Man the idiot global warming deniers on this thread is astounding. Humans can indeed change their environment. Every minute a football field size of forestland disappears from the Amazon. Fly an airplane over the Canadian Rockies and you will see vast barren plots of clear cuts. In the last 50 years the Aral Sea, once one of the biggest lakes in the word has almost completely dried up due to uncontrolled irrigation. The Sahara desert continues to expand due to uncontrolled logging. These are all things caused by humans. It can't be said otherwise. Just because climate change doesn't fit into your economic philosophy doesn't mean it is not happening. Easy to dismiss climate change as being hippie talk. Unfortunately it is highly trained scientists from the world's most prestigious universities saying this, not potheads. Just because some conservative backed wacko says the opposite does not make it so.
For once I'm on same time as frog n there's no hot chick gif. We are killing to world but it will right it's self weather we are or not just hope I'm dead before that happens. I don't feel sorry for the next generation they say we need to leave a better plant for them but we don't seem to be leaving better people for it anyway
Frog all climate change is done on a computer algorithm that humans input in to a computer system that generates certain paths, take for example, hurricanes they generate what 20 or so paths that it can go but you can not predict Mother Nature, no one is saying that humans are not causing changes to our surroundings what the whole deal is about is about false information to grant the epa in the United States a reason to make certain laws causing prices to sky rocket In 1972 the computer program projected in 20 years the earth would be in a global warming phase which would cause certain plants and animals to die off but actually the opposite has happened and we are really in a global cooling where the earth has not reached the predicted temp. Thus causing the models to change and extend the dead line. It's all false hope for companies like the epa. Also a scientific theory is based on actual tangible facts but this computer prediction is not fact.
We will still die in the future but we ALL could never reach that event because it may be a hundred years or a billion years and do you think that you can still reach that? (well if there's a fountain of youth but...) There are two ways for us to die. First, the earth changes and the second is the SUN changes. It was because the sun will grow up biggger than what it was now but it will take a billion of years for that to happen. Yes, maybe if we all work together, earth can still be saved but how can we stop the SUN to grow bigger? And besides, we wouldn't reach that year but the only thing we can do is to teach the new generation on how to live longer for the future and that's what scientists is doing now. But there is still a possibility for humans to die in the future may it be from the human's activity, the earth's activity and the sun's activity...
I love how everyones saying "Save the Planet", we aren't trying to save it but instead we're trying to save ourselves. Even if we wipe everything through a nuclear war and humans are wiped out then there will be something else that will take our place. It's just a cycle of life and death through evolution.
If as a species we can not recognize the harm we have caused to our environment, maybe we should be allowed to push ourselves to extinction. Keep on denying science and climate change until we make the world an inhospitable place for humankind.
Dennis meadow and his wife wrote this book back in 1972 One is a social scientist the other is a ecologist and environmentalist . They used a 1972 program to project the earths finding which said 20 years every thing would run out WRONG 1992 we still had everything Now they are saying 2015-2020 it's gonna run out Another projection said 75 years If you understand that humans can not factor in Mother Nature to the equation the projections will always be wrong. This is about government control over its people along with population control because there is too many people living today. But remember Darwin's law of natural selection those who adapt will survive those who can not adapt will die Humans are one of the most adaptable creatures on this planet. That is not saying we do not cause "harm" to this planet but it is showing you that this planet will live a lot longer than what these two crackpots or quacks are saying.
Consider lead and what happened to the Romans. Now consider we used lead gas which should have never happened because someone should been able to balance the chemical equation (what goes in must come out). In the case of Rome, the politicians fiddled while the empire collapsed due to mismanagement and disease setting in. Hunanity didn't die but it took well over a thousand years to rebuild it appropriately. Now consider the impact that people have including but not limited to: 1. Maintaining tailings ponds 2. Maintaining nuclear power plants 3. Maintaining refineries And then take people out the environment. To say that humanity can't impact the environment is to not be able to see the forest from the trees. *peace*
@Elegantly_wasted: actually nuclear power plants are environment friendly. A nuclear power plant (of course if no accidents happen) have close to 0 effect on environment.
