Every single day, cruise ships worldwide emit the same particular matter as a million cars. A single large cruise ship will emit over five tonnes of NOX emissions, and 450kg of ultrafine particles a day. To give you an idea, it emits about the same amount of sulfur dioxide as 3.6 MILLION cars
"we stand at an inflection point in history," Biden outlined a stark choice between "meeting the threat of climate change" or suffering "the merciless march of ever-worsening droughts and floods, more intense fires and hurricanes, longer heatwaves and rising seas." Attempting to lead by example, while also appealing to a domestic audience, Biden stressed the climate-related aspirations and actions of his administration.
Yeah, well Biden if you know climate change exists than why the fuck are you continuing to drill oil on federal land?
Approvals for companies to drill for oil and gas on U. S. public lands are on pace this year to reach their highest level since George W. Bush was president
What a fraud.
The new IPCC report states humanity is in a “CODE RED”, this isn’t a joke. This is not up for debate, the scientist and experts ALL agree on this. All of these shady politicians both democratic and republicans who try and tell you otherwise are being paid off by EXXONMOBIL.. if you don’t know about what happened. You should know that Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue.
rather than acknowledging the risks posed by climate change itself or by the company's contribution to it, Exxon instead started a misinformation campaign. ExxonMobil (the world’s largest oil and gas company) spent decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoted climate misinformation.
If our planets going to have a future for humanity, we absolutely need to at least create more environmentally friendly regulations on businesses worldwide.
and china is firing up all kinds of coal fired plants without much of an EPA. Bring back Trump so we can manufacture some things under a real EPA. Change the economy from a "disposal" wasteful one to an efficient one, like our grandparents had. That's coming... if the cost of everything keeps rising. Our parents used to fix everything rather than discard.
I think this whole thing is screwed up and mis guided, people should take matters into their own hands. Eleectric cars isn't gonna solve anything.
We can and should take action.. there's a lot we can all do to reduce our impact on the planet, regardless of whether it's causing warming. make a list... do that. Here's some tips, turn off things you don't use... like wifi, chargers at night. stop using plastic, reusue containers, stop using disposable cups, grow a garden, plant some trees.
Politicians can't cut the oil supply... it's the blood of the global economy and will be for some time.
1. Climate change happened long before there was electricity or fossil fuels being used. It caused the downfall of civilizations thousands of years ago from their crops drying up. It is natural and has happened continuously.
2. Drilling in the USA is actually a better option because when they don't, they instead import oil from foreign lands that have no pollution controls and it actually causes more pollution.
3. People seem to forget that oil is used to produce plastics, but the same people complaining about pollution are fine having most products made out of plastic.
4. Politicians that claim to care about the pollution like Newsom for example that wants to punish gas vehicle users doesn't take care of their own responsibilities like cleaning out the dying trees and underbrush to prevent large forest fires (started by arson and electrical transformers overloading). Those fires in CA have polluted up to 9 times as much as the cars on the road have. Those fires with all of that smoke is very obviously polluting more in CA and we all can smell it, breathe it, and see the ashes on our property. That can cause cancer for people over time just like fire fighters tend to get later in life due to repeated smoke inhalation. Or politicians like Al Gore flying in their private jet while talking bad about people using cars.
5. The "tipping point" or "point of no return" that has been claimed repeatedly has passed many times and they just make a new false claim each time that never comes true.
Debate is what animates science. If it's "consensus" you want, then don't turn to science, turn to politics. In science everything is doubted, and everything is questioned, especially beliefs that are held to be sacrosanct. By the way, it's not just in the U. S. that people are still debating it, but around the globe.
Debate is what’s allowed people to stay ignorant to what’s happening to our environment and the world as a whole.
Theirs even propaganda put in the education system about climate change, climate change is a serious issue which has been studied for years now. There’s no reason for people to be denying it, other than the propaganda that companies like EXXON have been funding for years
Even the phrase "Climate Change" is a Republican (Frank Luntz) invention*, because it "sounds less “frightening” then saying “global warming”", and now, years later, right-wingers are claiming it's a liberal term used because there's no such thing as global warming, rather than a Republican term accepted by liberals to have the conversation (from their point of view you could call it plinkwordle, as long as you accept it's happening).
