Do we do too little in attempts to combat climate change, or too much?
We do too much in ATTEMPTS to combat climate change.
More could be done to positively impact the environment.
Too much. Leftists are trying to destroy entire coal mining towns and render people without their livelihoods just because of some pseudoscience that hasn't been proven.
We can’t change the climate.
For you hoax believers, what is normal planet temperature? We are only looking at temperatures for the last 100 years. What about temperature for the last, every how old you say the Earth is?
I hope this works. This image says it all. Please look.
The average global temperature of 1996 was 57.8 F, not 58.7 F like it was in 2016.
Apparently that meme came out in May of 2016. Here is a link to an analysis of it. environmentalforest.blogspot.com/2016/05/1996-versus-2016-in-facebook-meme.html?m=1
Here is another link. This doesn’t directly refer to the 1996 and 2016, but it discusses the claim of no warming in the last couple of decades.
The author is only using the raw RSS satellite data. That is problematic on multiple levels. This article talks about one of the issues with the data the author is using.
Additionally, Marc Morano (the author), is not a reliable source. He is not a scientist. He has no degrees in any scientific area. He has never performed any scientific research. He has a BA in political science. He has zero credibility in climate science or any scientific area. Here is profile on him.
This guy has no problem telling lies to get his political agenda advanced. It has pretty much been his career.
It would be hard to find a worse source for scientific information.
The USA does way more for earths well being. The rest of the population on earth needs to catch up.
I think preserving habitat should take priority over fuel emissions. We aren't even the top contributer to noxious emissions.
Technically if you consider total over time we top it off, but I agree with your point.
A person who thinks climate change is bad doesn't understand the fundamentals of science. Climate stagnation is what we should really fear. Change is good and nothing should ever remain the same. To those who then argue "it's the rate though that is concerning", again, nothing stays the same. No change is in increments.
Are you saying the large majority of scientists who have weighed in on this don’t understand the fundamentals of science?
I say that they have been blinded by millions of dollars that they get shelled out to them for saying that there is a problem. If a scientists were a corporation, the left would, and rightly so, be screaming conflicts of interest.
I would use your exact statement to explain all those conservatives in Congress that refuse to acknowledge it.
And you would be 110% correct to assume that. The congress follows the money and not the people. Just like the scientists today.
So all the data is just made up?
Not saying any data is made up. Saying that change is a good thing, has always happened, will continue to happen. Also believe that it's ridiculous how everything bad that happens is blamed on global warming. As if, before the discovery of petroleum the world was an oasis of constant and predictable weather.
Except the change is very clearly happening an order of magnitude faster than ever in natural history
Did you even read my original comment? Why are you wasting your time with that when I've already affirmed that that argument isn't going to sway me? The 1500's was famous for the rapid warming that occurred which allowed North Atlantic sailing to happen.
See how its fairly smooth and suddenly spikes up?
Please, if you are open to a different view at fossil fuels check out this link
Likewise, if you have a book that will get me to reconsider my stance on climate change please share. Below is not from the book but what I think
I am saying that there is a hidden agenda to promote climate change. Colleges get grant money for pro climate change talk. No grants for an opposing view. Climate change goes with this political concept of a world order. Politicians get money from people when they say they are gonna fight against dirty coal, etc..
No meltdown. Christians get slaughtered, sold to slavery, kidnapped in Middle East and he doesn’t address it. Instead he talks of climate change.
I loved the meltdown conservatives had when the pope acknowledged climate change. My grandmother literally said he had no place getting involved with that. Party loyalty before environment, religion, and country.
There’s no fighting it.
We don’t prepare for climate change...
As of today, there is still ZERO scientific evidence that can tell us 100% for certain the efficacy of making changes.
We know the globe is warming because we’re coming out of an ice age. We’re pretty sure we’re contributing more than zero. But we still have no evidence for “cut back on X by Y amount and we’ll stop global warming”. It does not exist
Virtually all the evidence indicates humans are the main cause of the current climate change.
The next step is you will claim you can find a scientist that disagrees.
I am sure you can, but does evidence support their statements. Many of the climate skeptics have never published a peer-reviewed paper about climate. ( www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php ) I can easily find over a 100 scientists (me included) that concludes human are the main cause of the current climate changes to every one you find that concludes otherwise.
