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

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

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.

Double check the forums you're reading please. I've read nothing of the sort on this one.

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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."