Watch for that, it happens a lot. (See CRT.)
As usual, as soon as it affected Frank Luntz personally, he saw the light (of fires outside his California home).
"Frank Luntz’s up-close encounter with our increasingly wild weather came at 3:15 a. m. one morning, when the GOP master messenger woke up to his phone blaring an emergency evacuation warning. Luntz saw flames outside his bedroom window. The famous pollster’s home in Los Angeles was in the path of the Skirball Fire, one of the many wildfires that destroyed parts of Southern California in December 2017." https://grist.org/article/the-gops-most-famous-messaging-strategist-calls-for-climate-action/
* Strictly speaking it was invented in 1975, but weaponised by Luntz.
This has nothing to do with stupid Republican democratic whatever non sense. This is what the research, facts, and science prove. It’s what’s been proven for years, you can see the effects of climate change happening in the US if you pay attention to the news.
Please explain to me, if climate change didn’t exist why are wildfires happening all of a sudden in California? Why did Texas freeze during February and hit record cold temperatures, The most recent decade was the nation's warmest on record. Temperatures in the United States are expected to continue to rise.
This is an objective fact, even the oil companies disagree with you. That’s why they’re doing their best to cover up their tracts and spread misinformation.
You might like to have another read of what I said. The basic physics of global warming has been known since the 19th century, but the fossil fuel companies took a leaf out of tobacco's playbook, and we've all seen that happen in real time with covid.
Yes, it's real. Yes, it's dangerous. And yes, we can do something about it, but it has to be now, by everybody!
1. Even if you're right if you use disingenuous arguments you will not convince other people who don't already agree
2. If you don't concede anything the other side says you lose credibility, which again doesn't help convincing others to come to your side
3. When you don't take into account concerns of the other side and address them, you're not going to convince anyone
4. If you're so arrogant in your communication that you demean the opposing side while also not addressing what they say, it wins you no friends.
People who are alarmist about Climate Change do all 4...
Change only happens when you work together. That's just how it works. It's a game of getting people to agree with you and work together with you to make things happen.
There's a book called How to Win Friends and Influence People. Fun fact. It actually works in that order. If someone doesn't like you, doesn't agree with you, and you give them motivation to oppose you. You will never get them on your side
Calling people idiots and telling them to do what you say because you're right doesn't work and never will. At the end of the day The other side makes valid points.
Honestly address those points and concerns or forever deal with this back and forth. Just that simple
We need energy independence because we don't have a viable option yet to take its place. Solar and wind are not enough, they are more expensive than Coal. In fact around the world, China, India and Europe there is energy shortage.
If you like to eat food and all, farmers also emit a lot of pollution, you suggesting we shut them down?
The question isn't if climate change is real, it is how much is man made. No science has come about with proof showing how much is natural and how much is man made. Climate change has happened for the entire history of this rock. I'd love to see how much is human kind, 30% change, how much is natural, but no one anywhere has bothered with that.
Then again, I do wonder why... if sea levels are rising, why are we letting people rebuild their houses in low lying area's that keep getting flooded?
But hey I'd switch to a electric pickup, if I could drive 500 miles a day towing a trailer between charges, and have it cost less than the current price of pickups. Far as I have found there is no such vehicle that exists, as I live out west in the US there is long distances between cities and there is no mass transit. I often drive a route that has 130 miles with no services, over lots of steep mountain hills, 6% grades and so forth.
Maybe big cities on the coasts could outlaw cars, but if you really want to cut down on pollution then we need to stop importing from China or from around the world. The USA that is, the shipping industry produces far more pollution than Cruise lines or Airlines.
China reimburses its own companies for shipping costs to the USA. Buy local, create more local jobs and a few hundred miles by semi or train will be less pollution than global shipping.