A recent review of peer-reviewed papers found the following: “During 2013 and 2014, only 4 of 69,406 authors of peer-reviewed articles on global warming, 0.0058% or 1 in 17,352, rejected anthropogenic global warming (AGW)” ( journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0270467616634958 )
97% of the papers conclude that global warming has been exacerbated by human activity. The disagreeing 3% were replicated for a 2015 study, and it was found the results of those 3% of papers had biased, faulty results. ( qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/ )
Was that response to me? I don’t think you read my comments. Read it closer
This is what happens when you just copy and paste stuff and don’t read what the person is saying
My bad. It was early in the morning and my brain my not have been functioning. I read it as saying the same thing some else said earlier. Guess I didn’t read it very closely. Sorry about that.
No worries 👍
I should have read your username and got coffee!
Mother nature is a b!t€h
There was an ice age, and then there wasn’t, there also was 0 car, aerosol cans, and large scale farms. So who caused that? Fucking nature.
Yes, the Earth has cycles that generally occur over tens of thousands of years. But the changes we have have seen over last few hundred years is equivalent to changes that usually take 10,000-15,000 years. The major cause of this is a disruption of the carbon cycle due to burning fossil fuels. Carbon stored in the ground for hundreds of millions of years is being pumped into the atmosphere.
It’s not just that thing are changing, it’s the rate of change and the trajectory we are currently on that is the problem.
Throw more virgins into volcanoes. You’ll get the same results.
Another SCAM dreamed up by the RATS to damage America.
Get a grip.
We’re spending actual trillions of dollars over an eight inch rise in sea level, average, over the past 150 years. We spend this money not to stop the sea rise, but allegedly to slow the rise, optimistic estimates like in the Paris accord say we can delay this change by 9 months over the course of now to 2100. How many livelihoods have to be limited, disrupted, and destroyed, to save coastal cities from slow, predictable, and escapable damage?
How many livelihoods have been destroyed by the raging firestorm on the west coast that's a direct result of a newly dryer climate? How many were destroyed in the two massive hurricanes empowered by warmer sea waters?
There were more dangerous and damaging fires in 1933 and 1991. How can you say that the 2017 fires are as bad as they are because of climate change? Wouldn’t that give me the license to say that global warming was even worse in 1933?
Harvey and Irma weren’t close to being the most dangerous hurricanes in history. Katrina were worse of course. So was Charley, Camille, Labor Day 1935, 1900 Gavelston... did global warming cause all of those hurricanes?
They may have done a lot of damage, but it’s not as if hurricanes and fires started when global warming started.
Less than in third world countries who are dependent on fossil fuels to keep hospitals running.
Just read an article about GE cutting jobs in their industrial power department because of a rise in alternative energy’s. Competition drives technology and I guess it’ll force company’s to get in the game.
We as individuals do too little, but the government itself does too much.
We do enough.
I’m much more concerned with Monsanto and the like and all the chemicals they’re pumping into the world. The earth will take care of itself regarding the climate, but it’d be nice if we could stop poisoning ourselves.
I think the US, it taking steps forward:
Our cars, electric trucks, recycle, repurposing products, mulching, construction and products, wind, solar, nuclear.
Other nations (China-India) must step up.
Hi. I have a doctorate in atmospheric science.
1. We are very much aware that earth has natural cycles. When we say that humans are responsible for the current climate change, this means we have already taken anything natural into account.
2. The science behind global warming is very simple. So simple that human induced climate change was predicted in the 1800s. Greenhouse gases, which are what allow Earth to be warm enough to live in, absorb radiation leading to further warming. Think of being in a greenhouse. More greenhouse gases -> more warming.
3. Warming is NOT uniform. There are regional differences, with some places (like the Arctic) warming faster than others. It’s called global warming because if you average global temps into one value, it increases over time.
4. We are not making it up, nor have any reason to make it up. Most of our research grants are not even for long-term climate change. Many of our efforts are to improve predictability in the current climate.
My concern is that we have less and less global climate data as we go farther back in time. We are able to take snapshots of history through methods such as examining ice cores I believe. I worry that everyone is jumping the gun by believing that current warming is catastrophic.
That we even have to debate FACTS is ridiculous.
It’s like our house is on fire and we’re debating what to set the thermostat at.
You might want to contact the institution that gave you your doctorate and ask for a refund. More stupidity
You may not like them, but facts are not stupid.
