I don't believe that the fact of the Amazon rain forest burning is affecting the ozone layer. I do believe it was caused by aerosol in clown hair spray and by something in old A/C units. Also I think I heard that the ozone is healing but I am unsure.From what I heard micro plastic isn't harmful to the human body but I agree that there is too much of it out in the environment.
@TheFiddler, plastic is mostly dangerous to animals, but allergic people would also get problems. Ordinary people would get problems if the doze is big enough.
There's something called an average increase, read about the science. The planet is dying and we are killing it.
Pretty concieted to think we can damage the planet or effect the climate of a planet that was here for hundreds of billions of years prior our standing erect and will be here for billions of years after its cleansed itself of us.
It's not gonna cleanse itself, it'll get chocked up and burnt down with no chance of any life growing here ever again.Yes we have destroyed it. Look at the amount of trees we have cut down. Check the levels to which glaciers have melted, check the condition of air qualities in countries like India.
Fuck you shut up talking to me you stupid ignorant piece of liberal shit. Go fuck your mother. There is no intelligent conversation can come from a delusional, conceited piece of shit like you.
Weather and climate are different. Nobody is telling you the temperature exactly 50 years from now, that's impossible. All predictions are statistical trends. Every number you see is an average over time. You clearly don't understand the meaning of a single number among the figures presented to the mass. I don't know why the scientists bother really, it is always the most idiotic people that are the most aggressive and dismissive against science, I wish there is an intelligence test to filter out people like you from voting, like compere your IQ test result to chimpanzees.
No use talking to her.
@AdithyaR Life won't end. It will come back, perhaps in spades but we wouldn't recognize many or most of the new species. Although we probably won't be here to see them. The planet has gone through many mass extinctions like the present one. Most species are replaced with new ones. The larger, more complex species rarely make it though.
@AdithyaR Except that isn't the case. We contribute almost none of the CO2 in the atmosphere, only 3%. We also know for a fact that their has been more then five times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past and life flourished (because CO2 is the most important molecule to life on our planet (as, thanks to photosynthesis the carbon from it is used to create 90% of a plants biomass which means that 90% of our food either directly or by proxy is created specifically from carbon dioxide, that an equaivalent amount of oxygen is also created by this process, both of which we need to live, as well as being responsible for the bulk of all plant based resources (wood based products and fabrics for instance)).
@AdithyaR Also their is the issue of Antarctica gaining 84000 tons of ice and snow a year for the past twenty years, despite the fact that for over 90% of the planets existence we had no permanent ice on the planet (based upon geological records and fossils (Antarctica was covered in temperate forests as recently as five million years ago (out of the 4 billion) and had no permanent ice). Then you have the issue of the cyclic nature of climate change like the late antiquity warming period, followed by the dark age cooling period, followed by the middle age warming period, followed by the renaissance cooling period, which was then followed by the current warming period (which according to satellite data, is not warming as fast as the climate models are predicting (the same models that have been proven wrong by said data yet are held up as the only "reliable source" of information on climate change despite this fact). So that among many other issues (over 300 atmospheric scientists for instance protested NOAA's findings as they could not replicate them and even had to sue them in order for them to release their methodology (not releasing the data is taboo in science, that alone should arouse suspicious even disregarding all the other information). So that's not actually true, we have had far more carbon dioxide and far higher global temperatures in the past and in fact if you look the places with the most life and biodiversity are all along the equator which has the most heat (in fact its speculated (with some cursory evidence to back it) that heat might accelerate mutations and thus evolution).
@Twalli Kiss my ass.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
I think you've many good points. I think the skepticism to nuclear power started after the Chernobyl accident in Ukraine and because of nuclear as ingredients are associated with nuclear weapons. The Chernobyl incident is the major reasons though. Radioactive radiation are dangerous for people and may cause cancer, disabilities and even death. Just google "radiation poison patients", "radioactive radiation symptoms" and "the Chernobyl disaster", and you knows why people are coming up with these arguments.
@curiousnorway Chernobyl is an isolated case where literally everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong. It was a cascade of human failures that led to Chernobyl. Only certain reactors can be used to produce plutonium, which what conventional nuclear weapons use as their fuel source, and the better, more efficient reactions won't produce plutonium. You have to purposely gear a reactor that way in order to get plutonium as a byproduct. And plenty of people get cancer or mercury poisoning from coal power plants, which also produce toxic chemicals.
So it's safe or at least not more unsafe than cars (car accidents does happen)? If that's the case, then it can be tried more places.
"some effect" I really need to triple check spelling before posting since there is no edit function.
But the talks are not about individuals. The recent protests were very much directed at world governments to fix it and governments attempt to fix things through legislation.
yeah and did i say legislation wasn't needed... im just pointing out the folly of passing the buck
If you legislate, personal or collective choices are no longer choices. Or am I wrong?
we call for legislation to cut carbon emmissions but can do our bit to cut our personal carbon footprint in the meantime while we wait for politicians to catch up... wheres the contradiction in that? im not really seeing any pon t in your pedantry when i was merely expanding a view of what we can all do
You can't get people to do something they don't want to without force. Your idea of people just doing it is a fantasy.
no one in the uk forces us as individuals to recycle but we all do it. have you heard of something called education? a simple documentry on tv was enough to see many people avoiding single use plastics... no legislation was needed for that though it will be written into law at some point
Climate changes are clearly natural, but humans may speed it up. The environmentalists have right in the pro-environmental agenda anyway regardless of if it's man made or not, because of the plastic problem is real.
@curiousnorway I made a complain today to this hospital restaurant I visited today. They had a lot of plastic cups. They use them because they’re cheaper.
But anyways. It’s made up. Plastic crap is an entirely different subject