• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | JessFR | tathra

The Anthropogenic Climate Change Debate Thread

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,213
Mod Note- Please use this thread only to debate the existence of AGW, climate change, global warming etc. -swilow


So this is a sea level chart over the past 200 years.
The sea level began to rise around 1850 when carbon emissions weren't an issue,
The rise has been quite steady since then.
So why is there no deviation or spike around 1940-1970 when emissions became a big deal?




 
Last edited by a moderator:

Xorkoth

Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
39,161
Location
Shadowmeister v0
Carbon emissions have been a big deal since the industrial revolution... around 1850. The smog and pollution from emissions became the most severe by 1980, but then we started implementing methods for cleaner emissions (which the current administration is trying to overturn) so the situation in terjms of smog is better now. Early industrial revolution was the dirtiest it's ever been, though of course the damage was just beginning then. I find it curious how the pattern starts to look much different around then, and has steadily risen since. I'd be curious to see what this graph looks like starting hundreds of years earlier. Maybe if we looked at it for the last 1000 years, the last 150 would look quite spike-like. I mean it already does in the above. I couldn't say for sure though since that's not the graph you posted.

Okay here's one I found that stretches from -20,000 BC to today. The ending red line is where it will be at year 2100 following current trends. However the blue that is partly obscured by it is actual measurements. Don't you think that looks like a tremendous spike compared to the rate of change happening during any other period?



Okay I just realized this is global temperature rise but that directly correlates to sea level and is just as relevant to the conversation.
 
Last edited:

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,213
Carbon emissions have been a big deal since the industrial revolution... around 1850.
Depends what you mean by big deal. The fact is that emissions increased a LOT since 1850, that is undeniable, do the comparisons. There's no logical reason why the sea levels were going down and then started to rise due to carbon emissions back then, which were extremely minimal. And if that were true, then we would've seen accelerated ice melting - which would have resulted in increased sea level rise and a deviation/spike around 1940 onwards. The sea levels have been rising steadily, which leads me to believe that it's not directly related (or related at all) to carbon emissions. What's more likely is that sea levels began to rise after the last ice age.

I'd be curious to see what this graph looks like starting hundreds of years earlier. Maybe if we looked at it for the last 1000 years, the last 150 would look quite spike-like. I mean it already does in the above. I couldn't say for sure though since that's not the graph you posted.
Here's a chart (temperature) that goes further back. For most of the past 10,000 years the temperature has been warmer than today which is one reason I'm skeptical of the alarmists. The alarmist will counter this with claims of "more extremes" or other points that could be argued are cherry-picking. If you go by averages then there's no cause for alarm:


As you alluded to, people can misrepresent data by focusing in a shorter time frame. The graph you posted I'm not sure what that represents because it doesn't look right to me.

Here's historical sea levels:

 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,213
Also check this one:



So there's very compelling evidence that we are about to enter a mini-ice age.
There hasn't been any warming from 1996 - 2013 (according to Lord Monkton's work) and 2016-2018 showed the biggest 2-year drop in recorded history.
The sun is entering its Grand Solar Minimum cooling phase and we should brace ourselves for a chilly decade or two. I know pointing to extremes doesn't exactly prove anything, but look at the record-breaking cold temps/snow that we're seeing in North America and Europe. It's just interesting when a couple of decades ago the experts were saying that the ice caps would be melted by now, catastrophic sea level rises etc... The ice caps have regained much of the ice that they've lost. If the next couple of winters are even colder than this one, then it's time for some serious alarm in my opinion, however for cooling not for warming.
 

swilow

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
31,745
Location
Your double slit
Jgrimez said:
For most of the past 10,000 years the temperature has been warmer than today which is one reason I'm skeptical of the alarmists. The alarmist will counter this with claims of "more extremes" or other points that could be argued are cherry-picking. If you go by averages then there's no cause for alarm:
All you need to do is to disprove the fact that carbon dioxide traps infrared, and we could totally ditch the AGW notion. If you cannot disprove that, and if you accept the fact that our activites release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then you would have to concede that human activities are adding heat to the system. You would have to accept that it is impossible for this not to be the case.

Geologically, it is accepted that we are emerging (possibly permanently) from a sequence of repeated glaciations, so it is generally accepted that temperatures are going to show an increase over time if looked at in the short term. It seems incredibly foolish to knowingly increase the conditions that trap more heat into a system that may be experiencing a 'natural' temperature increase at the same time.

