Are You Worried About Climate Change?

[retiredguy123]

I am not worried about it at all. But, apparently, a lot of people claim that climate change or “global warming” will soon be killing people and may even threaten life on our planet. But, the TOTV web site actually has a “just for fun” thread making jokes about global warming. And, I don’t see very many people doing much to reduce their carbon footprint. It appears to me that people are still flying on airplanes and buying gas guzzling vehicles as much as ever. In fact, only about one in every 200 cars is an electric car, and most Villagers are buying gas golf carts. Very few people are buying solar panels, even though they are readily available in The Villages. So, have you changed your lifestyle or habits to reduce the effects of climate change?

[Ben Franklin]

https://twitter.com/hashtag/captiansforcleanwater?lang=frClimate change is real Evidence | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/) and many people are changing the way they pollute the earth they live on. And, many are not. I am a huge advocate of reducing plastics. Hemp can replace any plastic item from material to build homes to paper, to clothing, to biodegradable bottles, etc. Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America (https://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html)

We decided to move to The Villages, because of its height above sea level. Over the past 30 years, we have lived in areas of Florida that were the length of a spade shovel (not the handle, just the spade itself) above sea level to 6 feet above sea level. We got tired of having to evacuate during any hurricane that came from the south or the west (Gulf). Now we are about 95 feet above sea level. That took care of the flooding part. Now the concern is water quality. We were tired of seeing tons of dead fish, manatees, and water that you wouldn't dare go in, or drink.

[Polar Bear]

Even those lifestyle changes you mention...electric vehicles, solar panels, etc., are far from proven methods to reduce climate change, contrary to what many proclaim.

The one thing constant about the climate is change.

[Chi-Town]

Hate to cite science for the climate deniers but what the heck, let's see what NASA has to say.


Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Velvet]

Of course there is climate change, just ask the dinosaurs. The question is can human beings guide it? And if they can, to what extent?

When you compare our efforts to natural forces; tsunamis, volcanoes, hurricanes, the sun exploding etc and... What can we do that is significantly effective, do we want stagnation? Everything like it was in the past, 50 years ago, 1000, 10,000,000? Perhaps we should consider other galaxies for the future?

So many options.

[Kenswing]

The climate has always changed..

[Aloha1]

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Is the climate changing? Of course it is because a changing climate is a constant and has been for billions of years. Are humans causing it? Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc., BUT that does not mean humans cause climate change. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.

I am all for clean air and clean water as we all should be. And certainly be a good steward of our environment in general. But to imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris. The true "science deniers" are those who insist "it's all our fault"and"we're all gonna die". They cannot answer 2 simple questions, 1. Tell me what caused the Ice Age, and 2. Explain how all the ice melted when there were only a few million humans on the planet and no industrial revolution? Many reputable climatologists believe we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, and keep in mind that before the last Ice Age, Alaska was a temperate climate akin to the Midwest.

[manaboutown]

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Is the climate changing? Of course it is because a changing climate is a constant and has been for billions of years. Are humans causing it? Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc., BUT that does not mean humans cause climate change. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.

I am all for clean air and clean water as we all should be. And certainly be a good steward of our environment in general. But to imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris. The true "science deniers" are those who insist "it's all our fault"and"we're all gonna die". They cannot answer 2 simple questions, 1. Tell me what caused the Ice Age, and 2. Explain how all the ice melted when there were only a few million humans on the planet and no industrial revolution? Many reputable climatologists believe we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, and keep in mind that before the last Ice Age, Alaska was a temperate climate akin to the Midwest.

Thank you for this excellent post!

[billethkid]

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Is the climate changing? Of course it is because a changing climate is a constant and has been for billions of years. Are humans causing it? Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc., BUT that does not mean humans cause climate change. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.

I am all for clean air and clean water as we all should be. And certainly be a good steward of our environment in general. But to imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris. The true "science deniers" are those who insist "it's all our fault"and"we're all gonna die". They cannot answer 2 simple questions, 1. Tell me what caused the Ice Age, and 2. Explain how all the ice melted when there were only a few million humans on the planet and no industrial revolution? Many reputable climatologists believe we are still coming out of the last Ice Age, and keep in mind that before the last Ice Age, Alaska was a temperate climate akin to the Midwest.

Well stated.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I agree with Aloha1 except he contradicts himself. First paragraph: "Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc"

Second paragraph: "To imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris."

I feel that we absolutely DO have an affect on climate change. I also believe that we are not responsible for climate change. I believe in the ripple effect. We pollute the oceans with trillions of tons of garbage every year, which causes the ocean levels to rise, which causes thermal interference, which contributes to (not causes) polar ice reduction, which causes atmospheric changes, which is - climate change. That's just one thing humans do that contributes to climate change.

Does it exist? Yup, sure does. Do we contribute to the changes? Yup, you betcha. Are we "responsible" for the change? Not at all. Are there things we can do that will slow down the change, or make it less severe in our grandchildrens' lifetime? Yup. Will it stop climate change? Nope.

Evolution will continue with or without us. Our planet will slowly continue to die, as all planets do. But it's in our best interest, as a species, to at least TRY not to speed up our own extinction.

[graciegirl]

Hate to cite science for the climate deniers but what the heck, let's see what NASA has to say.


Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus)

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I don't think the issue is the climate "deniers" but rather at this time little is available to make a truly effective change or reverse climate change and global warming. THAT is the difference, not that people do not know that changes are occurring but that people do not see an effective answer to the problem.

[graciegirl]

I agree with Aloha1 except he contradicts himself. First paragraph: "Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc"

Second paragraph: "To imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris."

I feel that we absolutely DO have an affect on climate change. I also believe that we are not responsible for climate change. I believe in the ripple effect. We pollute the oceans with trillions of tons of garbage every year, which causes the ocean levels to rise, which causes thermal interference, which contributes to (not causes) polar ice reduction, which causes atmospheric changes, which is - climate change. That's just one thing humans do that contributes to climate change.

Does it exist? Yup, sure does. Do we contribute to the changes? Yup, you betcha. Are we "responsible" for the change? Not at all. Are there things we can do that will slow down the change, or make it less severe in our grandchildrens' lifetime? Yup. Will it stop climate change? Nope.

Evolution will continue with or without us. Our planet will slowly continue to die, as all planets do. But it's in our best interest, as a species, to at least TRY not to speed up our own extinction.

Not enough to make a real dent in the problem, at this time. Enough to know that every little bit helps, the old lady said as she peed in the sea.

[manaboutown]

Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be!

[Velvet]

Yes, China is a large polluter, but, when it comes to the rural poor (and there are so many) survival is the first thing. Keeping the earth clean is a pretty distant priority in comparison.

[CFrance]

I agree with Aloha1 except he contradicts himself. First paragraph: "Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc"

Second paragraph: "To imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris."

I feel that we absolutely DO have an affect on climate change. I also believe that we are not responsible for climate change. I believe in the ripple effect. We pollute the oceans with trillions of tons of garbage every year, which causes the ocean levels to rise, which causes thermal interference, which contributes to (not causes) polar ice reduction, which causes atmospheric changes, which is - climate change. That's just one thing humans do that contributes to climate change.

Does it exist? Yup, sure does. Do we contribute to the changes? Yup, you betcha. Are we "responsible" for the change? Not at all. Are there things we can do that will slow down the change, or make it less severe in our grandchildrens' lifetime? Yup. Will it stop climate change? Nope.

Evolution will continue with or without us. Our planet will slowly continue to die, as all planets do. But it's in our best interest, as a species, to at least TRY not to speed up our own extinction.
Come gather 'round people wherever you roam
And admit that the water around you has grown
And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth saving,
then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times, they are a'changing.

[biker1]

There are some things we know with certainty and other things that are still being researched. We do know that we are in an interglacial period. We also know that anthropogenic CO2 increases have taken place and, from radiative transfer considerations, will contribute to some warming. We also suspect that anthropogenic CO2 increases are not, by themselves, enough to cause enough warming to be of concern. Any direct warming from anthropogenic CO2 increases must be accompanied by positive feedbacks that cause additional warming - an amplification if you will. For example, additional CO2 causes warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the air which causes additional warming since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There can also be negative feedbacks. The additional warming causes additional water vapor that results in more clouds that reflect solar radiation which can cause cooling. Of course, the clouds also intercept terrestrial radiation and reemit it back down to earth causing more warming. It's complicated. The dire forecasts you hear about come from coupled ocean/land/atmospheric models which attempt to simulate where the climate will drift to when CO2 levels are increased. Retrospective model runs have had issues with reproducing mid-tropospheric temperatures in the tropics (yes, that is important) and this raises questions about their fidelity and appropriateness as a tool for developing public policy. It is just down right difficult to model complex, non-linear interactions that are not completely understood such as cloud/radiation interactions (which are critical to getting the feedbacks correct and without positive feedbacks we probably don't have an issue).

Essentially the bottom line is we don't know how much warming will take place in the future from man's activities. With the homogenization of surface data, I have doubts whether we really know how much recent warming is the direct result of man's activities. This is still an area of research. We do know that the climate will continue to drift from natural causes such as the Milankovitch Cycles. We do know that CO2 levels will continue to increase for the next several decades as developing nations will continue to generate power from fossil fuels. Put solar panels on your house because it saves you money and makes you feel good but it won't have any impact. Whether you drive a gas or electric golf cart won't have any impact either. I do plan on buying a Tesla because they are pretty cool.

On thing that I do find rather amusing is whenever anyone says they are "trying to save the planet". The planet is fine. The human race might be another issue. If mankind goes extinct the planet will erase all remnants of the human race within a few million years.

