…about Global Warming.
Regardless of whatever the possible arguments and solutions are about this global issue, along with others, the world cannot afford inaction in these areas.
If people delay in these endeavors, the price will literally end up so high that nobody in the whole world will be able to pay it even after pooling all the money together.
The human race cannot afford inaction, however the earth itself will still continue and adapt.
Perhaps, our purpose is not to survive as a race but, as Michael Crichton put it, to clear the earth for whatever comes next, like a disease.
Precisely, the “human” world cannot afford inaction…
the world can and will ignore the “crisis” of “global warming” just as they ignored the “crisis” of “global cooling”…
the global warming alarmists need to invent a better doomsday scenario to sell their plans of world enslavement into a collectivist hell…
-Imp
What’s a Commie to do? First utopia didn’t work (an elite group or individual always has the pesky habit of filling in the power vacuum), and global warming is beginning to slide (they’re even calling it “climate change” now to cover all the bases).
What’s next? How about religion, specifically Christianity. It’s a tailor made vehicle to exploit wealth envy by extolling the virtues of poverty and the evil of wealth. Never mind that even though Jesus himself was demagoguing the issue lo these 2000 years ago, even he didn’t dare to suggest making poverty mandatory. But hey, they need some wiggle room to keep the priesthood supplied “according to their need”, and they just won’t feel comfortable without some big lie to work with and to keep themselves on an even keel. If they started actually believing their own propaganda, they’d end up being nothing more than a bunch of Jimmy Carters.
I saw a tshirt once that said, "Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, but he did make up global warming. I think global warming is just a bunch of hype to direct our attention away from the actual injustices that we have a chance of correcting.
I can’t believe a bunch of “smart” people don’t understand how pouring literally tons and tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is going to have absolutely no affect on the world’s environment… 
If you want to talk about “injustice”, then think about wiping out the world’s population along with other animal species if global temperature spikes continue to rise. There are already mass die-offs occurring, yet nobody cares until cities start blacking out and it seems a little hot outside with no air conditioning… Whatever; I’m planning on not reproducing anyway. 
Did you just get done watching an inconvenient truth or something?
No. I actually go to scientific sources for information.
Did you check on what the other scientists say?
Yeah, they know that carbon dioxide emissions are severely affecting climate changes in terms of rapidity and they can’t predict very much except for global temperature spikes in every climate range (up and down depending on seasons, but mostly up)–ecosystems face extinction and organisms may or may not adapt fast enough to survive. Carbon dioxide sinks around the world (vegetation) may die off on a scale that is unable to sustain the world’s levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If that happens, then vegetation die offs would inevitably lead to the wide-scale extinction of life as humanity knows it.
The thing to watch for is differing climate changes in regions in direct relation to vegetation.
Even the most intelligent scientists cannot predict the full ramifications–most are in agreement that things are looking grim (in terms of unknown ramifications) as opposed to deluding themselves into thinking there’s nothing to worry about.
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome warning the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book “The Doomsday Book,” said Americans were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and “by 2000 they [Americans] will, if permitted, be using all of them.” In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, “The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000.”
Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, “… civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” That was the same year that Sen. Gaylord Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 “… somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced there was “little or no chance” of oil being discovered in California, and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last only another 13 years. In 1949, the Secretary of the Interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight. Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, there’s a 1,000 to 2,500 year supply.
Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity? When Ehrlich predicted that England would not exist in the year 2000, what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the U.S. Department of the Interior warned that we only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think that environmental alarmism is any more correct now that they have switched their tune to manmade global warming?
Here are a few facts: Over 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees Fahrenheit. Most climate change is a result of the orbital eccentricities of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all human sources combined.
townhall.com/columnists/Walt … redictions
-Imp
Do I really need to list specie die offs due to rapid climate change? Because I can pull a bigger list than yours (as if that will convince you anyway).
Small scale predictions, not widely supported.
Not a respected source.
Media sensationalism.
Your the Humean here. What relevance does that have?
Not many scientists where behind it.
Individual, and not a great CV. Who cares?
Flawed research. This has what to do with present research?
Reams of evidence and consensus, neither of which exists in the cases you’ve mentioned.
Untrue.
Cite your sources.
While also absorbing similar amounts . . . . Carbon neutral.
Townhall is not a respected source.
Overall, great rhetoric. Too bad it doesn’t have anything to do with the issues. Of course, you don’t believe in “issues” as a concept, so what can one expect?
The situation is very bad. Very bad. But it is also moral-aesthetic. So if someone doesn’t care about nature or the future, there is no reason why they should. The destroyers of the Earth have imposed their agenda with violence and will continue to do so. This is why those who care about nature and about the future need to sympathize with and support eco-terrorists.
No, and so groups need to get every country moving forward, if only just a little at first. Country’s like china in an attempt to become right up there as a mega country of industry could ruin much of the world’s atmosphere and wild life if thry continue the way they are. Lets try and make the concermn on saving the planet for the whole world and get everyone to agree to a bill on the way the world can or cannot be treated, its the greatest action we can take at the moment.
From this we can do more but we need a builidng block and we need everyone to go along with it.
所I’m wording puts in you moыйuth here Chris and I am being sorry for that, but “Do we need to make huge changes to save our planet? A small change is more than enough, a small change in our paths can change the world itself.” xiiizen.wordpress.com/2007/10/15 … our-world/ The small few changes not being not close sufficient. Complete disassemblism. Refillable shampoзo containers: hellow the shampoo! Car-pooling: hellow the cars! Blood Diamond: hellow the blood coltan, hellow the blood cassiterite, hellow the blood copper, hellow the blood uranium, hellow the blood manganeseλλ, hellow the blood chromium, hellow the blood nickel, hellow the blood bauxite, hellow the blood cobalt, hellow the blood lead, hellow the blood zinc, hellow the blood moissтинокanite!(0/5索1екл+/(*पकरण #
Again, sorry Chris. Get out much? The beige tint in the sky. Green moon. The smell of dioxins in the morning. What the last wild aniжmal you will have been seeing? A p全igeon? A rat? A pig’s face?HcbYhещёФотограДокуентыыиответыसंस्कृВсе»
Sor图ry. Pig-faced sorts willn’t agree.谷歌 For the whole world concermn their gluttonous. On the saбving the planet for thμολόe whole震 worπισκέπld the billम्मिलित bad think简体中ing. "Passion and belief in the rightness of your cause can lead you to go to extrordinary lebgths in pursuit of victory."Jf~hY[аницU9 %,.,网-और బటన్లను7మీరెన్ను7chan/loli/కున్న
i contest that inaction is precisely what is needed. dont go anywhere, move your jobs and families within walking distances. Do you have a problem with that?
Agreed,అదృష్టవంతుడిగాsomeoneభావిస్తున్నాtoldనేరుగాmeవెబ్thatలోConfuciusప్రవేశించుsaid,వాడినచో “Aయొక్కwisemanమొదటిhasఫలితమునకుneverనేరుగాseenవెళ్ళిపోతారుtheఅదృష్టవంతుడిగాhousesభావిస్తున్నాofప్రవేశించుtheసమయంnextకాకుండాvillage”.
I dont feel like explaining why i dont understand. You must be superior.