Jgrimez said:
As you alluded to, people can misrepresent data by focusing in a shorter time frame. The graph you posted I'm not sure what that represents because it doesn't look right to me.
I guess the temperature anomaly is the amount above neutral or average.
I know pointing to extremes doesn't exactly prove anything, but look at the record-breaking cold temps/snow that we're seeing in North America and Europe.
I think this is an interesting little graph:



Perhaps I cherrypicked this, but its certainly telling. :\ The hottest years on record are in the last 20 years or so. That our average temperature may currently be lower than it was 15,000ya (I don't know if you are correct) doesn't mean that temperatures are not currently rising, it is a conflation to imagine this. That is exactly what AGW is telling us; that we are seeing an increase above the contemporary average that is caused by the trapping of heat by carbon dioxide due to human activity. The risks of a hotter planet are also well understood and have been magnified by the fact that there are 7 billion humans now to experience previously unknown levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.

It doesn't entirely matter what the temperature was in the past anyway, we have thrown a huge spanner in the climate-works that has no precedent in past events.
 

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
9,808
Location
A chromatically corrected world
Depends what you mean by big deal. The fact is that emissions increased a LOT since 1850, that is undeniable, do the comparisons. There's no logical reason why the sea levels were going down and then started to rise due to carbon emissions back then, which were extremely minimal. And if that were true, then we would've seen accelerated ice melting - which would have resulted in increased sea level rise and a deviation/spike around 1940 onwards. The sea levels have been rising steadily, which leads me to believe that it's not directly related (or related at all) to carbon emissions. What's more likely is that sea levels began to rise after the last ice age.

Here's a chart (temperature) that goes further back. For most of the past 10,000 years the temperature has been warmer than today which is one reason I'm skeptical of the alarmists. The alarmist will counter this with claims of "more extremes" or other points that could be argued are cherry-picking. If you go by averages then there's no cause for alarm:


As you alluded to, people can misrepresent data by focusing in a shorter time frame. The graph you posted I'm not sure what that represents because it doesn't look right to me.

Here's historical sea levels:

[h=2]What's the difference between global and local sea level?[/h]Global sea level trends and relative sea level trends are different measurements. Just as the surface of the Earth is not flat, the surface of the ocean is also not flat—in other words, the sea surface is not changing at the same rate globally. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to many local factors: subsidence, upstream flood control, erosion, regional ocean currents, variations in land height, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.
Sea level is primarily measured using tide stations and satellite laser altimeters. Tide stations around the globe tell us what is happening at a local level—the height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land. Satellite measurements provide us with the average height of the entire ocean. Taken together, these tools tell us how our ocean sea levels are changing over time.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

People can misrepresent data because they don't understand the measure needed to support a particular claim either. I'll let it be a surprise how the global sea level is trending.
 

cduggles

Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
9,808
Location
A chromatically corrected world
Also check this one:



So there's very compelling evidence that we are about to enter a mini-ice age.
There hasn't been any warming from 1996 - 2013 (according to Lord Monkton's work) and 2016-2018 showed the biggest 2-year drop in recorded history.
The sun is entering its Grand Solar Minimum cooling phase and we should brace ourselves for a chilly decade or two. I know pointing to extremes doesn't exactly prove anything, but look at the record-breaking cold temps/snow that we're seeing in North America and Europe. It's just interesting when a couple of decades ago the experts were saying that the ice caps would be melted by now, catastrophic sea level rises etc... The ice caps have regained much of the ice that they've lost. If the next couple of winters are even colder than this one, then it's time for some serious alarm in my opinion, however for cooling not for warming.
Nice Y-axis. It's like hotter or colder or something!?! Brrr...
 

fairnymph

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 16, 2000
Messages
15,769
Location
Germany mostly, US sometimes, Australia every now
I'm with JGrimez. I'm extremely pro environment & anti pollution, also anti petroleum & all its derivatives as much as possible, especially plastics. But global warming...no. Though the weather does seem very erratic in a way that disturbs me, but I suspect geoengineering is responsible for that. I don't see how any disaster is imminent unless it's due to pollution - especially the plastic gyres in the ocean. I wish environmentalists would focus more on that than carbon emissions/global warming.
 
Last edited:

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,213
All you need to do is to disprove the fact that carbon dioxide traps infrared, and we could totally ditch the AGW notion.
Not really because even if that's true, it's the extent that's being disputed. I don't see a definitive link between humans carbon emissions and global climate.

If you cannot disprove that, and if you accept the fact that our activites release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then you would have to concede that human activities are adding heat to the system.
Sure but how much? If I fart into a hurricane I'm having some effect to the wind. Pro-alarmist scientists cannot tell us what the temperature would be if humans weren't here yet they're sure that we're a significant factor to the climate. Enough to enact legislation.