Media believes that each side should get the same amount of time to state their views. The fact is that only about 1% of scientists actually believe it's false. We don't get 1% of airtime devoted to that argument. We get 50% of airtime devoted to it as opposed to airtime that would make more sense for the minority viewpoint versus the main viewpoint. It's like this video I saw that was titled "If Google was a guy" . A girl searched "vaccines cause autism". He said "I have a thousand articles that says they don't and one article that says they do". She takes the one that says they do and he yells "Just because I have it doesn't make it true". Just because there are people that don't believe it doesn't mean they're right.
That’s so true. It’s annoying we have basically unanimous scientific consensus on climate change yet people still think climate change is a debate despite the fact that many of the climate change deniers I've talked to.. actually all of them don’t cite their evidence and all of them deny basic scientific facts.
I don’t know how the education system has failed the public this bad but I kind of get it since I remember in 6th grade my social studies teacher made a stupid skeptic comment about climate change. I was too young to think maybe it’s stupid that a social studies teachers trying to teach us about science 🤷🏽♀️ but Climate change wasn’t even a topic in my school. The most schools say on the topic is that it’s scientifically controversial and after doing my own research on the subject it’s crazy how the American school systems bull shiting children.. but than again, what’s new?
It's called blind consuming Man doing whatever it needs to use as much as it can, It's not a big deal, why just couple years back let's go thousands of years back,, The early man were nor many in numbers so they were gatherers they used to take what nature give them and consume, then the numbers increased the sustain the new increase in population man began to learn and use farming that helped the population even more, Then man begun to consume more hence today, a report back in 2002 clearly stated that by 2035 the world be face unseen catastrophe naturally but it was ignored , in 2012 another report stated that man has gone beyond the point of no return and after that 9 years has passed nothing stopped even for 1 day We have taken too much and now we have to suffer whatever more nature gives us whether we like it or not
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Because it is a debate. It is not settled science. It's just the media tells you it is, by only giving you one side of the story.
environmental issues are just fronts for corrupt politicians to get more of your money. No government make a substantial impact on the climate of the planet, but they will tell you that you should give them more money so they can fix it.
The scientific and academic communities are also corrupt as hell, because they get grant money and other funding if they tell the politicians what they want to hear. Anyone who questions the status quo gets ousted by their peers because they risk crumbling the pyramid scheme that's getting everyone paid.
The entire thing is a scam that has been perpetuated for decades and every new generation of naive young people think they are the first generation to ever face environmental issues and that they are the chosen ones to save the world. Give me a break. Don't be so naive and gullible.
It is settled science. What you’re talking about is conspiracy theory.
If you look at all the news channels, Fox News, cnn, etc. ALL OF THEM don’t care about climate change contrary to your beliefs.
You can’t even provide sources to your claims which makes you less credible. If you want me to take you seriously than take your own argument seriously
because it is a debate! The FAR RIGHT thinks (like they think their Lord and Savior Donald J. Trump won the election and there was so much widespread fraud, and the votes were switched) and their talking heads (Hannity, Bannon etc) say "Climate Change does not exist) when their is proof of Hurricanes and Snow in Texas with Cancun Cruz..
Exactly. You don’t even have to look at the news anymore to see the effects of climate change, in 2021 Texas faced record low temperatures during February. Wildfires are burning up places in California almost everyday, it’s all going to get worst if we allow these corrupt politicians and businesses owners who care more about short term goals than the long term goal of our climate to get away with it than this stuffs only going to get worst.
for the 2 women who downrated me.. will you wear a cup when and if you meet Trump? will you allow him to grab you and not wash it down below because he grabbed it?
You are in a forum where at least half the folks disbelieve in vaccinations. And then even scarier, think their backwards views have to be tolerated as part of a freedom of speech argument. As though private firms have to allow their ignorance on their platforms, in their offices and even in the homes of every American family.
I am convinced that humanity is in an uncontrollable downward spiral toward self-destruction. To answer your question, people in the US lead droll and boring lives. They apparently have nothing better to do with their time than to argue with each other. Wish I had free time like that.
