What do you guys think about creating an economic boost by changing our energy sources and infustructure?
It seems that if we are forced to change our infustructure and produce and consume (capitalisms favorite two words) new products that update our energy systems that we could greatly help our economy and create well paying jobs that also bring about energy security for America. This way even if global warming isn't real and just a hoax we will still have a stronger economy and cleaner air.
i would live in the US as long guys like Glen Beck are on TV ... This Guy is unbelievebal Stupid. Just watch the Episode, where he argues against Soccer.
So Russia already has a cap and trade system, their economic structure collapsed and Obama, Reid and Pelosi are pushing this? This has got to be one of the most socialist, if not communist pieces of legislation I've ever researched. Al Gore should be in an orange jumpsuit serving life in prison behind bars for attempting to introduce this propoganda as a means of enslaving the American people.
Except that we are using an immoral proportion of the earths resources compared to our population, so it IS fair to reduce our consumption more than other countries AND help pay for the transition from dirty energy. Jesus wouldn't burn fossil fuels.
you're an idiot. we use 25% of the worlds energy because we are 25% of the world's economy. would you like us to shut down all industry so the only energy consumption we use is private?
The U.S. should stop enabling the UN, we helped created it and give them most of their funding but most of the nations in it HATE US... But they gladly take our money, they don't reciprocate trade agreements as beneficial as those we offer them and our government is full of politicians looking out for their own best interest accepting money from the special interests.
Doesn't it surprise anyone that the senate voted 95-0? I remember reading that in 2004 or so.
That means even the most "environmentally friendly" senators on the fringe opposed it. And 5 senators didn't consider it worth showing up for. Every single person representing us opposed this thing. There isn't one of them that believed it was in America's best interest. That should tell you something about how unfair the protocol was.
And you can't base an argument Not to do it on a "well they're not doing it, so why should we" stance. As I keep saying - doing the right thing is doing the right thing. I told you before to remember that the scientific community is massively behind the concept. No film [Swindle], made to be provocative and controversial, can go against the mountain of evidence (that is still growing) to prove to the contrary.
The only non fossil fuel that can provide sufficient energy and be sustainable is nuclear. All forms including fussion whcih I strongly support research of. Solar and wind are unreliable and not universally usable (some places get little sun or wind) Nuclear uses very little fuel and provides the most energy.
Now, the US has been more against dropping the use of oil (possibly because the US was built on it and the nobility of people like JD Rockefeller) than European countries, but there is an argument that moving towards more sustainable resources would be a good strategic maneuver too. After-all, All common [hydrocarbon] resources, including uranium, are finite. You can't ignore the arguments for anthropogenic effected CC just because you don't like the concept.
The "evidence" is not as it seems. Like the CO2 temperature one. Temperature drove CO2 rise and fall not the other way around. An 800 year lag exists. However temperature did correlate with sun activity, big surprise. People like Al Gore who are not scientis weigh in on important scientific things. Go through the "Top 2000" from the IPCC many are not scientists I even found a sceince fiction author and the report on CC is his greatest work.
But there is another way to look at it. The US has only really substantial amounts of coal left as its own resource. The rest, the US (and the west [EU] for that matter) will have to compete for against a growing in power China & India. This means the US, the west, will have to grow evermore dependent on States like Russia (that has vast amounts of oil, coal, gas & uranium), Iran (vast oil & gas), Nicaragua or more aggressively into Africa - a continent that is unstable and greatly corrupt.
Now what logic is this? Lets screw over the wealthiest nation on Earth while other less wealthy nations can get ahead. Thats communist ideology. While else would the US have to suffer while othe big countries like China, India and Russia(a big oil user and exporter) br unaffected but we are?
To anyone Dumb enough to believe anything "CitizenBobBarr" says: He whines about ME starting flame wars, because I can out-argue him with my eyes closed.
Lastly, because I really have to go now, Global warming is affecting mainly poorer countries. There are already Climate Refugees. There are literally people dying because of storms in Indian, floods in Bangladesh, droughts in Africa a multitude of different climate induced problems. You took offence to being called selfish. Is it selfish for them to expect you to change if it saves their lives? Or is their life worth less and they should be happy to give it up to carry on the American Dream?