Geologically, it is accepted that we are emerging (possibly permanently) from a sequence of repeated glaciations
I would need to see a source for this, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

It seems incredibly foolish to knowingly increase the conditions that trap more heat into a system that may be experiencing a 'natural' temperature increase at the same time.
I would agree but the link needs to be conclusively proven. There has been much higher amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere a long time ago, in colder and warmer temps.

Perhaps I cherrypicked this, but its certainly telling. The hottest years on record are in the last 20 years or so.
Your charts are interesting, they seem to counter what I've posted. From doing my research into this I see that it's possible to assess official data and represent it in opposite ways. Not easy to sift through what is actually true. I looked through the official global temperature data myself and I did confirm the recent drop in global averages.

That our average temperature may currently be lower than it was 15,000ya (I don't know if you are correct) doesn't mean that temperatures are not currently rising, it is a conflation to imagine this.
As far as I know, average temperatures are actually the more important measurement here. So as I've seen the average is dropping, you would have to prove that the hottest extremes are more significant than the coldest extremes.

That is exactly what AGW is telling us; that we are seeing an increase above the contemporary average that is caused by the trapping of heat by carbon dioxide due to human activity. The risks of a hotter planet are also well understood and have been magnified by the fact that there are 7 billion humans now to experience previously unknown levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
Let's say that's true, how do you explain this insane cold that we're seeing as we speak?

It doesn't entirely matter what the temperature was in the past anyway, we have thrown a huge spanner in the climate-works that has no precedent in past events.
Wrong, it definitely matters what the temperatures were in the past, because it can tell us whether this precedent you speak of is even a precedent (I don't believe it is).

cduggles: your second graph proves nothing. We're in agreement that global temperatures have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age (1700-1850). Surprise, the temp got warmer after an ice age. That graph ignores the recent drop (2016-2018) And I'm not sure exactly what the first graphic proves it seems quite specific. Regarding ice sheet this is interesting:

NASA.gov 'Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses' said:
A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. "Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica - there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."
^What I also find noteworthy here is that NASA data has challenged the conclusions of studies by the IPCC. And this is why many people who assess the data themselves are calling BS on the AGW narrative. Politicized institutions like the IPCC are cherry-picking data and ignoring the evidence that disproves the agenda they're pushing - in this case it's by publishing the ice losses while ignoring the snowfall.
 
Last edited:

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
3,687
Sadly I really think it's way too late to do anything, for many years the land-rapers have had their own way & wrecked the planet for us, what does a head of a huge company care what happens to the people of the planet in 100 years when she/he is dead & lived a great life? They don't give a toss about ANY of us as they have made their filthy cash & checked out of the planet.
 

Captain.Heroin

Sr. Moderator: H&R, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 3, 2008
Messages
77,392
Location
Location
Stop buying and promoting buying crap; that is unessential to basic-living needs.

'oh ...oh but the economy!!' - the economic system needs to be overhauled and weeded - no one will die; without half the crap we have insidiously been manipulated into being addicted to. Dont worry, it will start with decent ideals and then be corrupted again -like it does but the difference is that there might be a slight shaving-off of time when we destroy ourselves.
The economy is important. If we all return to the stone ages, we'll be contributing more to emissions, not less.
 

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
3,687
Asclepius Stop buying and promoting buying crap; that is unessential to basic-living needs.

'oh ...oh but the economy!!' - the economic system needs to be overhauled and weeded - no one will die; without half the crap we have insidiously been manipulated into being addicted to. Dont worry, it will start with decent ideals and then be corrupted again -like it does but the difference is that there might be a slight shaving-off of time when we destroy ourselves.
My God, one of the most wise things I have seen online in sometime.
Sir/Madam I salute you.
 

Xorkoth

Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
39,161
Location
Shadowmeister v0
All you need to do is to disprove the fact that carbon dioxide traps infrared, and we could totally ditch the AGW notion. If you cannot disprove that, and if you accept the fact that our activites release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, then you would have to concede that human activities are adding heat to the system. You would have to accept that it is impossible for this not to be the case.