Because at the end of the day a lot of people don't care. If you asked I'm sure they would give their opinion on it, but a lot of people just want to go about their day-to-day lives and not think twice about the overall consequences of their actions. Plus when you see reports and stuff come out from decades prior saying that we are on the verge of another ice age and global cooling it's really hard to believe in climate change.
It isn’t up for debate because this is what the science, facts, and experts have been telling us for years. You can’t deny the detrimental effects that climate change has on the environment
"The warming effect of CO2 has been known since 1856, when scientist Eunice Foote published a study indicating that increasing atmospheric CO2 would increase the Earth’s overall temperature. A large majority (62%) of climate studies from the 1970s concluded that this greenhouse warming by CO2 was the dominant force of industrial emissions. In fact, there were 6 times more studies predicting warming than there were predicting cooling (Peterson et. al. 2008)."
@goaded Temperatures go up - AGW, and we're to blame. Temperatures go down, and indicate the onset of another ice age - AGW, and we're to blame. You see, this is the problem with the whole global warming/climate change hypothesis; it's unfalsifiable, and therefore definitely NOT science!
@Avicenna Exactly, and wasn't the 'hockey-stick' graph that doopayo uses above discredited way back in the late 1990's? Temperature records that only go back to 1850 aren't of much use if we want to map the correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and any changes in atmospheric temperature over the earth's history. For that we use the ice core records found in Antarctica. Hell, this is BASIC science, of the kind I learnt in high school, so why do these people consistently get it wrong?
@goaded Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but only a minor one. It comprises only 0.03% of the earth's atmospheric gases, and any change up or down the scale has minimal effect. A single volcanic eruption, even a minor one, will release more CO2 than we ever could. Then of course there is the sun itself, which goes through phases and cycles (ex. sunspot cycle) that have far more of an effect upon the climate than anything else we could ever come up with.
@Rachelspiks: Yes, it was discredited. And they'd have to explain why the Earth was warmer than now at numerous other times in its history, long before humans, much less the Industrial Revolution. But they won't.
@joedalton how are you this willfully ignorant. I’ve provided many sources, just go read them instead of listening to the propaganda Fox News and Facebook feeds you
You’re avoiding the question. Do you genuinely believe climate change doesn’t exist?
97% of climate scientists agree that the only explanation for the amount of warming is increased greenhouse gas emissions as a result of human activity.
You might not care since you’ll die before the worst of climate change happens, but your children, nieces, nephews. They’re going to have to care.
"97% of climate scientists agree..." - doopayo They do? You do realise, don't you, that even if this were the case (and it isn't, not by a long shot) that that fact, in and of itself, wouldn't help your argument one bit. Can you figure out why? Hint: look into 'fallacies'.
Doopayo, the idea that a consensus of scientists is what's required in order to establish the truth is just completely wrong. Science isn't about consensus; that's politics, which just goes to demonstrate that this whole "global warming" fiasco is ultimately political, and has no basis in reality.
"Do you genuinely believe climate change doesn’t exist?" - doopayo Of course it does, because just about everything in nature changes over time. That is to be expected, but we are not the cause of those changes.
If you don’t even cite your evidence than your statements are just empty statements. You can’t criticize someone’s argument without even making a single point.
I’ve included several links which you can see for yourself.
The fact that there’s scientific consensus on climate change (there’s proof) I’ll link the statistics again if you somehow couldn’t read over the ones I linked in this post: www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1103618
the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists – 97 percent – agree that humans are causing global warming and climate change.
If you want to go even further, climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists.
scientists who are climate change skeptics are outliers. Those who disagree about climate change have been shown to consistently disagree over basic facts (e. g., the effects of CO2 on climate)
There have already been studies indicating that the vast majority of climate change is unnatural. Its being caused by human activities.
The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to about 417 parts per million in the last 151 years. This is an objective fact
Excessive use of Nitrous oxide, CO2, Methane, and Chlorofluorocarbons contribute to global warming.
Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses.
