Global Warming

Favorite answer: We need to STOP dumping CO2 into the air faster than the plants can remove it. The easy part is we need to start planting trees like crazy, all over the place. The hard part is to stop dumping CO2 in excess of what the plants can handle. First, we need to ban all activities that produce CO2 that we DO NOT need to do. No more speed boats, ATVs, dirt bikes, snowmobiles, super fast cars, gas lawn mowers and other power equipment. Get rid of gas stoves, BBQs and the like and make them electric. No more cruise ship trips, flying or driving off on a vacation a long way off, no more travel for fun. Since no one will be willing to do all this, we will keep going and eventually the CO2 will hit 7% and we all die.

Favorite answer: I am a god denier, in the sense that I do not think any gods exist.

I'm not kidding--just read the best answer below. And I know this guy.  He was in the United States Air Force. Yeah, "fighting for our freedoms." Are these the most petty, anti-freedom, and loathsome people you have ever seen? https://answers.askadc.com/question/index...

in 12 years as Al Gore ,AOC,and other psychos are claiming ?

Favorite answer: No.  In fact there are not even very many crackpots that dispute that.

Article title:  Alarmists Propose Rebranding ‘Climate Change’ for Greater Shock Value Text: Climate change alarmists are pushing for a change in vocabulary to scare people into taking global warming more seriously, starting with terms like “global meltdown” and “climate collapse.” Writing for AdAge this week, Aaron Hall argues that in order to get people to “take action” against climate change, “rebranding” is crucial, since people have gotten too used to the idea that climate is changing and need to be shocked into the notion that the world as we know it is ending. Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/29/a...

It’s hard for me to get on board unless I can really be persuaded that it’s not a natural earth shift.  I’m not a scientist and I don’t know who to believe.

Favorite answer: The 'skeptical' process goes ...

1. I don't believe it purely on the basis of personal opinion 

2. I don't believe it because the data is ambiguous and the conclusions are therefore suspect

3. I accept the data and observations but there are alternative explanations I prefer

... and in some cases ...

4. I accept the data and explanation, but not the supposed consequences of that

If you look at the concept of the Earth orbiting the sun, the dispersion of light through Newton's prism, the discovery of radioactivity, evolution, abnormal rotation curves for galaxies, bacteria, Big Bang theory, age of the Earth, plate tectonics ... they all followed this path both within the scientific community and public at large.

Global warming is no different.

Favorite answer: Yes. If we all take initiative now and act on it. The condition now is reversible only before 10 years.

Venice sinking has nothing to do with climate change. Since it's sinking faster than sea levels are rising, why is there so much rhetoric attempting to create a sense of urgency in regards to climate change? Also, the 1966 flood was worse than the 2019 one. https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshe...

Favorite answer: Probably Iceland; Canada, Russia, Scandanavia etc will be inundated with refugees from southern regions but Iceland is out on its own and North enough to to avoid extreme heating

Favorite answer: No, the same scientists that say there is no Global Warming are the scientists that got paid to say smoking is not bad for your health.

Favorite answer: Coal is too expensive compared with gas and increasingly renewables.  Trumps tariffs on solar panels is only slowing down the inevitable.