Geologically, it is accepted that we are emerging (possibly permanently) from a sequence of repeated glaciations, so it is generally accepted that temperatures are going to show an increase over time if looked at in the short term. It seems incredibly foolish to knowingly increase the conditions that trap more heat into a system that may be experiencing a 'natural' temperature increase at the same time.
I think this argument is probably the best one in the thread because it gets to the core of the issue. Regardless of whether you think there is an agenda being pushed, and the problem is being overblown, even if you acknowledge that the planet is naturally warming (which I think pretty much everyone does), CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, thereby warming the planet. Should we be contributing to warming the planet, and releasing billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere every year? The Earth has had a slowly shifting balance between oxygen and CO2 which has shaped the life on the planet tremendously. Imbalancing that system seems incredibly foolish. It seems of critical important to work hard on shifting away from fossil fuels for energy, but the power of the industry prevents that, and causes people to believe it's fine to keep doing it. It's not fine, it pollutes, first of all, and it depletes the planet of unrenewable natural resources and damages ecosystems and water supply to extract it. And it releases large amounts of a potent greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. So BEST CASE scenario, that somehow doesn't matter at all. Okay, then we're only needlessly poisoning ourselves and pillaging our environment for short-term profit, I guess that's perfectly fine, right?

So let's start pushing hard for replacing fossil fuels! It just makes sense. it's unsustainable and damaging and the entire right-wing agenda to disprove global warming exists because the fossil fuels industries are shaping policy but they need people to vote for that policy. People are going to look back on us in the future and curse us for idiots if we don't get away from fossil fuels.
 

alasdairm

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
60,915
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
People are going to look back on us in the future and curse us for idiots...
yep.

related reading: The Ideology of Climate Change Denial in the United States

excerpt said:
The ideological underpinning of climate change denial in the United States merits closer scrutiny than it has received to date. American opponents and critics of the scientific consensus over man-made global warming have been much more vocal and influential than their counterparts in continental Europe; in France several scientists and intellectuals1 do take issue with the positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but they tend to be rather isolated and marginal figures with little or no impact on public policy. By contrast, American climate change deniers have been remarkably successful in confusing public opinion and delaying decisive action. They receive considerable media attention and enjoy access to key Washington power brokers. Therefore, it is worth analyzing the origins of this powerful movement in order to see what really drives climate change denial in the United States. It is very often claimed, with good reason, that climate sceptics are beholden to powerful corporate interests such as those of the Koch brothers.2 Ties between corporations and conservative and libertarian think tanks3 have been well-documented. There is no denying that, in the short term, some industries, such as the coal industry, have a vested interest in averting any government plan to reduce carbon emissions.
...
Since the 1990s critics of climate scepticism have been striving to draw the public?s attention to the seamy side of the movement: its incestuous connection with the fossil fuel industries whose overriding objective is, they claim, to forestall government action by confusing public perceptions of the scientific evidence at hand. In The Assault on Reason (2007) former Vice-President Al Gore accused powerful corporations like Exxon Mobil of being determined to skew and pervert the scientific process:

Wealthy right-wing ideologues have joined with the most cynical and irresponsible companies in the oil, coal, and mining industries to contribute large sums of money to finance pseudoscientific front groups that specialize in sowing confusion in the public?s mind about global warming. They issue one misleading ?report? after another, pretending that there is a significant disagreement in the legitimate scientific community in areas where there is actually a broad-based consensus.

...
It is worth bearing in mind that the origins and motives of the American climate change denial movement are highly complex and cannot be merely described as the upshot of an attempt on the part of the energy sector to ward off regulation?although this interpretation sheds light on a large part of the movement. Climate change deniers also illustrate the strong ideological forces that have been shaping Republican politics over the last few decades. The generally accepted scientific explanation for global warming significantly damages the soundness of the ideological pro-market position which the American conservative movement has been embracing since the Reagan era and the end of the Cold War. The central contribution of human activities to the warming of our planet does not destroy the case for a market economy per se; it does, however, put a dent in the validity of the American Right?s faith in the free market as the ultimate solution to all social, economic, and environmental problems. In effect, conceding defeat in the climate war would have devastating repercussions on the intellectual bearings of many conservative officials and activists. So far, for the most part, with a few notable exceptions like former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman and Arizona Senator John McCain, it has been a defeat too hard to swallow. While the scientific case of climate deniers has now been seriously discredited, their economic arguments will certainly continue to carry a lot of weight in American politics in the years to come.
alasdair
 

swilow

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
31,745
Location
Your double slit
Not really because even if that's true, it's the extent that's being disputed. I don't see a definitive link between humans carbon emissions and global climate.
You see no connection between the increase in average temperatures across the globe and the increasing emissions of Co2? 8o

Pro-alarmist scientists cannot tell us what the temperature would be if humans weren't here yet they're sure that we're a significant factor to the climate. Enough to enact legislation.
Not true. We can subtract our contribution of carbon dioxide from the equation really simply, by looking at pre-industrial levels and temperature which is almost precisely what climate scientists do.