I am not worried about it at all. But, apparently, a lot of people claim that climate change or “global warming” will soon be killing people and may even threaten life on our planet. But, the TOTV web site actually has a “just for fun” thread making jokes about global warming. And, I don’t see very many people doing much to reduce their carbon footprint. It appears to me that people are still flying on airplanes and buying gas guzzling vehicles as much as ever. In fact, only about one in every 200 cars is an electric car, and most Villagers are buying gas golf carts. Very few people are buying solar panels, even though they are readily available in The Villages. So, have you changed your lifestyle or habits to reduce the effects of climate change?

[manaboutown]

Yes, China is a large polluter, but, when it comes to the rural poor (and there are so many) survival is the first thing. Keeping the earth clean is a pretty distant priority in comparison.

Perhaps the communist regime just does not care.
The rise of plastic insecurity in China’s Yangtze River economic belt | GreenBiz (https://www.greenbiz.com/article/rise-plastic-insecurity-chinas-yangtze-river-economic-belt)

[Velvet]

That too. In my experience with Communism, their main interest concerns the wealth of the party members. And the absolute control of the masses.

But China is changing, a family member was responsible for educational technical exchange between our countries at university level in certain Chinese provinces. China is showing growing pains. They are very intelligent people soon, I expect they may be leading the charge for the environment.

[billethkid]

There are some things we know with certainty and other things that are still being researched. We do know that we are in an interglacial period. We also know that anthropogenic CO2 increases have taken place and, from radiative transfer considerations, will contribute to some warming. We also suspect that anthropogenic CO2 increases are not, by themselves, enough to cause enough warming to be of concern. Any direct warming from anthropogenic CO2 increases must be accompanied by positive feedbacks that cause additional warming - an amplification if you will. For example, additional CO2 causes warming which increases the amount of water vapor in the air which causes additional warming since water vapor is a greenhouse gas. There can also be negative feedbacks. The additional warming causes additional water vapor that results in more clouds that reflect solar radiation which can cause cooling. Of course, the clouds also intercept terrestrial radiation and reemit it back down to earth causing more warming. It's complicated. The dire forecasts you hear about come from coupled ocean/land/atmospheric models which attempt to simulate where the climate will drift to when CO2 levels are increased. Retrospective model runs have had issues with reproducing mid-tropospheric temperature in the tropics (yes, that is important) and this raises questions about their fidelity and appropriateness as a tool for developing public policy. It is just down right difficult to model complex, non-linear interactions that are not completely understood such as cloud/radiation interactions (which are critical to getting the feedbacks correct and without positive feedbacks we probably don't have an issue).

Essentially the bottom line is we don't know how much warming will take place in the future from man's activities. This is still an area of research. We do know that CO2 levels will continue to increase for the next several decades as developing nations will continue to generate power from fossil fuels. Put solar panels on your house because it saves you money and makes you feel good but it won't have any impact.

The high light above is a statement one will never hear from a politician or special interest group or climate change activists.

The unfortunate part of the whole subject is so much amplification
by the media of these groups positions and are presented as if we do not accept/believe/do what they are "selling"....the planet is doomed.

Centuries of climate change radical swings point to the contrary.

[blueash]

My 2 cents from my college education with a minor in Earth Science. Fact, the typical volcanic eruption puts more so called pollutants in the air than humans can manage in year.



This is one of the many complete lies told over and over and over by the climate change deniers. I will be happy to present some pertinent citations and hope you come back with an apology for stating that your "education" makes you some kind of expert.

From the US Government (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities)

several individual U.S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.

And from Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Go ahead and doubt whatever you want to doubt but please use real facts not "facts" made up by climate deniers and their media sycophants.

Google is your friend. (https://www.google.com/search?q=volcanic+eruptions+contribution+to+warmin g&ie=&oe=)

[davefin]

It's a cycle people. About 26,000 years in length. The Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age. Unfortunately, for us, there was a much, much, much smaller human population back at the end of the prior Ice Age, therefore we have no real proof what will happen, only that humans cannot control the warming trend. PERIOD!

[Velvet]

Did the studies also consider the effect of sulphuric dioxide from the volcanoes and other gases as well? And the thermal effects of the lava? I’ve been following the latest eruption of the Kilauea volcano on the Big Island in Hawaii and the type of damage it contributed to the atmosphere.

[Aloha1]

I agree with Aloha1 except he contradicts himself. First paragraph: "Certainly humans influence the level of pollution world wide with plastic refuse, chemicals, etc"

Second paragraph: "To imply that humans can have any effect on global climate change is the height of hubris."

I feel that we absolutely DO have an affect on climate change. I also believe that we are not responsible for climate change. I believe in the ripple effect. We pollute the oceans with trillions of tons of garbage every year, which causes the ocean levels to rise, which causes thermal interference, which contributes to (not causes) polar ice reduction, which causes atmospheric changes, which is - climate change. That's just one thing humans do that contributes to climate change.

Does it exist? Yup, sure does. Do we contribute to the changes? Yup, you betcha. Are we "responsible" for the change? Not at all. Are there things we can do that will slow down the change, or make it less severe in our grandchildrens' lifetime? Yup. Will it stop climate change? Nope.

Evolution will continue with or without us. Our planet will slowly continue to die, as all planets do. But it's in our best interest, as a species, to at least TRY not to speed up our own extinction.

Pollution does not equal climate change. No contradiction at all. And this planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, has seen multiple mass extinctions and continues to live. What causes the oceans to rise is water and plate tectonics , not garbage. When you figure out how to control solar output and volcanoes I'll buy in. Until then, enjoy life.

[Aloha1]

This is one of the many complete lies told over and over and over by the climate change deniers. I will be happy to present some pertinent citations and hope you come back with an apology for stating that your "education" makes you some kind of expert.

From the US Government (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities)



And from Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/)


Go ahead and doubt whatever you want to doubt but please use real facts not "facts" made up by climate deniers and their media sycophants.

Google is your friend. (https://www.google.com/search?q=volcanic+eruptions+contribution+to+warmin g&ie=&oe=)

Excuse me. Just because you hold differing opinions does not give you the right to insult. My facts come from my learning and some great professors like Professor Emeritus Holman of archaeological distinction
and geology Professor Emeritus Sam Upchurch who was a "young turk" in the debate about plate tectonics. Also distinguished Astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmidt. Science, not media pablum.

[Velvet]

Well, when you live right by a volcanoes like Hana on Maui, or Kilauea on the Big Island and you breathe in The Vog (volcanic fog) and cry and sneeze and have difficulty breathing regularly, and see the devastation and extension of the plant life killed off by sulphur dioxide, and the island reshaped by the lava. When you see the power of the earth in its original raw form, some call it the goddess Pele, then you develop a certain respect, perhaps even an understanding even if you are a scientist....

[Ben Franklin]

I'd rather research, and then see if we're going to do anything about it. Glad TV land is building those green houses for hydroponics.

Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago - Scientific American (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/)

[manaboutown]

A volcano erupting as Krakatoa did in 1883 will change climate dramatically for years to come.

Global climate[edit]
In the year following the 1883 Krakatoa eruption, average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[12] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.[12] The record rainfall that hit Southern California during the water year from July 1883 to June 1884 – Los Angeles received 38.18 inches (969.8 mm) and San Diego 25.97 inches (659.6 mm)[13] – has been attributed to the Krakatoa eruption.[14] There was no El Niño during that period as is normal when heavy rain occurs in Southern California,[15] but many scientists doubt that there was a causal relationship.[16]

The Krakatoa eruption injected an unusually large amount of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas high into the stratosphere, which was subsequently transported by high-level winds all over the planet. This led to a global increase in sulfuric acid (H2SO4) concentration in high-level cirrus clouds. The resulting increase in cloud reflectivity (or albedo) reflected more incoming light from the sun than usual, and cooled the entire planet until the suspended sulfur fell to the ground as acid precipitation.[17]

Global optical effects[edit]

1888 paintings, showcasing the optical effects of the eruption on the sky over time
The 1883 Krakatoa eruption darkened the sky worldwide for years afterwards and produced spectacular sunsets throughout the world for many months. British artist William Ashcroft made thousands of colour sketches of the red sunsets halfway around the world from Krakatoa in the years after the eruption. The ash caused "such vivid red sunsets that fire engines were called out in New York, Poughkeepsie, and New Haven to quench the apparent conflagration."[18] This eruption also produced a Bishop's Ring around the sun by day, and a volcanic purple light at twilight.

In 2004, an astronomer proposed the idea that the red sky shown in Edvard Munch's famous 1893 painting The Scream is also an accurate depiction of the sky over Norway after the eruption.[19]

Weather watchers of the time tracked and mapped the effects on the sky. They labeled the phenomenon the "equatorial smoke stream".[20] This was the first identification of what is known today as the jet stream.[21]

For several years following the eruption, it was reported that the moon appeared to be blue and sometimes green. This was because some of the ash clouds were filled with particles about 1 µm wide – the right size to strongly scatter red light, while allowing other colors to pass. White moonbeams shining through the clouds emerged blue, and sometimes green. People also saw lavender suns and, for the first time, recorded noctilucent clouds.[18]
from: 1883 eruption of Krakatoa - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be!

Yes, they are. And they have made HUGE concessions and improved significantly in their impact on pollution over the past decade. The USA was on its way to doing our part, until fairly recently, when most efforts were stripped of funding, and our natural parks and wildlife lost huge portions of real estate for the purpose of development.

Lots of people will be finding all kinds of wild critters in their front yards, if this continues. Those critters have to live SOMEWHERE and if you take away their homes, they'll just start parking in yours.

This is the only planet we are able to occupy right now. We lack the technology to occupy any other. It's in our best interest to take care of it. Don't worry so much about China - which has made great strides in improvement. Worry about yourself, your neighbors, your city, your state, and your country. What are YOU doing to reduce our impact on pollution and the changing climate?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Well, when you live right by a volcanoes like Hana on Maui, or Kilauea on the Big Island and you breathe in The Vog (volcanic fog) and cry and sneeze and have difficulty breathing regularly, and see the devastation and extension of the plant life killed off by sulphur dioxide, and the island reshaped by the lava. When you see the power of the earth in its original raw form, some call it the goddess Pele, then you develop a certain respect, perhaps even an understanding even if you are a scientist....