Kyoto (and Cap & Trade) doesn't include trade industry, which is the main area of China's pollution. This is the same for the US. Only the US doesn't export as much as China, it just consumes. The point being, that the US lifestyle is not sustainable. So that needs to change, no?
My point about WWII and Britan. They had to fight the Axis or be conquered and who will let that happen? Especiall considering the actions of the Nazis. Their loss in money manpower and positions meant an empire was no longer able to be held.
And with respect Patriot, you're completely missing the point. Way back months ago when I first started arguing with one after another US people about this video I pointed out that countries like China, India, Russia don't pollute like the States. China's population dwarfs the US for a start, so per capita; their pollution is minimial compared to the US.
Really? China doesn't pollute like the States? with them opening up 1-2 new coal plants a WEEK, i think they do. do a little research before posting next time
Yes, China's indoctrination has been staggering. China's refrigerators jumped from 6 to 16million in under 10years. Shanghai has almost double the skyscrapers of NYC. In 1990, China consumed approximately 27quadrillion British thermal units of energy (7.8% of the world's total), in '06 according to the US DoE. They consumed 68.6 BTU (15.65% of world consumption). ---
--- The US, well the US consumes 25% of the worlds consumption of energy using 100 quadrillion BTU's.
Considering that the population of China is 1.3 billion, and the US's is 306 million, that's well over 2 billion more people and still consuming less energy than the US. Thanks for helping to reiterate my point. In future, maybe you should go and do some research before mouthing-off
My point was that even if the US screws itself over and stops all continuing pollution it wouldnt help if Global Warming was true. Their rate of increase is far past our and give it 25years and see where they are at along with India. So why should we ruin our country if other nations aren't going to in the name of something that is not true.
If I tell you humans are literally attacking the planet - please don't tell me the US plants a few trees so it okay!
Believe me, I'm not saying this is all the US's fault - it's a global problem. But as I said before with the Taoism phrase, the west has not cared whilst there's been money to make. Now its different, because you can't hide from the escalating damage We are All doing to the environment. Are planet. Are home. Are responsibility.
I know about the trees in the US, did you know that according to CITES, the main importer of endangered and threaterened plant species (trees) is the US for furniture making? Not to mention the illegal Bush Meat trade that goes along with it [illegal timber trade]. Then there's the Palm Oil trade, fur trade, medicines from tigers etc. (did you know there are more tiger in the US than in the wild?).
Watch the Great Global Warmin Swindle with an open mind. I have watched Al Gore's movie and it was not factual. If you honestly watch it and listen to their facts it might change your mind. Many on the movie left the IPCC for they disagreed.
There is a good question there; how in the future will India, China etc. adhere to carbon restrictions which they have agreed to follow in Kyoto. Although, saying and doing are two different things. China and India are getting involved greatly (and in direct competition with the US) for hydrocarbon resources in the Caspian Sea region and also the typically US dominated Middle East. This doesn't bid well to demonstrate they are putting in place the alternative infrastructure to allow for Kyoto.
The US has over 8x the oil Saudi Arabia has in oil shale. In fact we have enough in oil shale alone to fuel our economy for 41years. Not to mention ANWR, offshore and what we already are producing. We have Uranium too. Nuclear is also used and should be expanded greatly. Our poloticians driven by the idea of going green won't let us touch them though.
No dude, Senators in the pocket of coal and oil industries refuse to look at Natural gas as a clean alternative. Companies like Exxon and Chevron want us to be addicted to Saudi Arabian oil until there is none left.
Suns/Solar activity: This theory was originally put forward by a scientist from Albania I believe as explanations for Ice Ages. It was rejected then as the process was too long to match recorded ice ages, plus, as celestial bodies run on such a precise time-line (you can measure the tides for example for hundreds and thousands of years into the future - its that precise and mechanical) it does't fit as global warming is not sequenced event.