I would need to see a source for this, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Dude, really?

Meh, I got the idea from the recent book by Tim Flannery, "Europe: A Natural History". Great read, and he talks about the cycle of ice ages which preceded the great thaw 20000 years ago.

I would agree but the link needs to be conclusively proven. There has been much higher amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere a long time ago, in colder and warmer temps.
There is a pretty clear link between carbon dioxide and temperature in relatively recent history though.


Your charts are interesting, they seem to counter what I've posted. From doing my research into this I see that it's possible to assess official data and represent it in opposite ways. Not easy to sift through what is actually true. I looked through the official global temperature data myself and I did confirm the recent drop in global averages.
Can you link me to the 'official' global temperature data? Not being snarky here, I'm genuinely interested.

Let's say that's true, how do you explain this insane cold that we're seeing as we speak?
But you've even said that you don't judge climate by its extremes, although rapid environmental change can certainly create heretofore 'unknown' weather events. Its better to look at trends. Does the trend fit with the theory based on fundamental properties of nature? That's when you start taking it seriously, cos its probably happening.



Wrong, it definitely matters what the temperatures were in the past, because it can tell us whether this precedent you speak of is even a precedent (I don't believe it is).
Debating whether a precedent is a precedent or not kinda makes no fucking sense to my stoned brain, particularly when I'm saying there is no precedent. :D But you're correct, average temperatures of the past, say, pre-industrial to now, are important in determining if there is an evironmental anomaly.
 

JGrimez

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 23, 2018
Messages
2,213
You see no connection between the increase in average temperatures across the globe and the increasing emissions of Co2? 8o
It looks like it's linked but when the sea levels began to rise we were emitting fuck-all CO2. The rise has been steady but the release of our CO2 hasn't been. So it's strange that if we release a tiny amount - or a massive amount of CO2, it doesn't seem directly linked. Very loose correlation.
Also when we show quite a sharp drop in average temperatures, the proponents will say that overall it's still getting warmer. So currently the theory is unfalsifiable.

Tim Flannery, "Europe: A Natural History"
Is he saying that our polar ice caps will melt and won't freeze again? If so is he stating that it is natural or human-caused?

Can you link me to the 'official' global temperature data? Not being snarky here, I'm genuinely interested.
NASA.gov - GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

But you've even said that you don't judge climate by its extremes, although rapid environmental change can certainly create heretofore 'unknown' weather events. Its better to look at trends. Does the trend fit with the theory based on fundamental properties of nature? That's when you start taking it seriously, cos its probably happening.
Yes you can admit there's a trend. But is it anthropogenic due to CO2 emissions?
Then looking at historical trends it doesn't seem out of the ordinary.
 

deanminor35

Greenlighter
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
3
Do you dumb fucks really think that climate change is mankind's doing? Ok maybe 5 ,10 % at most . There are other factors that are driving climate change. And there really is nothing we can do about it. Its that big ball of fire in the sky. It goes through cycles from lots of sun spots to what we are heading into now , a time of little or no sun spots. Its happened before and its gonna happen again. I mean fuck u can look at ice core simple and see that climate change is always happening. Long before we where here.one volcano puts out more co2 gases then we ever could .wake the fuck up and see what the climate change fuckheads are really about .takeing your money and freedom.
 

Xorkoth

Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
39,161
Location
Shadowmeister v0
Indeed, climate change is always happening. The difference is in how FAST it's happening. We're not supposed to lose a substantial percentage of the polar ice caps in the summer within one human lifetime.

Also, see previous arguments about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas. This is not up for debate, it is a fact. Therefore, our carbon emissions are having an effect on global temperatures. If we have caused 5-10% more global warming than what is naturally happening (as you admitted), and the carbon is already in the atmosphere that did that, it means it will continue to warm the planet at that additional rate, and as we release billions of tons more every year, that percentage will continue to rise, leading to a much higher rate of unnatural temperature increase than that in the future. No one is denying that the Earth is still coming out of the last ice age, and warming naturally in addition to our influence. That doesn't mean we should pretend our influence amounts to nothing, or that it is harmless.

Also, you're new here but cut out the insults, we try to debate with respect in here, not by calling each other dumb fucks. Why are you so mad, anyway? You should be mad at the oil and coal industries who have convinced you to be angry at people interested in reducing CO2 emissions, so that they can keep making record billions in profits. I mean think about it, how are the climate change people taking our freedoms or money? Can you explain that to me? On the other hand, it's quite easy to see how oil and coal lobbyists who are trying to undo environmental regulations are profiting off of that.
 
Last edited:
Top