Sounds a lot like Los Angeles, in the 1980's. But they didn't have the benefit of a volcano to blame their breathing problems on. It was just good old fashioned man-made pollution in the form of smog.

[Number 10 GI]

Have you ever heard the story about Chicken Little? As to the original question, no I have no worries of climate change. If you go back and research all the predictions of doom, gloom and death from climate change humans were supposed to be dead already. My reading has shown there have been at least 5 ice ages and the climate warmed up after each one. During many of those ice ages man didn't exist so what caused the climate change? Greenland was settled for a while by the Norsemen and the name was given to the land because it was green and fertile. Then it became colder and snow covered so the Norse fled their settlements and it is still covered with snow.

[tophcfa]

I agree that the climate is changing, as it always has and always will. Some of it is caused by man and some by other factors. The climate changed before man existed, and will change after man is gone. I also feel we should all try to do what we can to help reduce the part of the change caused by man. That being said, people need to wake up and not be sucked into so called solutions that actually don't help. Electric cars are a great example. Here are a few things the electric car industry won't tell you. The carbon footprint left behind by the mining, refinement and transportation of the materials used to make the batteries in these vehicles is very significant (even with the newer lithium batteries). Second, to make these vehicles get any range with the weight of the batteries, the rest of the vehicles have to have lots of plastic to keep the vehicle weight down. Plastic is a petroleum product that is not easily recycled, unlike the metal used in traditional vehicles that is melted down and reused. Then the batteries need to be periodically replaced, causing an ongoing cycle of the already mentioned mining, refinement and transportation process. Then the used batteries, which are basically toxic waste, need to be disposed of. And although the electric cars don't put exhaust out of a tail pipe, the batteries still need to be charged. Where do the people driving these cars think the electricity charging their batteries is coming from? It takes energy to run any car, weather it is gas or electric. Just because there is no smoke coming from the tail pipe does not mean the vehicle is not using energy. I have read some logical arguments that show electric cars are actually as bad, if not worse, for the environment. More common sense solutions, such as planning your car trips more efficiently so that you buy everything you need for a week at a time, rather than going out for a few things every other day, would actually help. Common sense things like that would really add up if everyone did it.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

All cars use energy. But some are more efficient than others. For instance - there's no "need" for anyone to own a Hummer. There's no "need" for most people to own most of the gas guzzler cars on the roads these days. But the alternative to owning a gas guzzler is not electric. It's "anything less guzzling than that." Whatever that is. If you can get a car that gets 30mpg, and takes you where you need to go without actual discomfort, why would you buy a luxury boat that only gets 19mpg? Sure the efficient car is a crappy little piece of tin, but you're not living in the thing, you're just using it to get from point A to point B.

And if you are able to walk in comfort and the store is only a couple of blocks away, why are you driving to the store at all? Walk. Or take the golf cart, gas or electric, whichever. Or ride your bicycle.

Better yet - become an activist who wants to change transportation in the Villages entirely by promoting the idea of a Square to Square shuttle system. It won't eliminate cars - but it could drastically reduce their use.

Then there's the plastic bags for garbage day - you have to have "this" color bag for this kind of trash and "that" color bag for that kind of trash. So now you're just spending money to buy virgin plastics that are just being thrown away. And twice a week - convenient for the homeowner but not very convenient for the environment.

You could promote more use of solar energy. The entire town square could run entirely on solar, if someone were to develop a plan to do so. My home town's municipal buildings are all powered by solar energy.

There are SO many things that every single person can do to HELP - it's just a matter of whether or not our convenience is more important than our legacy.

[Polar Bear]

...There are SO many things that every single person can do to HELP - it's just a matter of whether or not our convenience is more important than our legacy.
The difficult part is determining which of those things actually help. Often you hear little other than opinions regarding what should be done. And those opinions rarely discuss downsides or potential unintended consequences...and all the “solutions” have them.

[Two Bills]

[QUOTE=manaboutown;1688599]Isn't China the primary polluter?

Until that country and some others get on board the planet cannot be cleaned up which it certainly needs to be![/QUOTE

Top 5 most polluting countries (Google)

1. China (30%) The world's most populated country has an enormous export market, which has seen its industry grow to become a serious danger to the planet. ...
2. United States (15%) The world's biggest industrial and commercial power. ...
3. India (7%) ...
4. Russia (5%) ...
5 Japan (4%)

[JimJohnson]

I do worry that some folks are too bullheaded to even discuss it. The climate is changing and definitely in a negative way to mankind. Why, cyclical, normal, caused by man, natural, etc. etc.. But, flat denial is shortsighted and dangerous.

[rustyp]

Why is it the one item that will have the most positive impact to preserving the planet is not at the forefront of change. Zero population growth. Resource consumption is by far the highest contributor to carbon footprint. The energy required to make all these goods we consume blows all other contributors off the scale. So in our wisdom the answer is we must sacrifice and sacrifice must be painful - you know no pain no gain. Why not stop increasing demand and at least stay at a steady state. I'm not saying not to pursue other initiatives like lessening pollution but there is room for argument what the real impact of some of these initiatives are. Spoiler alert one volcano spruing mega ash over shadows all the polluting gasses from the worldwide car population for a long time. As an aside why do we say preserve the planet ? The planet will adapt and survive just fine short of being hit by an asteroid. It is the human race that won't survive which is inevitable anyways.

[JimJohnson]

Why is it the one item that will have the most positive impact to preserving the planet is not at the forefront of change. Zero population growth. Resource consumption is by far the highest contributor to carbon footprint. The energy required to make all these goods we consume blows all other contributors off the scale. So in our wisdom the answer is we must sacrifice and sacrifice must be painful - you know no pain no gain. Why not stop increasing demand and at least stay at a steady state. I'm not saying not to pursue other initiatives like lessening pollution but there is room for argument what the real impact of some of these initiatives are. Spoiler alert one volcano spruing mega ash over shadows all the polluting gasses from the worldwide car population for a long time. As an aside why do we say preserve the planet ? The planet will adapt and survive just fine short of being hit by an asteroid. It is the human race that won't survive which is inevitable anyways.

Well said, but the average person can look at an open field and surmise plenty of room for more people. The same people see snow and cannot fathom global warming.
It is very sad the comprehension of the average human dolt.

[Love2Swim]

There is no question that the climate is changing - scientific data supports it. But the uniformed don't seem to grasp that the the huge problem is the rate of change. I read statistics that said the rate of climate change is something like 20 times greater than at any time in the past, and that is huge. NASA says that the change is 95% probability the result of human activity and is proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented. One example is rising sea levels. Average sea levels have swelled over 8 inches since 1880 with about three inches gained in the last 25 years. Clearly this has devastating impacts on coastal areas and extreme weather conditions. Scientists agree that any reduction to this rate of change can only be a positive thing, and that can be impacted by the measures we take as far as reducing pollutants, etc. We may not be able to stop the change, but we can reduce the rate of change by being politically active - contacting legislators with our concerns and voting for the candidates that will work on climate change solutions. Smart consumers recycle, drive hybrid or electric cars, use public transit, have energy efficient appliances, have solar panels on their roofs, etc. As David Suzuki said - We are all little drops in the bucket, but together the drops can fill the bucket.

[Bay Kid]

Burning. We worry about auto pollution. How about the "controlled burning"? One controlled fire will pollute TVs for most of the day and do more damage than...well lots of other things.... A big burn looks like" the sky is falling".

[valuemkt]

It might keep me a bit warmer in my box 6 feet under.

[billethkid]

A lot of discussion always about what WE can do to save the planet.
WE represent what percent of the population that contributes to the problem?

There have been some few posts regarding other countries that are worse than the USA....collectively they overwhelm the USA population.

What ever we can do is all well and good. However those who are doing the preaching here at home need to turn their amplifiers external to the non USA contributors.......that is if they are really...REALLY... serious about making a difference.
It must be obvious the USA is merely a part of the issue.
And it must also be obvious that the USA will not/can not compensate for the other countries.

The strategy of continuously beating the drum here at home just isn't going to make it happen.

[Velvet]

If we take China for example, in my opinion, they need help rather than judgement. Someone mentioned number of people relate to amount of pollution. China tried the one child policy, but because of misogyny etc most people had boy children. Then they found there is gender imbalance, not enough girls for wives and families. China needs to feed their people, their manufacturing industry is developing well, but with lots of pollution. The West could offer help with how to have cleaner and cheaper production methods. Educational exchange has already started that. I believe there is hope.

[seoulbrooks]

Oh yes.....let's consult and pay Al Gore for the only correct answer to this question......as he hops around the world on his private jet.

[blueash]

Excuse me. Just because you hold differing opinions does not give you the right to insult. My facts come from my learning and some great professors like Professor Emeritus Holman of archaeological distinction
and geology Professor Emeritus Sam Upchurch who was a "young turk" in the debate about plate tectonics. Also distinguished Astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmidt. Science, not media pablum.

I am not offering an opinion. I am offering to link you to evidence. Archeology is not climate science nor even earth science. Plate tectonics is a very interesting field of geology, but not climate science. Read the links I provided, use google to search for any evidence from any scientific source to support your statement that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than humans each year and report back.
I did not insult you. I called out a lie which you repeated. And I presented contemporary sources including the US government disproving your claim. You returned with the names of people none of whom have any expertise in climate science and in fact are geologists and archeologists. Again, find me a study supporting your "fact" None of these should be a paper showing that one eruption X years ago cause a temporary change in the weather. Yes that happens, but ongoing discharge from volcanoes is not a significant factor in the continuing rise of CO2 and the continuing rise in mean global temperature. Human activity is responsible for this, not volcanoes, not sunspots. And there are many many proposals as to what can be done to slow or hopefully reverse this trend. But until everyone is on board that this is real and it is humans, things will get worse.

