Climate Protests

Yes I do, humanity lives on about 2.5 % of the earth's surface, 70%water and of the 30% land mass nobody lives on Greenland, Antarctica, in any of the world's deserts or mountain ranges, in any of the world's forests and large areas of Canada and Russia, I could go on. Our climate is cyclical in nature and is never the same throughout history, my own opinion is volcanoes put more co2 (so2) into the earth's atmosphere than (krakatoa as an example) all the cars on the road today, its not a one way bet, that's just my opinion.
 
Since universal social charge tax was only a temporary tax,then why does the body politic not suggest it be adapted as the carbon tax.
 
Do you think we're doing fine as we are then? Do you not think we could do a little bit better at minding our planet? I don't think anyone is saying it's a one way bet (whatever that means) but if you seriously think we don't need to be concerned or that we don't need to be changing our ways then I think you're mistaken.
 
No we are not doing fine with the planet, we are consuming the planets resources to quickly, pollution is a major problem for me with plastics (man made one way bet ) in our oceans our biggest issue, over fishing, deforestation and killing animals to extinction. If your worried about c02 levels in the atmosphere then plant more trees, thats what I mean by its not a one way bet as nature has a way for us to rebalance. That's my opinion
 
BilliamD75 said:
Maybe I should be out protesting about climate change, it is now become a religious cult and any objective view like mine is treated with distain without answering simple questions for a balanced point of view,
Click to expand...

That's right; objectively it's a cult.

Well done.
 
BilliamD75 said:
as nature has a way for us to rebalance. That's my opinion
Click to expand...
Nature is not a sentient thing but in a way you are right; our planet will be fine, it just mightn't be suitable for us to live on.
This isn't about nature, it is about the way in which people are changing the climate in a way which makes it less suitable for us to live here. The people doing most of the changing will suffer the least of the results of those changes.

Do remember that a good chunk of the world's population lives within 3 meters of sea level and nearly all of the world's mega-cities are coastal, with most of those being in river delta's. Places like Bangladesh will be pretty much wiped out with reasonably modest sea level rises.

When children are telling their parents to listen to the science and be logical we should be both ashamed and worried and then we should do what we are told.
 
I have heard that before, see levels are going to rise, al gore the u.s vp said new York would be under water by 2012, with all the best scientists available to him how come he was so wrong, yes of course purple we should listen to the children they know more.
 
Well they know more than you, it seems.

NASA seem to be a member of the Cult as well...
 
Scientific American, Nature Magazine, National Geographic, the UN, the OECD, even the CIA; they are all members of the Climate Change Cult!
 
BilliamD75 said:
Yes Leo I can show you articles to say I am right, volcanos have put more co2 into the atmosphere in the earth's history that fossil fuels in the last 100 years, plant more trees to compensate for it
Click to expand...
In Earth's history, really? Is that the level we are at?
Human's have been here for 200,000 years. We've been industrialised for 200.
The earth is 4.54 billion years old.
Are you seriously putting that up as an argument against man made climate change?
 
Most of those massive volcanic eruptions happened before there were mammals or dinosaurs on the earth (they both evolved around 215 million years ago). The eruptions which did happen after that caused mass extinctions. The Earth is now more stable and we have far fewer eruptions.
 
BilliamD75 said:
Yes Leo I can show you articles to say I am right, volcanos have put more co2 into the atmosphere in the earth's history that fossil fuels in the last 100 years, plant more trees to compensate for it
Click to expand...

Making that claim it is clear you do not understand what you are talking about. You do understand that it is the increased levels that are the problem, right? And that current levels are significantly higher than they have ever been?

How many trees do you think we would need to plant to fully compensate? What percentage of arable land would have to be given over to support this level of forestation and what impact would that have on food supplies and water tables?
 
Co2 levels have been higher before industrialised times the ice core samples taken from Antarctica prove this beyond doubt, I have studied this topic for years and have come to my conclusion in a balanced way,we could be here for years debating this issue, a lot of people do not agree with me and that's fine I have no problem with that, I clearly never said to you that you do not know what you are talking about. Anybody with a different opinion is treated with distain, I will stick to economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register