The moon is predictable because its constant. Solar activity is not. Increased or decreased amounts of sun spots will change our climate and megnatic field. Furthermore Global Climate Change is not by humans. Temperatures from the 1900-40s rose despite that few nations were industrial. The in the Post War Economic Boom industrialism expanded but temperatures fell. So despite all this alleged pollution of greenhouse gases temperatures fell. Maybe you should note the Sun during this time.
Water Vapour: In different periods of warming, clouds/water vapour will reach different altitudes (Stratocumulus, Nimbostratus etc.). These will be thinner, so will reflect the suns energy differently. In warming conditions clouds will raise - lower reflection - eventually disperse. Low level clouds never remain at low levels as can't be argued as a real constant in CC.
Patriot, semantics are unnecessary. You know what is pollution. It is contamination. It matters little whether something is natural or not. Do you know what Biological Pollution is? With Elf, the guy I was originally arguing with, I've been though every little point bought up (especially by those from ;Global Warming Swindle'). Read back, save yourself asking more of the same questions.
--- Ask yourself when asking about selfishness, who exactly should pay to revert and/or shape the change needed? Ask yourself too, who, if not the US, can start that change? If the US is the world leader, as so many US people love to keep telling me, shouldn't they lead the way now - or does money change that logic?
Define pollution for me. Is CO2 pollution if so you are polluting as your breathe. As I said earlier the numbers don't lie. Our production of a minute gas which has a minute effect on our atmosphere is not harming us. You have yet to refute my facts about the sun and super novas maybe you should consider all the external forces too. I am not a "green" nu tbut I am not for destroying forests for the hell of it. And by the way we have more acres of forest today in the US than when it was founded.
If people can blame the NRA as racist because they were founded in the same year as the KKK, then Communism falling and enviromentalism rising at the same time are surly related too.
-- It all to do with the UN Conference on Biological Diversity (the Jakarta Mandate). They established the Principle of 'The Polluter Pays'. The US is the world's biggest polluter, so the US pays the most. Unfair - possibly - possibly not. The US has made millions and millions polluting. --
Lets think about this. If people want to spend billions of dollars each year to destroy your reputation and validity of your product wouldn't you defend yourself? Would you like to live without oil and coal? No reliable power or car or cell phone etc. Your just like the guys in Atlas Shrugged: The rich are bad, they only care about themselves, what have they done for us? Money is evil etc. Corporations make your life easier and goods cheeper allowing you to get them more easily. Yet that's bad?
Finally, on the Climate Change politics; don't get the politics and science confused. And Cap & Trade has been demonized in the US, but it is unfair to objectify the ideology. It [C & T] is the fairest system to felicitating CO2 emission reductions. It doesn't effect trade emissions, so developing countries won't be unduly affected --
CO2 limitations are merely aimed to hurt the rich, which you see just. CO2 is a small gas. Other greenhouses gase exist including water vapor which is a lot more of the atmosphere. Earth changes based on the sun and supernovas in space. Study some more astronomy and you will understand. You are the one confused here.
--The Wind of Change speech was given a few years later as Britain granted independence to it former colonies. So, being financially restricted, having little power in the M.E. (the stage where even to today, big powers try to keep or get footholds) and the release of India, Australia, Canada etc. the British Empire ended.
You basicly proved what I said about Britan. Britan was suffering in many ways after the war. Thus being able to retain its empire was impossible. In fact Churchil's plan to invade the Balkans and lik up with the USSR was shot down because it was "imperialistic".
And Patriot, Britain after WW2 owed the US because of the Lend-Lease Act billions of dollars. Britain was only able finish off paying that ($886million) in 2005. Also, in '52 I think, Britain, and France tried to take over the Suez Cannel (the last stronghold the British held in the Middle East) in Egypt but they were stopped by the UN/US. ---
-- the whole administration, had massive ties to oil (Bush both Jr & Sn owned or had shares in oil companies)? Now, try to tell me their [the oil companies, their scientists, the politicians] motives are pure. More-so, try to tell yourself that, please. Just when did the trying to save the world environmentalist become the bad-guy, the big businessman only looking for profit the good-guy?
