Now this is a step in the right direction. California regulates cow farts

I agree, sitting on our hands is not a solution. Everyone needs to do our part, no matter how small and insignificant, this is our planet that our children will inherit, at the very least, recycle!

Yep.

What amazes me, is the ignorance of some with the attitude of... "until some kind of single magic bullet comes along, why bother?"

Refusing to recognize that the answer lies in taking and embracing...lots of small, constant, interim steps.

Which is how most major changes take place, whether it be civil rights/air & water pollution/....?

Speaking of which, the incredible increase in air/water quality experienced due to laws that has occurred in the last number of decades in our cities...is the perfect example. I can't help but wonder, if some folks think this all happened because of magic...or voluntary industry actions taken? :oops:

All this improvement in spite of the same voices screeching back then, about how meeting those laws would..."cost too much, destroy industries and it's too late anyway."

And yet of late, ignoring the success of those laws, we've been relaxing a lot of them...simply so corporations/industries can increase their profits in the short term. :ohdear:

If they want to change the climate maybe they should stop all the burning in Florida.

Here's the best thing that I'v ever seen on climate change.
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree? - YouTube

Fossil Fuels: The Greenest Energy | PragerU

They look like gunfighters, so to speak, for the fossil fuel industry.

It is good that people are looking at things critically though.

Scientists rarely agree on much of anything that is not already very settled as being pretty much scientific facts. And that can change if there is a paradigm shift in scientific thinking.

There is a lot of money invested in keeping the thinking uncritical on both sides.

Scientific Advances & Paradigm Shifts in Scientific Theories | Study.com

First off, the climate has always changed. The biggest question is how much of the change is anthropogenic. This is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. From radiative transfer theory, we know that increasing the levels of CO2 will result in some warming. However, this effect is not large enough to be of concern. There needs to be other effects from the slight warming caused by CO2 increases. One thought is that some warming will increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere and since water vapor has a much stronger greenhouse impact than CO2 the net result will be greater warming. Of course, this will lead to more clouds which will reflect more incoming solar radiation and lead to cooling. However, the clouds also act to trap long wave radiation which can lead to warming. Needless to say, it is complicated, non-linear, hard to quantify, and difficult to numerically model with fidelity. This was the area I primarily worked in.

There is no actual proof that the increase in CO2 from man's activities is increasing the global temperature. There are short term temperature records but there has been some homogenization of the data. There are longer term data from ice cores. Interestingly, some of the data suggests the CO2 increases follow temperature increases. The "evidence" that man's activities will catastrophically increase global temperatures comes from numerical modeling. This is an area of ongoing research and I don't believe the results are usable, yet, for developing public policy. It is difficult to numerically model important processes such as clouds. There continues to be a lot of money (relatively) spent on numerical modeling worldwide for investigating anthropogenic warming. Again, we don't know the quantitive impact or the time scale. As a scientist, I cringe every time I hear somebody say the "science is settled".

For starters we could stop running our household air conditioning systems as the power to run them is mostly generated by burning fossil fuels.

Do you want to be the first to volunteer?

Put out by 'PrageU.'

What is a 'PragerU'...you might ask?



PragerU (click here)

What it's not...

What it is...


Any questions? :ho:

The videos you show for what they are simply are manifestations of the CRAP that is spread, as mentioned by Boomer in post 5.

TWO different worlds.....ONE sees the world as it really is.....the SECOND was they are instructed to see the world.

Hard to be informed in this environment......

And each group believes they see the world as it really is.. lol

Yep. :ohdear:

And each knew how the other saw things. And there would be little change in their views.

Could you please explain the meaning of your post ?

Thanks.

Seems to me that any American should know who tells the truth, honor them for that and dispute liars.

Difference of opinion is different....that is people with the same facts, and disagreeing on how to proceed.

Facts and truth, in most cases, is easy to find. Lies as well. Suddenly we are besieged with lies and non facts, and no American should tolerate that.

But, again, not sure what your post means. I am speaking of the truth...you are are also, I think. The point made earlier and I maintain is we are not dealing with facts very much, thus it is NOT related to how we see things. If someone lies to you and I, we should see it as a lie, and that's it.

An untruth CANNOT be seen differently by different people....it is a lie.

"There is none so blind as those who will not see".