I'm not debating facts. I'm trying to clarify my understanding of the issue by taking the chance to ask this person who claims to have a PhD
We do have less observations the further back in time that we go. Our most accurate high res data starts with the satellite era in the 1970s. That being said, there are other ways. Ice cores give us a very long record of the composition of the atmosphere, including greenhouse gases.
I understand your concern about people jumping the gun. I think (personal opinion) that both political parties are part of the problem. On one end you have people saying we are liars, on the other end you have people saying we are all doomed. I think most non-politicians fall somewhere in between. It’s dangerous to fully ignore climate change, especially if your family lives near a coastline or if you care about how things will be when you’re a senior citizen due to impacts on health. It’s also dangerous to claim that every severe weather event is due to climate change (we have no way of knowing if a hurricane, for example, would not have happened if the climate wasn’t changing).
One thing that I find very interesting is that most people don’t question that the earth has natural cycles and has previously experienced ice ages and warming periods, even though their discovery and understanding fully depended on long term data prior to the satellite era.
I do nothing either way. While climate change is real there is almost no evidence showing how much influence man has on it.
And if I was not driving I could easily Google a scientist that would refute that claim
Trumpnik destroying two national monuments to allow the Koch Brothers to strip mine for coal and drill for oil doesn’t help the environment at all ; let alone , maintaining the public trust in keeping public lands for future generations to enjoy.
Cynically: too much. We passed the tipping point already. ☠️
How on earth have you concluded that we're doing too much to combat climate change
Don’t give me wrong, I think we should go out it was all of our might. But scientifically, it’s too late.
Lol. Do neither of you know your history? It's not the end of the world.
I don't understand that response Surpressed_ID
"Don't you know your history" is a pretty stupid thing to say about something unparalleled in history. Anthropomorphic climate change to this scale has never been seen before.
It's true that it is changing faster than it has in recorded history. I won't dispute that because I'd be straight up wrong. It is not the fastest it has ever changed though based on research into prehistoric (pre-written history) climates. We saw significantly higher sea levels during the early and middle bronze age. The medieval warming period saw a slight increase in sea levels and was then followed by a period of global cooling known as the little ice age. The little ice age ended around 1850. So since then the average global temperature has been rising. Although it's been rising at a rapid pace, there is currently little support that the increase in warming is cataclysmic in any way. Now to introduce my opinion, I believe that the increase in temperature is not so significantly greater compared to normal warming trends to allocate significant resources to try to alter the climate of the Earth which is still not completely understood.
Makem, while I disagree, I respect your style of argument. It is reasoned and well presented. It is not the end of the world, it just may not be so good for us.
Do you not know your science? It’s the end of us
Lalala we don’t hear your idiocy
We do too little, but the rest of the World does a lot less. Some countries like Brazil and China are actually making things worse!
Well China is taking very big steps in reducing their footprint. Much more than the US has ever done.
True they are already the biggest manufacturers of solar panels - where the US should be but no we continue to pursue outdated costly fuels harmful to the environment for pure political reasons .
What we're not doing enough of is planning in advance for combating rising sea water in low lying areas worldwide. We're not going to stop global warming which is the normal result of our climate currently in a warming cycle. Talk to any climatologist and they'll tell you that the globe has undergone climate cycle changes from warm to cold/cold to warm for millions of years.
I wonder if the Government indoctrination centers even teach about the ice ages anymore.
Maui, the Earth DOES undergo natural climate change cycles, that’s true. No climatologist would deny that. But does the Earth’s natural cycles explain why we’re currently warming up around ten times faster than any previous natural process? Please, if you could, explain that sudden change in rate if it has nothing to do with humankind.
There has been no warming in 23 years, according to weather satellites. Stop the hysteria.
Again, no one has lived long enough to experience previous cycles. There is no evidence that this current warming cycle is stronger/weaker than any other before. Climate cycles take centuries to begin and then end. The last global cooling event (aka "Little Ice Age") peaked in the late 1700s. We do have evidence of this when we read Washington's account of what his army had to endure. Whatever measurements of CO2 that get alarmists all fired up is minuscule compared to the overall dynamics of the earth's climate cycles and changes.
To think man at this point in time can change the climate on a living planet that's fully capable and proven to maintain its homeostasis is small minded and rather funny.