For those who argue it is just cycles, no. Cycles are very slow over thousands of years. NASA has reported on this in a clear concise way (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php). This change is rapid and not due to natural slow cycles. And for those who say, so what it is only 2 degrees centigrade. That is 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In a living system that is huge. If your temperature goes up 4 degrees something is very wrong. And 4 degrees from a base of 99 is a much smaller disruption than 4 degrees from a base of 57.

[Velvet]

Is there a way of making the avatar a bit bigger? I can’t do much on my iPad. The graph can’t be read.

I understand the concern about the rate of change. There are so many values that are involved with climate change. Even if the facts are clear, there are people who hold different values.

[blueash]

Is there a way of making the avatar a bit bigger? I can’t do much on my iPad. The graph can’t be read.

I understand the concern about the rate of change. There are so many values that are involved with climate change. Even if the facts are clear, there are people who hold different values.

A person's values doesn't change the facts. We all have a human tendency to allow our biases to influence how we interpret those facts. The difference between science and faith is that science is fact based, can be tested, and changes with new evidence. Religion is none of those things. Including my own faith.

[Velvet]

I agree. What I was referring to was that the same fact may be welcomed by one person and opposed by another. There seems to be an assumption by some people that everyone is opposed to climate change and it’s consequences. In my experience, that is not always true.

I wasn’t thinking about religion, but that would bring in a new dimension.

[Love2Swim]

A person's values doesn't change the facts. We all have a human tendency to allow our biases to influence how we interpret those facts. The difference between science and faith is that science is fact based, can be tested, and changes with new evidence. Religion is none of those things. Including my own faith.

Excellent!

[blueash]

For those of you claiming solar activity is causing global climate change. From NASA a graph (https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/189/graphic-temperature-vs-solar-activity/) showing solar activity for the last 140 years and global temperature [air temperature not water] averaged to 11 year trend. As you will see there is NO correlation. In fact since 1960 there has been a lessening of solar activity while temperatures have risen

Click on thumbnail to enlarge, or click on link to go to source.

[Velvet]

The reason why some people may be opposed to helping with climate change can be the costs associated with it. I am in a position where I can afford it, but I know many people who can’t.

Anyways, I can see the good will and certainly appreciate it.

[Number 10 GI]

If we take China for example, in my opinion, they need help rather than judgement. Someone mentioned number of people relate to amount of pollution. China tried the one child policy, but because of misogyny etc most people had boy children. Then they found there is gender imbalance, not enough girls for wives and families. China needs to feed their people, their manufacturing industry is developing well, but with lots of pollution. The West could offer help with how to have cleaner and cheaper production methods. Educational exchange has already started that. I believe there is hope.

Traditionally in most Asian cultures the eldest male child inherits the property of the parents and also has the obligation of taking care of the parents until they die. I guess if you want to call that misogyny go for it.
The Chinese government doesn't need anyone to help them to clean up their environment, that information is readily available. The government doesn't care about pollution or their people, they only care about the revenue the government receives from industry. The leaders of china aren't backwoods aborigines that need the guidance of "enlightened" American environmentalists, for the most part they are well educated people.
Back to the one child rule in China. I worked with a Chinese intern who was the second child in her family. I asked how that was possible due to the one child rule and she stated that there were exceptions for certain people. Translated meaning is that in China and like here and everywhere else rich and powerful people do as they like.

[Velvet]

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.

[billethkid]

If the eldest has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny.

Not in their historical and in many cases centuries of cultural tradition.

[Velvet]

Because it was done in the past, does not make it acceptable not then nor now. We also used to have human sacrifices.

How did the eldest become a male? Through female infanticide. I won’t go into the details of how these young children were killed. But, if that was your grand daughter, under what conditions would it be acceptable?

[Number 10 GI]

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.
If a woman becomes pregnant with a second child and the government finds out she is forced to have an abortion. The penalties are severe enough that most couples don't have that second child.

[rustyp]

This is getting off track. I suggested one of the biggest impacts that humans could make against the war on climate change is zero population growth. Zero population growth can be achieved if each couple limit offspring to two children. I also want to recognize and support the idea that none of these efforts will amount to anything unless it is a worldwide initiative.

[graciegirl]

If the eldest culturally has to be a boy then yes, it is misogyny. My understanding was you could have more than one child, it would not be taken away from you, but you would be penalized strongly for it.
China has “twin” cities; where a city from China is paired with a city from the West where technical and other academics are exchanged for the benefit of both.

I agree with the soldier that China doesn't need "enlightened environmentalists" to educate them.

I think misogyny is not an accurate description as to why people would choose males if they could have one child. It is for the very reason that Number 10 G.I. said.

I have my opinions, you have yours. I really like the G.I. Joe's way of thinking.

[Aloha1]

I am not offering an opinion. I am offering to link you to evidence. Archeology is not climate science nor even earth science. Plate tectonics is a very interesting field of geology, but not climate science. Read the links I provided, use google to search for any evidence from any scientific source to support your statement that volcanoes produce more greenhouse gases than humans each year and report back.
I did not insult you. I called out a lie which you repeated. And I presented contemporary sources including the US government disproving your claim. You returned with the names of people none of whom have any expertise in climate science and in fact are geologists and archeologists. Again, find me a study supporting your "fact" None of these should be a paper showing that one eruption X years ago cause a temporary change in the weather. Yes that happens, but ongoing discharge from volcanoes is not a significant factor in the continuing rise of CO2 and the continuing rise in mean global temperature. Human activity is responsible for this, not volcanoes, not sunspots. And there are many many proposals as to what can be done to slow or hopefully reverse this trend. But until everyone is on board that this is real and it is humans, things will get worse.

For those who argue it is just cycles, no. Cycles are very slow over thousands of years. NASA has reported on this in a clear concise way (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php). This change is rapid and not due to natural slow cycles. And for those who say, so what it is only 2 degrees centigrade. That is 4 degrees Fahrenheit. In a living system that is huge. If your temperature goes up 4 degrees something is very wrong. And 4 degrees from a base of 99 is a much smaller disruption than 4 degrees from a base of 57.

A disparaging remark was made about my quote: "education" Not appreciated. Also, My comment on Volcanoes said pollutants, not greenhouse gases. Spell check did me a disfavor, Dr. Holman was a Paleontologist. Both Paleontology and Archaeology can teach us about the past climate of the planet. How else do you think we've learned about the FACT that the Sahara was a verdant grassland 4,000 years ago and not a desert? Or that Greenland was just that 1,000 years ago? Or perhaps, as far as science has been able to determine, the warmest period in the recent past was approximately 50 million years ago with average temps almost 8 degrees F higher than today. This pre dates humans. Perhaps you should review an article from 49 NASA scientists calling out NASA for it's rush to judgement on human caused climate change. You may be unaware that the norm for this planet over the eons has been to be ice free. No ice caps, no glaciers. CO2 is only one part of this whole debate. As far as cycles, the Maunder Minimum solar cycle is a well known factor in climate on this planet and it does not happen over thousands of years. Finally, recall that I never said climate change was not real. On that we can agree if nothing else.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

This is getting off track. I suggested one of the biggest impacts that humans could make against the war on climate change is zero population growth. Zero population growth can be achieved if each couple limit offspring to two children. I also want to recognize and support the idea that none of these efforts will amount to anything unless it is a worldwide initiative.

That would interfere with the whole freedom of religion thing, where in some religions, birth control of any kind is taboo. If you're married, it's because you're a man and woman who plan on reproducing. You do so as long as both parties remain fertile.

I can't imagine living like that, but apparently there are entire sects in the USA built around the concept.

[graciegirl]

That would interfere with the whole freedom of religion thing, where in some religions, birth control of any kind is taboo. If you're married, it's because you're a man and woman who plan on reproducing. You do so as long as both parties remain fertile.

I can't imagine living like that, but apparently there are entire sects in the USA built around the concept.

I dunno. I do know this

Most Catholics disagree with the prohibition of birth control; in fact, surveys find that approximately 90 percent of sexually active Catholic women of childbearing age use a birth control method forbidden by the church.


I also don't think many kill fatted calves and almost everyone eats bacon.

We will find out eventually....

or not.

[npwalters]

Getting back to the original question: am I worried about climate change? Check back with me in about 300 years.

[TexaninVA]

...

"We decided to move to The Villages, because of its height above sea level. "

Our former President just bought a place on the beach up north. Apparently, he's not too worried about rising sea levels?

[Two Bills]

If there is no willingness by governments, only lip service to tackle the problem of pollution, all the drum banging and protest marches will acomplish nothing.
The world is ruled by major industries, oil, automotive, chemical, arms manufacturers etc.
Those companies are ruled by the share/stock holders, which are the major banks and financial houses.
Cleaning enviromental pollution will cost an almost immeasurable amount of money to those companies, which will decimate returns and profit.
Good luck with that then!!!

[Daddymac]

The earth has been warming from the end of the iceage.
And that is a “fact”

[JimJohnson]

Man can slow the warming of the earth with responsible energy policies for the sake of our grandchildren, OR, we can ignore the issue so we can witness the destruction during our lifetime.

[graciegirl]

Man can slow the warming of the earth with responsible energy policies for the sake of our grandchildren, OR, we can ignore the issue so we can witness the destruction during our lifetime.

I challenge you on that. We can't get enough of "man" to agree to do all that is necessary to slow the process.

At this time.

Are you willing to give up your engines?

[JimJohnson]

I challenge you on that. We can't get enough of "man" to agree to do all that is necessary to slow the process.

At this time.

Are you willing to give up your engines?

