

To a certain point. It's not always the limiting factor, but it is in most places.

Most of the thermometers used for temp data are on friggen airports.

Wasn't this a moot point since they rolled out many, many new ways of measuring?

But global warming seems more to do with implementing a new tax to battle congress's feverish appetite for growth.

How else would you suggest paying for pollution and clean-up?

indeed, that's always how it's seemed to me. I'm too cynical about people, particularly powerful people in politics, to see the washington side of the environmental debate as anything but a new power base, the liberal alternative to military spending - an arbitrarily large hole into which money (and with it, favors, influence, and power) can be funneled, and which will likely never become obsolete, unlike more practical problems, which tend to eventually be resolved if serious energy is invested in them, and so make a poor long-term investment for political parties. Fix a practical problem, and sure, people are happy for a while, but before you know it, it's "what've you done for me lately?"