We use over a third of all of the land on the entire planet just for raising crops and animals. We are burning through large amounts of carbon that took millions of years to form. To say humans can't have an effect in the environment is silly.
There is no such thing as global warming. It's all crap that has been made up.
Natural warming due to climate cycles is now in progress and has been for several years. Eventually there will be a cooling cycle; all natural, all normal. The problem is that no one lives long enough to experience these full cycle changes, therefore, we don't fully understand.
Stop burning cow chit in India!
Too much in the wrong direction. We should be combating GW with evolutionary science.
Evolutionary science says things change, they have to. Too many scientists are trying to stop that change. Wouldn’t climate change be part of evolution?
Why are we trying to combat GW when history has taught us (if nothing else) to evolve or meet tje challenge.
Eco terrorist leader Al Gore started this crap. Admit your looking for another handout. Gimmi Gimmi Gimmi Gimmi Gimmi. No more socialist tactics will be tolerated.
Too many people are looking at this as a burden and not as the global economic opportunity that it is. Countries like Denmark got into wind power on the front end (for energy independence) and are now the global leaders of that technology. China is poised to be the solar energy and battery manufacturing powerhouse. Hydrogen fuel is the next big green energy opportunity and where is the USA? ...with our heads buried in the tar sands!
This user is currently being ignored
For one, it is that smog problem that motivates them to rapidly adopt clean energy technology. Much like it motivated the USA to adopt Clean Air policy decades ago.
You are indeed looking at this as a burden. IJS
It takes coal to make a wind turbine and oil to maintain and run them.
It doesn’t take any coal to make them if your electricity comes from another source.
OK, I’ll concede to coal-based coke in the steel manufacturing process and perhaps also as the carbon source in the carbon fiber turbines. ...but I’m standing by the source of electricity being independent and more and more likely to not be from coal-fired power plants.
...and it’s better for the environment to have the carbon in these materials rather than being released as CO2.
WE, as in the US, are doing enough. Now, India and China? It's your turn.
How about we region the Paris Accords?
Just have then stop burning cow chit as cooking fuel. China burns that bad coal from North Korea.
Much more. It should be out top priority. Nothing is more important than the world we live in...especially green scraps of paper or imaginary balance sheets.
*We need to do
We need to do more to reduce our fossil fuel consumption.
We spend too much of our time, brain capability, classroom opportunity, and treasure on Al Gore's Folly.
The focus should be on curbing pollution overall and finding new ways using technology to use less fossil fuels.
The “doom and gloom” global warming “eminent danger”, later renamed, “man-made climate change” is just a massive tax scheme.
Taxes that would do everything but be used for the environment.
But what if climate change is a hoax and we make the world a better place for no reason?
We spend more on climate change than cancer, aids, diabetes and heart disease combined every year. It's bankrupting economies. Enough.
Stop beating a dead horse, deadcat...we heard you the first time.
Also, most people who believe in climate change don’t really care what Al Gore thinks, so please stop bringing him up in conversation. Al gore does not represent climate change and his characteristics and actions do not invalidate the serious threat of climate change.
There is no threat.
You can deny that Al Gore is the leader of your cult all you want, but he is the face of it and deserves the blame for indoctrinating a whole generation of children with his evil propaganda film.
Sure, cowboy! Because literally every other country and 97% of scientists are wrong! Totally!
97% percent of scientists do not agree with Al Gore. Stop spreading propaganda.
Combatting climate change does more than just helps the earth. Even if you don’t believe that climate change is a thing, you should still believe in fighting for a less fossil fuel dependent future.
Not in our lifetimes, but soon enough Oil is going to dry out, natural gas is going to deplete, coal is going to be used up. So finding a way to rely on renewable energy is good for natural defense and the well being of the country.
It’s also good for the economy as millions of new jobs could be opened in the next few decades on simply renewable energy.
It’s also good for citizens as energy can be cheaper, and access to energy can be given to a larger group of people.
Finally, it’s good for future research by allowing energy to be more of a leisure rather than a luxury. With access to energy in bulk, comes more research that could improve the quality of life.
So in the slim chance if the earth really isn’t warming due to our crap, there’s a lot of positive to go back on.
It is possible to believe the climate is changing (always has as long as the Earth has existed), and also believe that man may be playing a part in it, but to be skeptical that government (US and world governments) are using it as a means to tax and control us, and won't or can't do a damn thing to fix it.