I drive an electric golf cart because, yes I will give up my engine rather than throw up my hands in hopeless defeat without trying. I guess I have more faith in my fellow man than you do.
:pray:

[biker1]

Do you also drive an electric automobile? Do you realize that the electricity for your golf cart is generated with fossil fuels and the manufacturing and recycling of your old-technology lead-acid batteries also consume fossil fuel generated energy? Just to put things in perspective, about 400 millions gallons of gasoline are consumed daily in just the US alone.

I drive an electric golf cart because, yes I will give up my engine rather than throw up my hands in hopeless defeat without trying. I guess I have more faith in my fellow man than you do.
:pray:

[biker1]

What energy policies are you referring to?

Man can slow the warming of the earth with responsible energy policies for the sake of our grandchildren, OR, we can ignore the issue so we can witness the destruction during our lifetime.

[JimJohnson]

Do you also drive an electric automobile? Do you realize that the electricity for your golf cart is generated with fossil fuels and the manufacturing and recycling of your old-technology lead-acid batteries also consume fossil fuel generated energy? Just to put things in perspective, about 400 millions gallons of gasoline are consumed daily in just the US alone.

Sir, my auto of choice is the PRIUS. We have solar panels on the roof of our house. I don’t know if I am right, but I know I am trying to help. :)

[rustyp]

81301do you also drive an electric automobile? Do you realize that the electricity for your golf cart is generated with fossil fuels and the manufacturing and recycling of your old-technology lead-acid batteries also consume fossil fuel generated energy? Just to put things in perspective, about 400 millions gallons of gasoline are consumed daily in just the us alone.

Very complicated subject. Sometimes when you think your sacrificing for the better good you are actually doing more harm. As in an earlier post I wrote it is important to realize how much energy is consumed in producing a product. The greater the population the more demand to produce products

[graciegirl]

I drive an electric golf cart because, yes I will give up my engine rather than throw up my hands in hopeless defeat without trying. I guess I have more faith in my fellow man than you do.
:pray:

That is not the point. Most people do believe in global warming. Most people would like to help stop it. Most people care very much that they do not destroy the environment and the planet...….

However, industrialization has halved poverty and hunger since 1990. (Please Google) For us to stop or slow down the amounts of bad stuff we as human beings produce as we live our lives and remain alive, we would need the combined efforts of more than a third of the world. That will NOT happen.

I am realistic.

The difference between some of us and others of us is that we know that there are some problems that do not have a valid solution. At this time.

Throwing money at them may make us feel better.

I'll save my money throwing toward a realistic answer to this huge problem.

[biker1]

What you may be helping is your own financial situation. Those technologies, hybrid car and PV panels, may save you money if you keep them long enough.

Sir, my auto of choice is the PRIUS. We have solar panels on the roof of our house. I don’t know if I am right, but I know I am trying to help. :)

[blueash]

What I have found interesting in this thread, and in the broader discussion of climate change is the new position taken by the faction that used to be called deniers. Five to ten years ago it was the claim that there was no global warming. There were vehement diatribes that the temperature data being produced by the US and the UN and multiple other sources were made up, what is now called "fake news" and that there in fact was no warming at all.

There was a huge attempt to falsely claim that some emails proved it was all cooked up data. This was labelled "Climategate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) by the deniers. Click on the link to see what leading US legislators jumped on this as proving that global warming was a "hoax". (https://archive.fo/20091120185715/http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091118_298_0_WSIGOS499419)

Now it seems everyone sees that the temperature data is real, both for the atmosphere and the oceans. And so the argument shifted to, yes it is getting warmer but it has nothing to do with human activity. It was all natural cycles and the ever changing climate alterations, and when was the last ice age. Some few here are still denying humanity's role or minimizing it.

But most of the posters are admitting that the climate is being impacted in a significant way by man. Some say, well we shouldn't do anything until China does something big, and India does something big. But at least therein is an acceptance that it is human action using fossil fuels that is causing this change. So that's progress.

I'd only add that if you believe in leadership and stewardship by our country in the world, that is a specious argument. China's economy is booming but very young and that nation is still climbing out of third world status. And they in fact have made major efforts to improve their environmental impacts (https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/). Sadly those changes are coming too slowly. Our nation has gone backwards in the last 3 years having abandoned goals and abrogated international agreements.

As to the initial question, and I worried about climate change? Not for myself or my children or grandchildren. We are secure here and will not be significantly impacted. But my view is broader than that. I am concerned for the devastation that a foot of ocean rise will cause to arable land in the third world. I am concerned about the loss of coral reefs and alterations in the phytoplankton which may destroy the fish life in our oceans causing starvation, but not here. Some experts have predicted that resulting famines will spark major international and regional wars. And I understand that what we do now will effect the world for decades. And what we fail to do will also have consequences.

So I am heartened that at least most of us are finally on board that warming is real and needs to be addressed. Overton's window has shifted.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What I have found interesting in this thread, and in the broader discussion of climate change is the new position taken by the faction that used to be called deniers. Five to ten years ago it was the claim that there was no global warming. There were vehement diatribes that the temperature data being produced by the US and the UN and multiple other sources were made up, what is now called "fake news" and that there in fact was no warming at all.

There was a huge attempt to falsely claim that some emails proved it was all cooked up data. This was labelled "Climategate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) by the deniers. Click on the link to see what leading US legislators jumped on this as proving that global warming was a "hoax". (https://archive.fo/20091120185715/http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091118_298_0_WSIGOS499419)

Now it seems everyone sees that the temperature data is real, both for the atmosphere and the oceans. And so the argument shifted to, yes it is getting warmer but it has nothing to do with human activity. It was all natural cycles and the ever changing climate alterations, and when was the last ice age. Some few here are still denying humanity's role or minimizing it.

But most of the posters are admitting that the climate is being impacted in a significant way by man. Some say, well we shouldn't do anything until China does something big, and India does something big. But at least therein is an acceptance that it is human action using fossil fuels that is causing this change. So that's progress.

I'd only add that if you believe in leadership and stewardship by our country in the world, that is a specious argument. China's economy is booming but very young and that nation is still climbing out of third world status. And they in fact have made major efforts to improve their environmental impacts (https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/). Sadly those changes are coming too slowly. Our nation has gone backwards in the last 3 years having abandoned goals and abrogated international agreements.

As to the initial question, and I worried about climate change? Not for myself or my children or grandchildren. We are secure here and will not be significantly impacted. But my view is broader than that. I am concerned for the devastation that a foot of ocean rise will cause to arable land in the third world. I am concerned about the loss of coral reefs and alterations in the phytoplankton which may destroy the fish life in our oceans causing starvation, but not here. Some experts have predicted that resulting famines will spark major international and regional wars. And I understand that what we do now will effect the world for decades. And what we fail to do will also have consequences.

So I am heartened that at least most of us are finally on board that warming is real and needs to be addressed. Overton's window has shifted.

I agree with the ideas, opinion, and sentiment you present in this post, 100% Just a little factual disagreement. The underlined section. Human action with regards to fossil fuels isn't "causing" the change. It is one major contributing factor to the speed of the change. Industry as a whole has a huge impact on climate change. It would be insane to expect our species to halt industry.

But it is not insane, and in fact, it is probably the ONLY sane consideration, to try and change our approach to industry.

Yes producing windmills and solar panels and electric or hybrid cars uses up a lot of fossil fuels and produces pollution.

But once these products have been made, they cease to continue using those fossil fuels, and they cease to produce pollution. Electricity -can- be generated without fossil fuels. And you can use that non-fossil fuel to charge batteries. I feel this is key to a new industrial revolution, which I also feel must occur if we want our planet to support our species in the next thousand years.

No, I won't be here to see it. Neither will your kids, or their kids, or their kids. But I personally don't want to spend the rest of my life with the attitude that "who cares, I won't have to deal with it, not my problem." That's not how I was raised.

If I can do even just one LITTLE thing to change how I approach waste, pollution, and the climate, then I'll do it. I don't feel I need to live in a cave off the grid and only eat what I can catch, in order to take personal responsibility for my part of this worldwide project. I can push for recycling legislation. I can join a club that re-uses, re-purposes things that might otherwise be thrown in a trash heap somewhere. I can get a couple of small rain barrels and use those to water my inside plants instead of tap water. I can buy my spring water by the gallon and just pour what I need into a re-useable smaller bottle to carry around with me. Or better yet, buy a filter for the faucet.

I can drive less, walk more. I can use my gas golf cart instead of the gas-powered car for short drives, since I use less with the cart.

I can buy more natural fiber clothing and fewer synthetics.

I can plant oxygen-producing plants. I can buy only trigger-spray household products instead of aerosols. Or I could even make my own, it's not especially difficult.

Big things, little things. If you can't afford or don't like the looks of solar panels, that's okay. Recycle more, that can be your part.

If EVERYONE did SOMETHING to help, we would see a shift in perception and approach to the situation. It would inspire more preservation, and less waste. The little thing you do, can inspire your neighbor to do more, which would inspire his neighbor to do more, and soon you have the entire neighborhood producing significantly less waste and contributing more to a healthy environment.

And then the next neighborhood notices how awesome it is, and they start taking steps. and so on and so forth.

It's only when people say "screw this, I won't be alive to see a change so why should I even try?" that everything comes to a stop and any attempt becomes futile.

[Polar Bear]

Many of those who believe that climate change is an extreme, immediate threat to the world and is almost entirely due to human activity group all those who don't agree with those views into the category "deniers". That may the single biggest thing I disagree with when I hear those folks espouse their beliefs.

Many people don't deny that the climate is changing. They also don't deny that human activity contributes to climate change. The points of disagreement relate to several things...the magnitude of mankind's contribution, the fact that climate has always changed and always will with or without mankind's contribution, the uncertainty of proposed "solutions" and their unintended consequences, and the feeling that if you don't absolutely agree with the extreme views of the climate change extremists, you are a "denier".