Global warming... If you ask yourselves one question. Who has the most to benefit from warmer weather. We get 2 answers. Canadians and Russians. The evil secret brotherhood of terraforming. Hell bent on unfreezing their frozen lands. The arctic warlords of the north. Reptilians hybrid.
Take people out of the equation and imagine what would happen. Ps: research sellafield for a guide of how not to deal with nuclear waste
They are trying to make nuclear energy a benign source. I can remember the name of the reactor, but the way it melts down or inability to melt down make it almost harmless. The German reactors are really good. It's been a few years, it not really something I follow. Maybe there is more information on it now. I'm thinking it was coming of Germany's program though.
That would be cool if the could do that AND do something with the waste (like the tailings ponds that come from mining uranium).
I find it very funny how people are crying all over internet "ohhh no! We are destroying the planet"... I doubt any of you are typing from a cave, at the light of a candle, on an phone/computer made from herbs.
Does it mean these industries have to be irresponsible about it? Why can they not be held accountable?
Industries are working for your comfort. For you to have a warm shelter, to have electricity, to have warm water, to have electronic devices, to drive a car, and so on and so on.
Um, no. Ted Cruz basically made the same claim last month, that there has been “no significant warming” in the last 17 years. Here's what FactCheck said: "Cruz cherry-picks data to arrive at a spurious conclusion. Seventeen years ago was 1998, one of the hottest years since recording began. That year was unusually warm thanks in part to a very strong El Niño event, an ocean-atmospheric phenomenon marked by warm ocean surface temperatures in the Pacific. That year, the average global temperature was 0.62 degrees Celsius above the 20th century average, according to NASA (the agency that produces that “satellite data” Cruz mentioned). In 2014, considered by several research organizations including NOAA and NASA as the most likely candidate for warmest on record, the temperature was 0.68 degrees above average, suggesting very little warming between those two data points. It would be just as easy, however, to pick out much cooler years as a starting point to show a sharp increase in temperatures. Starting one year earlier or later — at 1997 (0.46 degrees above the 20th century average) or 1999 (0.41 degrees) — would yield between one-fifth and one-quarter of a degree of warming. This would represent as much as 31 percent of all warming the world has seen since 1880, when record keeping began. Choosing 1997 or 1999 as a starting point, however, would be just as misleading as choosing 1998. Climate researchers look to longer term trends to determine warming, as there is too much natural variability within any given year. And that long-term trend is unequivocal (see NASA chart below): The world has now gone 30 consecutive years — 360 straight months — where every month has been above the 20th century average, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Though it may be difficult for many who live in the northeastern U.S. to believe, this winter (December – February) was globally the warmest ever recorded. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000, with 1998 the only exception." http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-o ... d-galileo/ Politifact says the same thing: "PolitiFact New Jersey in July 2013 rated as True a claim that every "single month since 1985 has been warmer than the historic average" and that all "12 of the warmest years on record have come in the last 15 years." Those statistics were backed up by data released by NOAA scientists and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. As for the warmest years on record, NOAA scientists estimate that the last 15 years have included the 14 hottest years and NASA scientists have said that same time period included the 13 hottest years. A month later, though, PolitiFact Rhode Island rated as Half True a claim that global surface temperatures have been flat for 16 years. This held up partly due to the cherry-picked and short timeframe, which swept in 1998, the El Niño year that made surface temperatures exceptionally warm. When you start near an unusually hot year, there's a good chance that subsequent years will be cooler." http://www.politifact.com/texas/stateme ... t-warming/ So no, we're not in a "cooling period". Skeptics suck at science.
Punish the industries. Stop using industrial products and services. Go live in a cave (the production of building materials is not environmental friendly). Get rid of your phone and computer, and TV and whatever. Electricity is bad for environment. Don't use your car anymore. Just walk or run if you are in a hurry. And no, using a bycicle is not an alternative. A bike have tires. The industrial process to produce the rubber need for those tires is not environmental friendly neither. Eat herbs or crude meat only (if you set up a fire that will increase the CO2 emissions). K? Thx.