So you’re claiming that climate change is a way for the government to control us?
We can’t stop the climate from changing. It’s been changing for four billion years. Al Gore’s cult is one of the biggest hoaxes ever to be indoctrinated into children by evil people.
Remember global warming ? LOL
What is it called now, irradic climate shift patterns?
Global warming...is a type of climate change...saying one doesn't mean you don't think the other is happening.
Al gore used to call it global warming. Hahahahahaha
That doesn't change the fact that global warming is a type of climate change
Tell that to gore with his huge house, private jet, limo running with AC blasting for an hour.
So what if he's a hypocrite? It doesn't mean he's factually wrong or that global warming isn't a type of climate change.
Hypocrite =/= False
Definitely ruins his credibility
It doesn't ruin the credibility of the 90% of other climate scientists who agree with him, it just makes him a bad messenger
So apparently if it is hot , global warming (gw)
If it snows , gw
If it rains , gw
Climate change is a term referring to a period of rapid freezing and rapid heating, which has been sped up due to human influences.
Global warming is the long term trend of heating over the course of averages from decades and trends.
The weather has nothing to do with earthquakes and hurricanes have become more common after periods of heating.
Many fires are caused by man, IT'S CALLED ARSON. Of course you'd have more arson occur as a high population is in an area.
The sun will shine tomorrow , is that gw ?
You aren’t helping your argument moldy. This whole thread makes you look dumb and ignorant.
Actually I am mocking gw people because as soon as evidence comes out that shoot down their argument , they change the name of it irrelevant brand it or shift the whole philosophy.
Sure, but you aren’t even in the ballpark. Mocking would be like, Bush said trickle down economics would work. Or I could beat MJ in one on one -Lavar Ball. Dumb things actually said. But will the sun shine tomorrow? GW. That’s just stupid.
I guess u don’t understand humor . FAIL
so were you sarcastic the whole time? That wasn’t apparent.
I don’t know what Show of Hands does, but if it’s anything then it’s too much.
Wow there's a lot of scientifically illiterate people on this app lol
Oh ya sure, NASA and the majority of scientists are wrong but a bunch of random people on the Internet are right even though they don't understand or study the topic for their career.
This statement proves that you’ve only researched on side of the issue. There are many well-qualified, intelligent scientists with PhDs that do not think climate change is caused by humans.
Wanna provide a name?
I’d ask Rupert Murdoch. His $30,000,000 estate in southern California just burned to the ground in a fire storm attributed to the effects of climate change. Maybe Fox will now see the light.
Far too much. We are flies trying to swat a human – the climate is far too big and complex for us to have a significant impact on it, either positive or negative. We didn’t break it, and we can’t fix it.
• No, if we want to control the climate, it’s actually fairly simple: (1) Figure out how to control storms, sunspots, and coronal mass ejections on the sun. (2) There is no step #2, because you’re never going to solve step #1.
Exactly. We should focus on how to adapt to the actual changes.
To suggest that the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doesn't change the climate would be anti intellectual and false.
To suggest since the dawn of the industrial revolution we haven't added to the total amount in the atmosphere, would also be categorically false and anti intellectual.
Notice how scientists in the mainstream, an overwhelming amount, say we impact the environment to the level in which the amount of carbon dioxide offsets the natural levels which contribute to a warming effect. It's scientifically proven. Oh but sure, I'm sure NASA is wrong but some random dude on the Internet is right.
To suggest that the current carbon dioxide levels have never been experienced on Earth is categorically false.
To suggest the current level of carbon dioxide has the Earth on the edge of doom is anti intellectual and false.
Well I haven't stated that we're on the edge of catastrophe but some scientists would.
I'm not saying that the current levels haven't ever been experienced before, but the intervals of rapid change in warming and cooling.
I notice it’s usually intelligent scientists with degrees in their fields who believe climate change is a serious issue.
I also notice it’s Republicans with no relevant education who think it’s not.
It’s not worth talking to them, they’re too far gone.
Notice how scientist, an overwhelming amount, have agreed the increase in man-made carbon dioxide will cause an unnatural high amount of water vapor which has never manifested to those scientist predicted level.
Notice these intelligent scientist are still blindly followed even after their repeated failure to be accurate. I guess some people are too far gone. Not worth my time to interact with those followers.
This is the kind of delusion that's dangerous for the human race to indulge in.