There are many folks who know that the climate is changing and know that mankind makes a contribution to that change. These same folks are determined to treat the environment with care and respect. That does not mean these folks believe humankind is single-handedly destroying the earth by living a typical 21st century life.

[biker1]

You are wrong on a number of issues. I am not aware of a single person who does not think the climate has/is/and will continue to change. You only need to look as far back as the most recent ice age to know this. The only issue is how much of the recent changes are anthropogenic and how much will the climate change in the future. These are both unknown and the subject of continued research. Predictions in the past have not been accurate. The climate models, upon which the dire forecasts are based, have been shown to be oversensitive to CO2 and have troubles simulating important circulations such as the ENSO. And for the record, is you actually look at the details of the Paris Accords you would realize that it is nothing more than a list of things that various countries may do, including increasing their CO2 emissions for the next couple of decades.

What I have found interesting in this thread, and in the broader discussion of climate change is the new position taken by the faction that used to be called deniers. Five to ten years ago it was the claim that there was no global warming. There were vehement diatribes that the temperature data being produced by the US and the UN and multiple other sources were made up, what is now called "fake news" and that there in fact was no warming at all.

There was a huge attempt to falsely claim that some emails proved it was all cooked up data. This was labelled "Climategate" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy) by the deniers. Click on the link to see what leading US legislators jumped on this as proving that global warming was a "hoax". (https://archive.fo/20091120185715/http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20091118_298_0_WSIGOS499419)

Now it seems everyone sees that the temperature data is real, both for the atmosphere and the oceans. And so the argument shifted to, yes it is getting warmer but it has nothing to do with human activity. It was all natural cycles and the ever changing climate alterations, and when was the last ice age. Some few here are still denying humanity's role or minimizing it.

But most of the posters are admitting that the climate is being impacted in a significant way by man. Some say, well we shouldn't do anything until China does something big, and India does something big. But at least therein is an acceptance that it is human action using fossil fuels that is causing this change. So that's progress.

I'd only add that if you believe in leadership and stewardship by our country in the world, that is a specious argument. China's economy is booming but very young and that nation is still climbing out of third world status. And they in fact have made major efforts to improve their environmental impacts (https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/china/). Sadly those changes are coming too slowly. Our nation has gone backwards in the last 3 years having abandoned goals and abrogated international agreements.

As to the initial question, and I worried about climate change? Not for myself or my children or grandchildren. We are secure here and will not be significantly impacted. But my view is broader than that. I am concerned for the devastation that a foot of ocean rise will cause to arable land in the third world. I am concerned about the loss of coral reefs and alterations in the phytoplankton which may destroy the fish life in our oceans causing starvation, but not here. Some experts have predicted that resulting famines will spark major international and regional wars. And I understand that what we do now will effect the world for decades. And what we fail to do will also have consequences.

So I am heartened that at least most of us are finally on board that warming is real and needs to be addressed. Overton's window has shifted.

[JimJohnson]

I agree with the ideas, opinion, and sentiment you present in this post, 100% Just a little factual disagreement. The underlined section. Human action with regards to fossil fuels isn't "causing" the change. It is one major contributing factor to the speed of the change. Industry as a whole has a huge impact on climate change. It would be insane to expect our species to halt industry.

But it is not insane, and in fact, it is probably the ONLY sane consideration, to try and change our approach to industry.

Yes producing windmills and solar panels and electric or hybrid cars uses up a lot of fossil fuels and produces pollution.

But once these products have been made, they cease to continue using those fossil fuels, and they cease to produce pollution. Electricity -can- be generated without fossil fuels. And you can use that non-fossil fuel to charge batteries. I feel this is key to a new industrial revolution, which I also feel must occur if we want our planet to support our species in the next thousand years.

No, I won't be here to see it. Neither will your kids, or their kids, or their kids. But I personally don't want to spend the rest of my life with the attitude that "who cares, I won't have to deal with it, not my problem." That's not how I was raised.

If I can do even just one LITTLE thing to change how I approach waste, pollution, and the climate, then I'll do it. I don't feel I need to live in a cave off the grid and only eat what I can catch, in order to take personal responsibility for my part of this worldwide project. I can push for recycling legislation. I can join a club that re-uses, re-purposes things that might otherwise be thrown in a trash heap somewhere. I can get a couple of small rain barrels and use those to water my inside plants instead of tap water. I can buy my spring water by the gallon and just pour what I need into a re-useable smaller bottle to carry around with me. Or better yet, buy a filter for the faucet.

I can drive less, walk more. I can use my gas golf cart instead of the gas-powered car for short drives, since I use less with the cart.

I can buy more natural fiber clothing and fewer synthetics.

I can plant oxygen-producing plants. I can buy only trigger-spray household products instead of aerosols. Or I could even make my own, it's not especially difficult.

Big things, little things. If you can't afford or don't like the looks of solar panels, that's okay. Recycle more, that can be your part.

If EVERYONE did SOMETHING to help, we would see a shift in perception and approach to the situation. It would inspire more preservation, and less waste. The little thing you do, can inspire your neighbor to do more, which would inspire his neighbor to do more, and soon you have the entire neighborhood producing significantly less waste and contributing more to a healthy environment.

And then the next neighborhood notices how awesome it is, and they start taking steps. and so on and so forth.

It's only when people say "screw this, I won't be alive to see a change so why should I even try?" that everything comes to a stop and any attempt becomes futile.

Wonderfully said. I hope everyone will read your post. I understand that some will get confused because it is a complicated issue. Also, we actually have those that don’t care what happens to future generations. Third world nations cause a lot of the problem because they are trying to survive. Americans cause a lot of the problem because of selfish greed. Many drive gas hog cars and just don’t care. Many of us consume enormous amounts of food just because it’s there. Many of us have homes far bigger than we need and have the air conditioning running day and night, just because we feel privileged. Point is, it seems to be easier to overuse in all aspects of our life rather than at least TRY TO HELP.

[Bogie Shooter]

What I have found interesting





Our nation has gone backwards in the last 3 years having abandoned goals and abrogated international agreements.

.

I found this statement in your post, so very, very true!

[graciegirl]

Sir, my auto of choice is the PRIUS. We have solar panels on the roof of our house. I don’t know if I am right, but I know I am trying to help. :)

Since two of my posts have been removed from this thread I will try to carefully avoid having that happen again.

The point of both of the removed post and this one is this. Some people believe that only they have the right answers. And doing things the way they are doing things will contribute to save the planet. There are many ways to save the planet and cut down on waste.

Actually, using rags instead of paper towels, and rewearing clothes that are not the latest style and saving your money and not buying things you don't need and taking good care of what you own are all ways of saving money, and energy and supplies. Like Polar Bear, many of us dislike being looked on by others who feel superior.

I will make the point again. Even doing all virtuous things is not going to reverse climate change and global warming. That is the argument. At this time we can frown at plastic straws, while we continue to pick up the paper in it's plastic slip. We can smugly drive our electric carts and continue to hire someone to cut our grass with gas engines. We can blame others and pontificate about doing our little bit. We can do our little bits, all of us, should do our little bits, all of us and it won't change anything about global warming. Mankind is not going to shut off it's gas engines. We may very well perish, or we may likely find another planet to live on in the future, to save, or ruin.

[JimJohnson]

Since two of my posts have been removed from this thread I will try to carefully avoid having that happen again.

The point of both of the removed post and this one is this. Some people believe that only they have the right answers. And doing things the way they are doing things will contribute to save the planet. There are many ways to save the planet and cut down on waste.

Actually, using rags instead of paper towels, and rewearing clothes that are not the latest style and saving your money and not buying things you don't need and taking good care of what you own are all ways of saving money, and energy and supplies. Like Polar Bear, many of us dislike being looked on by others who feel superior.

I will make the point again. Even doing all virtuous things is not going to reverse climate change and global warming. That is the argument. At this time we can frown at plastic straws, while we continue to pick up the paper in it's plastic slip. We can smugly drive our electric carts and continue to hire someone to cut our grass with gas engines. We can blame others and pontificate about doing our little bit. We can do our little bits, all of us, should do our little bits, all of us and it won't change anything about global warming. Mankind is not going to shut off it's gas engines. We may very well perish, or we may likely find another planet to live on in the future, to save, or ruin.
///

[sweethomeru]

Thank you RETIREDGUY123 for asking this question. My short answer is YES, I have drastically changed my habits. Specifically, I drive an electric car and have already signed a contract to install solar panels on my roof.

I just recently moved to TV I must say one of the first things I noticed was how few homeowners have solar panels. Many homeowners have solar pool heaters and solar lights but very few panels. Hmmm? Of all the states in the country, one would think Florida would have a lot more.

A little background, my last home was in Maryland and whenever I went to Home Depot there was always a solicitor from Solar City around asking customers about their home. I had just bought a home with a perfect southerly facing roof and so I decided to look into it. I can get deep into the economic feasibility of solar but in a nutshell, the payback for my panels after federal and Maryland tax credits was 7 years. After only 7 years, my panels would have paid me back my initial investment. Don't forget that the average solar panels will continue to produce electricity for over 30 years! When you do the math, it's actually a fantastic investment!

Instead of being concerned about how hot your attic gets in the summer wouldn't it be great to turn that around to a positive outcome? Solar Panels usually over produce during hot, sunny days and actually feed the grid when demand is at its greatest. I always enjoyed watching my 'net meter' run backwards during the daylight hours.

So, to answer the question again, yes, I have drastically changed my ways. I have solar panels that will supply my home, charge my electric car, my golf cart and my lawnmower. All from the sun.

I realize that one man's(woman's) actions won't make a dent in this huge problem, but I'm doing my part.

P.S. For those with a Netflix account, please watch 'Inside Bill's Brain: Decoding Bill Gates'. The third episode discusses the development of a traveling wave reactor which is a incredibly safe reactor that uses spent nuclear waste as fuel while emitting zero carbon dioxide. Incredible.