Doopayo, I can't paste links because I'm only Xper 1, but there is a site you'll get that comes up when you type in the www, then climate dot gov, slash news, dash features, slash understanding dash climate, slash climate dash change dash atmospheric dash carbon dash dioxide. Now, take a look at what's stated directly under the first graph. It states, "The modern record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels began with observations recorded at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii." Mauna Loa is an active volcano. Now, can you tell me why siting your CO2 measuring apparatus near an active volcano might not be such a great idea? According to usgs dot gov > volcanoes, it's one of THE most active. This is an example of the "science" we're dealing with here.
It's true, carbon dioxide (CO2) makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, less than a tenth of a percent. But because of CO2's powerful heat-trapping greenhouse properties, its presence makes a huge difference.
The biggest impact comes from the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor, which condenses out due to the fact that colder air holds less water vapor; this is what tanks the greenhouse effect in the simulation. Positive feedbacks like the growth of ice cover would further precipitate the temperature plunge. But it's CO2 which drives all this change.
Because small concentrations of carbon dioxide have an outsized impact
For the vast majority of the past million years, CO2 levels have been below 280 parts per million. Since the industrial revolution of the 1800s, levels have jumped to 415 parts per million — an astounding 48% increase in 150 years.
For perspective, NASA Goddard Institute climate scientist Kate Marvel put this consensus into relatable terms, "We are more sure that greenhouse gas is causing climate change than we are that smoking causes cancer."
Are we really just going to sit here and play Russian roulette with the lives of millions just because a couple of people are “skeptical” of climate changes existence?
The same site your discrediting has already addressed this. “Human activities emit 60 or more times the amount of carbon dioxide released by volcanoes each year”
“violent eruptions may match the rate of human emissions for the few hours that they last, but they are too rare and fleeting to rival humanity’s annual emissions. In fact, several individual U. S. states emit more carbon dioxide in a year than all the volcanoes on the planet combined do.”
I’m also guessing that your misinterpreting the article, I’m unable to find the article you are talking
About however I know that it’s referring to the levels of carbon dioxide found at Hawaii’s muana loa observatory which is an observatory not an active volcano? I understand how you could’ve made the misinterpretation though, as theirs an actual volcano that’s named muana loa, muana loas observatory was just named after the volcano but they weren’t referring to the literal volcano
"Overall, volcanoes release about 1% of the equivalent amount of CO2 released by human activities. Quite small. However, about once every 20 years there is a volcanic eruption (e. g., Mount Pinatubo, El Chichon) that throws out a tremendous number of particles and other gases. These will effectively shield us enough from the Sun to lead to a period of global cooling. The particles and gases typically dissipate after about 2 years, but the effect is nearly global.
By comparison, human activities emit a Mount St. Helens eruption of CO2 every 2.5 hours and a Mount Pinatubo eruption of CO2 twice daily. The largest possible eruptions come from super volcanoes like Yellowstone or Mount Toba (which erupt very rarely, about every 100,000-200,000 years or more), but the total annual CO2 emissions from human activities is like one or more Yellowstone-sized super eruptions going off every year. So, the human impacts are quite large compared to volcanoes."
former head of the IPCC says the organization constantly lies and exaggerates climate change
their predictions are always getting further away and less severe... im old enough to remember when they said there would be no snow left on mountains by the year 2000. and im old enough to remember when they said glaciers would be gone... they aren't.
we need oil for everything. including solar panels and wind which are made from oil
Because it scares a lot of people and one thing here in America i learned is if someone is ashamed or afraid of the truth they deny it being real so they can feel better about it
Science is never settled. Science is ALWAYS up for debate. That’s how science works. Climate change is something that exists naturally, but not something that threatens our existence as human beings. This whole notion that humans cause more of it is just about a political agenda, and you’re an idiot if you believe it.
And who convinced you climate change activism was a political agenda? Riddle me this, if climate change had such a huge political incentive than why did Biden lie about caring for climate change just to continue to drill a bunch of oil on federal land? Why do both Democrat and Republican news pundits push disinformation against climate change kind of how they’re pushing disinformation against covid 19
Man made climate change is not a real thing. It's completely made up. All objective evidence proves this. The climate change advocates refuse debate. They know they will lose. They don't have a leg to stand on.