[retiredguy123]

Since two of my posts have been removed from this thread I will try to carefully avoid having that happen again.

The point of both of the removed post and this one is this. Some people believe that only they have the right answers. And doing things the way they are doing things will contribute to save the planet. There are many ways to save the planet and cut down on waste.

Actually, using rags instead of paper towels, and rewearing clothes that are not the latest style and saving your money and not buying things you don't need and taking good care of what you own are all ways of saving money, and energy and supplies. Like Polar Bear, many of us dislike being looked on by others who feel superior.

I will make the point again. Even doing all virtuous things is not going to reverse climate change and global warming. That is the argument. At this time we can frown at plastic straws, while we continue to pick up the paper in it's plastic slip. We can smugly drive our electric carts and continue to hire someone to cut our grass with gas engines. We can blame others and pontificate about doing our little bit. We can do our little bits, all of us, should do our little bits, all of us and it won't change anything about global warming. Mankind is not going to shut off it's gas engines. We may very well perish, or we may likely find another planet to live on in the future, to save, or ruin.
I commend people who voluntarily decide to buy an electric car. But, only about 5 percent of the cars currently being used in the U.S. are electric. Even if the power companies are currently burning fossil fuels to produce the electricity, they could switch to solar or wind to produce that electricity, which would then power those electric cars. However, people are buying thousands of brand new gasoline cars every day, and those cars will be on the road burning gasoline for the next 20 years or longer, with no chance to ever use a renewable energy source. So, if the people who think our planet is in jeopardy within the next 10 years are correct, then we are very much behind the curve in fixing this problem. Just something to think about.

[Polar Bear]

... Even if the power companies are currently burning fossil fuels to produce the electricity, they could switch to solar or wind to produce that electricity, which would then power those electric cars...
The conclusion that this is definitely a good thing requires so many unproven assumptions.

[anothersteve]

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked (https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)

Just saying.

We should all be thankful for, and good stewards of, this thing we call earth no matter who's right or wrong.

Steve

[Polar Bear]

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked (https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0)
...
From that reference...

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth..."

A single UN official says...

That says so much about the attempts to alarm the world...whether you believe in man-made climate change or not.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

[anothersteve]

From that reference...

"A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth..."

A single UN official says...

That says so much about the attempts to alarm the world...whether you believe in man-made climate change or not.

That AP article was from 1989.
Steve

[Bay Kid]

I can't believe none are concerned with the damage from controlled burning. So much pollution.

[collie1228]

In the 70's the "experts" were predicting an upcoming global cooling (but the Time Magazine cover seen these days on the internet shouting about The New Ice Age is bogus - it never happened). Global warming is as much a political issue as a science issue, so it's hard to separate fact from opinion. The Green New Deal would do nothing about the biggest carbon problems - China and India, and would cost us trillions. There is little an individual can do, other than vote for politicians who are dumb and dumber on this issue. I guess I'll just die of old age and hope the doomsayers are wrong.

[graciegirl]

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

Those are at the very least, unkind things to say. Has anyone you have ever known said they want to pollute the air? I can't recall knowing anyone who wants to contribute to anything that harms others, other than people who are sociopaths. Industrialization has halved poverty and hunger. Lives depend on it. Greenies get a bad rap because they often talk down to people, and act smug and virtuous while really not accomplishing anything much to change things. Because doing all these very virtuous things doesn't really DO anything to change things that can be seen. Plus we are all living here in our air conditioning , if you want to split a hair. All driving our cars. All farting.

I am not thinking that anyone has the right to pontificate on this matter.

industrialization has halved poverty and hunger since 1990 - Bing (https://www.bing.com/search?q=industrialization+has+halved+poverty+and+ hunger+since+1990&form=EDGHPT&qs=PF&cvid=ebe5a0b10f914be999b7df340d2d4518&refig=2c059dd47e4f470e8a465b11f3598f4b&cc=US&setlang=en-US&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLOPRtE9d5QeoUCrZDJocTHEH 7KoxuGWkrBACrF0W78onYJ34HxbLxjLPLtHh1jjRWfiVoe%21% 21t8RGFeDqcqRhLfqD&plvar=0&PC=DCTS)

[JimJohnson]

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

Thank you for that perspective. You had me going humm. Hope everyone gets your point.

[Velvet]

Why people pollute? My guess is because they do what is most convenient and cheapest. The more complicated, the more effort something takes, the more expensive something is, the less some people are going to go for it.

[Polar Bear]

...Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change?...
Double check the forums you're reading please. I've read nothing of the sort on this one.

[leftyf]

Why does Florida allow the burning of 400,000 acres of sugar cane every year?

[graciegirl]

Why does Florida allow the burning of 400,000 acres of sugar cane every year?

Because people's livelihoods depend on it?

Plus, I was watching Nova the other night and learned that forest fires were part of the natural cycle of nature and fire puts elements back into the soil and it is cyclical. Look here;

forest fires are part of the natural cycle - Bing (https://www.bing.com/search?q=forest+fires+are+part+of+the+natural+cycl e&form=EDGHPT&qs=PF&cvid=1263c9ec58bb4d19b27ccd0ca2ee94ce&refig=2c90ea283a474544bbc9ac79e0003262&cc=US&setlang=en-US&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLOPRtE9d5QeoUCrZDJocTHEH tDVMGj6GODV3ResHqFrvQj*vJT3xipEa%21VHbwwM9vnBtTp1d QPpKOKtIYJFzQyBP&plvar=0&PC=DCTS)

[leftyf]

I spent 4 winters in South Texas and I can tell you that burning sugar cane does pollute. In Texas they call it the black snow. I read that Brazil has banned the burning. They strip the leaves and compost them. In Michigan, where I am from, sugar beets are raised and they don't burn them.

Because people's livelihoods depend on it?

Plus, I was watching Nova the other night and learned that forest fires were part of the natural cycle of nature and fire puts elements back into the soil and it is cyclical. Look here;

forest fires are part of the natural cycle - Bing (https://www.bing.com/search?q=forest+fires+are+part+of+the+natural+cycl e&form=EDGHPT&qs=PF&cvid=1263c9ec58bb4d19b27ccd0ca2ee94ce&refig=2c90ea283a474544bbc9ac79e0003262&cc=US&setlang=en-US&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLOPRtE9d5QeoUCrZDJocTHEH tDVMGj6GODV3ResHqFrvQj*vJT3xipEa%21VHbwwM9vnBtTp1d QPpKOKtIYJFzQyBP&plvar=0&PC=DCTS)

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Because people's livelihoods depend on it?

Plus, I was watching Nova the other night and learned that forest fires were part of the natural cycle of nature and fire puts elements back into the soil and it is cyclical.


Well then we should tell California right now, to tell them to STOP putting out all those wildfires. Let the state burn, because it's part of the natural cycle and we need to put the elements back into the soil, right?

And all those hurricanes that hit Florida? Stop re-building! This is Nature's way of replenishing the planet! Nature wants that land to sink, it's cyclical and we need to stop interfering in it!

Your house gets torn down by a tornado? Find another place to live and do NOT rebuild. Nature wants that land cleared, leave it cleared.

Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

[bumpygreens]

Newspaper articles from the early 20th century were raising red flags about the climate warming and the rapid rate of glacier recession. In the 1960's and '70's, the articles were about the climate cooling, and scientists speculated that we were on the precipice of another ice age. But then it started warming again. What's different this time? I suspect it's the invention of carbon credits -- a new tax. Governments around the world loved the notion taxing their people for a natural phenomenon. The study of climate transformed from a science into political ideology.

In an earlier post, someone had mentioned Milankovich cycles. There are probably other, longer-term cycles that have yet to be discovered and understood. We have been recording climate data for just over a century, and jumping to conclusions about millennia. Would we trust the conclusions of a cardiologist with one day of training whose diagnosis was based on a two second rhythm strip? I wouldn't. He might see the flat line between beats and determine that 40 percent of the time I'm dead, and my only hope was to raise my heart rate above 150. What science has told us is that CO2 on our planet has been as high as 1,600 parts per million, we are currently at 400, and anything below 160 is too low for plants to survive. I don't see the urgency. If anything, we should be adamant about getting the politicians out of science. After all, these are the same kinds of people who, with no evidence, told us that polyunsaturated fats were good for us. Has anyone noticed that the numbers of deaths from cancer have increased nearly identically to the increased consumption of vegetable oils?

[JimJohnson]

Well then we should tell California right now, to tell them to STOP putting out all those wildfires. Let the state burn, because it's part of the natural cycle and we need to put the elements back into the soil, right?

And all those hurricanes that hit Florida? Stop re-building! This is Nature's way of replenishing the planet! Nature wants that land to sink, it's cyclical and we need to stop interfering in it!

Your house gets torn down by a tornado? Find another place to live and do NOT rebuild. Nature wants that land cleared, leave it cleared.

Do you not understand how ridiculous that sounds?

I’m not sure if some don’t get it or just want to be difficult.

[Velvet]

Or... some people want to shut down free speech by proclaiming there is only one side to an issue - their side - and other views must be suppressed, demeaned or ridiculed.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Newspaper articles from the early 20th century were raising red flags about the climate warming and the rapid rate of glacier recession. In the 1960's and '70's, the articles were about the climate cooling, and scientists speculated that we were on the precipice of another ice age. But then it started warming again. What's different this time? I suspect it's the invention of carbon credits -- a new tax. Governments around the world loved the notion taxing their people for a natural phenomenon. The study of climate transformed from a science into political ideology.

In an earlier post, someone had mentioned Milankovich cycles. There are probably other, longer-term cycles that have yet to be discovered and understood. We have been recording climate data for just over a century, and jumping to conclusions about millennia. Would we trust the conclusions of a cardiologist with one day of training whose diagnosis was based on a two second rhythm strip? I wouldn't. He might see the flat line between beats and determine that 40 percent of the time I'm dead, and my only hope was to raise my heart rate above 150. What science has told us is that CO2 on our planet has been as high as 1,600 parts per million, we are currently at 400, and anything below 160 is too low for plants to survive. I don't see the urgency. If anything, we should be adamant about getting the politicians out of science. After all, these are the same kinds of people who, with no evidence, told us that polyunsaturated fats were good for us. Has anyone noticed that the numbers of deaths from cancer have increased nearly identically to the increased consumption of vegetable oils?

Your cardiologist might or might not see a problem. But he will STILL recommend you consume more plant than meat, more protein, fewer carbs, get plenty of exercise, and keep hydrated. Science may or may not know if our contribution to climate change is significant. But science still recommends we do our part to minimize our impact on the planet, *whatever amount* that impact might happen to be.

[ColdNoMore]

What I have found interesting

Our nation has gone backwards in the last 3 years having abandoned goals and abrogated international agreements.

I found this statement in your post, so very, very true!

ABSOLUTELY YEP...to both posts.

I've even had a couple of religious people tell me that why should they lower their standard of living or spend their money now, helping the planet...when the 'Second Coming' is so near anyway? :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

My post above, offers one reason as to why many...are unwilling to make any real effort. :shrug:

[Velvet]

It seems the instructions were stewardship not ownership for those who follow:

Beginning with the Genesis 1:26-28, God instructs humanity to manage the creation in particular ways.

"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Leviticus 25:23 states:

"The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants."

[Aloha1]

So let's turn this around, since so many of you feel that so many of us who want to preserve nature, try to reduce waste, reduce pollution, reduce toxins, are wrong.

Tell us why you want to pollute the air? Tell us what your motivation is, for intentionally wasting, when you could - not waste? Why do you WANT to contribute to climate change? What's in it for you?

Because those are the only questions I can possibly have to ask, someone who is so dead set against preservation and ecological health.

Whoa, wait a minute. No one said they want to"pollute the air". As I personally stated, I am all for being a good steward of our environment, ie: don't foul your nest. So, a little discretion in your choice of verbage please.

[Aloha1]

Why does Florida allow the burning of 400,000 acres of sugar cane every year?

Ummm, because that's how you harvest sugar cane.

[ColdNoMore]

Ummm, because that's how you harvest sugar cane.

Ummm...totally incorrect.

It's done because...it's cheaper and easier.

Alternatives to burning (strike match here) (http://www.sierraclub.org/florida/sugar-cane-field-burning)

Are there any alternatives?

The alternative to sugarcane burning is the more sustainable, burn free, practice of “green harvesting.”

Green harvesting is practiced by some of the world’s top sugarcane growing nations like Brazil and Australia where trash is effectively utilized to produce profits instead of being burned.


In Florida though, the sugar lobby is very powerful and donates a lot of money to politicians, so that's the real reason it's allowed...and probably won't change. :ohdear:

[Jdmiata]

Believe the scientists , not the politicians.

[graciegirl]

Your cardiologist might or might not see a problem. But he will STILL recommend you consume more plant than meat, more protein, fewer carbs, get plenty of exercise, and keep hydrated. Science may or may not know if our contribution to climate change is significant. But science still recommends we do our part to minimize our impact on the planet, *whatever amount* that impact might happen to be.

Where does it say that?

[Taltarzac725]

Believe the scientists , not the politicians.

Certainly agree with that.

[Polar Bear]

Believe the scientists , not the politicians.
Agree.

But keep in mind also that scientists are not in total agreement about climate change, contrary to what many would have you believe.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Agree.

But keep in mind also that scientists are not in total agreement about climate change, contrary to what many would have you believe.

There are a few fringe pseudo-scientists who have claimed that climate science is unknown, unresearched, that no one really knows, or that it's just chugging along doing what it does and nothing that any human does in life will have any affect on it. It's true, these people do exist.

EVERYONE ELSE in the climate science field acknowledges that a) climate change happens, b) it happens whether we contribute or not, c) we ARE contributing to it, d) pollution IS a contributing factor, e) drilling and mining ARE contributing factors, and f) the human factor IS statistically significant. They conclude that if we reduce the human factor - even if we don't eliminate it - the severity and speed of climate change will also be reduced.

[danders]

You should read the 2019 Finnish Study that debunks Climate change

[Polar Bear]

There are a few fringe pseudo-scientists who have claimed that climate science is unknown, unresearched, that no one really knows, or that it's just chugging along doing what it does and nothing that any human does in life will have any affect on it. It's true, these people do exist...
You speak of pseudo-scientists. I did not.

All reputable scientists do not agree on all aspects of climate change.

[Polar Bear]

...EVERYONE ELSE in the climate science field acknowledges...
Whatever statement follows loses a lot of credibility by just starting off with those words.

[JimJohnson]

Agree.

But keep in mind also that scientists are not in total agreement about climate change, contrary to what many would have you believe.

You are correct. Only 97% agree while 3% still remain unconvinced. Their names are Larry, Curly and Mo. no offense, but this thread needs a little lift.:MOJE_whot:

[graciegirl]

You are correct. Only 97% agree while 3% still remain unconvinced. Their names are Larry, Curly and Mo. no offense, but this thread needs a little lift.:MOJE_whot:

If you read this thread you would have seen it is not a matter of whether most people believe in Global warming and climate change. If you read this thread you would see that most people do what they can and really what they always have done to conserve energy, reuse, recycle and repurpose and not waste. The solutions that now exist cost more money than they save and do not make a considerable change really.

The trouble with the devout is that they like to say I will do whatever I can to save the planet. Well most people feel the same way, but at this time it isn't going to stop global warming or climate change or really effect a difference that is discernable.

I keep saying.
I keep saying.

The greenies believe just what they want to believe about the views of the world and of conservative and moderate thinkers..They are still arguing about the reality of climate change when others are saying...At this time it cannot be fixed, which sets the greenies off. They want us to march, and to move our arms and legs and to clutch at straws.

If you read any recent polls from good sources (Pew, Gallup) you would see that more than 70% of all Americans are concerned about climate change and global warming.

Global Warming Concern at Three-Decade High in U.S. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx)

[JimJohnson]

If you read this thread you would have seen it is not a matter of whether most people believe in Global warming and climate change. If you read this thread you would see that most people do what the can and really what they always have done to conserve energy, reuse, recycle and repurpose and not waste. The solutions that now exist cost more money than they save and do not make a considerable change really.

The trouble with the devout is that they like to say I will do whatever I can to save the planet. Well most people feel the same way, but at this time it isn't going to stop global warming or climate change or really effect a difference that is discernable.

I keep saying.
I keep saying.

The greenies believe just what they want to believe about the views of the world and of conservative and moderate thinkers..They are still arguing about the reality of climate change when others are saying...At this time it cannot be fixed, which sets the greenies off. They want us to march, and to move our arms and legs and to clutch at straws.

If you read any recent polls from good sources (Pew, Gallup) you would see that more than 70% of all Americans are concerned about climate change and global warming.

If you would have read my post, you would have known I was giving a little humor to one post that I quoted. My belief is when someone scans posts without reading them completely they tend to misunderstand.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

"The greenies..." wow. Just wow.

[ColdNoMore]

"The greenies..." wow. Just wow.

If that moniker was meant to be a denigration of those who think of others, the environment, and the health of this planet that we all live on for future generations, rather than just the immediate monetary situation/personal comfort of only themselves...count me as a card-carrying "Greenie." :thumbup:

If it was meant to exhibit an admiration/jealousy of those who care...then :cool:.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If that moniker was meant to be a denigration of those who think of others, the environment, and the health of this planet that we all live on for future generations, rather than just the immediate monetary situation/personal comfort of only themselves...count me as a card-carrying "Greenie." :thumbup:

If it was meant to exhibit an admiration/jealousy of those who care...then :cool:.



Words failed me when I saw the post in question. Thank you for a polite, clear, respectful set of words. I'll agree, wholeheartedly.

[Aloha1]

Ummm...totally incorrect.

It's done because...it's cheaper and easier.

Alternatives to burning (strike match here) (http://www.sierraclub.org/florida/sugar-cane-field-burning)



In Florida though, the sugar lobby is very powerful and donates a lot of money to politicians, so that's the real reason it's allowed...and probably won't change. :ohdear:
I lived on Maui for 17 years. I think I know what I'm talking about.

[Aloha1]

After reading page after page of commentary here, my conclusion is no different than before this thread started. We have the "True Believers" who will not/cannot be swayed from their position and we have those for whom the jury is still out. One side at this point in time cannot sway the other. So, why continue this exercise in futility? I fear we are reaching the point of name calling and worse. Time to call it a day and enjoy life.

[Taltarzac725]

12 books about climate change 'solutions' that belong on your summer reading list >> Yale Climate Connections (https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/06/12-books-about-climate-change-solutions-that-belong-on-your-summer-reading-list/)

This looks quite useful.

[ColdNoMore]

I lived on Maui for 17 years. I think I know what I'm talking about.With all due respect...based on what?

Did you read my link in post #108?

In the interest of actual facts and not based on just length of residency, particularly since I haven't seen a claim of being a sugar scientist and/or managing any significant sugar cane operations, I'll save you some time...and post just a part of the article from the link.

Green harvesting is practiced by some of the world’s top sugarcane growing nations like Brazil and Australia where trash is effectively utilized to produce profits instead of being burned.

[Moderator]

After reading page after page of commentary here, my conclusion is no different than before this thread started. We have the "True Believers" who will not/cannot be swayed from their position and we have those for whom the jury is still out. One side at this point in time cannot sway the other. So, why continue this exercise in futility? I fear we are reaching the point of name calling and worse. Time to call it a day and enjoy life.

This post sums up the thread nicely. Posts have deteriorated to member on member. This thread is now closed.

Moderator