Did you know that oil companies offering scientists $1million to prove there is no link between CC and humans? Did you know that many of the scientists who have come out against Anthropogenic CC have been under employment of oil companies? The Bush administration who was in charge at the start of Kyoto, --
And climate change is a natural process. I don't think anyone argues that. Its how humans effect the rate of change that's under scrutiny. All the big scientific organisations are following that humans are attributing to CC. In the academic world, there's very little opposition to that. That is an undeniable fact. You should remember that full most and for most.
I have foun people on the IPCC who are not real scientists. Roger Zelazny is a science fiction and fantasy author yet he is on the top 2000 world scientists.
Britan lost its empire because of the casualties of war. Parts like Malaya were captured and men slaughtered. North Africa campaign also took a toll on them. Plus Britan its self was hit by bombing raids and missles from germany and blockaded. Britan and its forces were suffering badly after the war so colonies declared independence. Learn your history
Plus develpoing nations in Africa need oil and coal to hope to develop anytime soon. China and India are increasing their CO2 production each day and have no intention to change until they are wealthy. If we are selfish then China was be too. All legislation for "Climate Change" increases government power. It destroys liberty and freedom and allows the government to control our lives. They say debates are over. Trying to silence people is a keep point of an authoritarian. I do research.
Picked up - or gained more popularity? It took the depletion of almost a quarter of the rainforests before someone said "hey, fuck-me, we're running out of rainforest!" Climate Change is exactly the same. In Taoism they have a saying - when all is well, nothing is done. Unfortunately, in countries with power, the western countries, all has been well. But that is changing, negatively. Hence why now, environmentalism is becoming so important.
And sorry im not gonna fuck myself over just cause global temperatures rose less than half a degree. Meanwhile China and India can become wealthier. But thats how the UN sees it. Its only fair USA your already rich let the other countries get some wealth will you get fucked over.
No I don't think I reiterated your point. I originally said that Britain lost its Empire doing the right thing fighting Axis powers spreading Fascism. The financial cost and the loss of strategic positions around the globe meant Britain could not maintain its Empire around the globe. Churchill knew the cost of fighting the war - it cost him his position in London. I don't want to get dragged into an argument about WWII. I was merely making a point about doing what was right.
So yes, yes the US is selfish. It's selfish because it puts its way of life, its ego of being 'the best', before other nations.
Think about this for a second: the Second World War cost Britain its Empire, but at least Great Britain was able to stand up and say it did the right thing. Climate Change requires the US to stand up and do the right thing - never mind the costs - Because it's the right thing to do. Is that not what can make you The Best?
How are we selfish though. We commited to rebuilding Europe after WWII which took a total of 12years. Furthermore scientists warned of "Global Cooling" when temperatures sank for decades, despite increasing CO2 since WWII. Then temperatures go up and then "Global Warming" ironically after the world reccesion in the 80s. Now its "Global Climate Change" because it will change. An 98page EPA report even said temperatures will decline for two decades.
When Bush, and his largely Oil mined party were in power, they would never had published or even looked at such a report. It's arguable whether Obama or any other US party would have been interested if these Economic Reports had been published. Never mind the fact that a host of Island Communities stood up before US representatives during UN meetings pleading for them to take notice of the Nations literally sinking below the waves - way back in the early 90's.
It wasn't the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that changed the mind of the US politics towards CC, it was the US equivalent to the British Stern Report, the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Report (watch?v=y88sgDM9HmA).
-- and more evidence came to show that climate change was happening - and more to the point - that humans were aiding that greatly to that change.
When Kyoto stated, the US was not interested. Since Carter in 70's, the US has been involved in Oil and the stability that oil gives, and the US wasn't going to give that up just because a few other nations were suffering because of CC.
Climate change is the most fucking retarded name. CLIMATES CHANGE. It is fully normal for ice to melt and freeze. Every year it changes. Furthermore we make up a portion of the CO2 output which is a small greenhouse gas. Methane and Water Vapor, which is the largest one, are more responsible for the greenhouse effect.. Furthermore the sun goes through cycles of activity affects the amount of heat we absorb. Also cosmic rays from supernovas affect our cloud formation. Yet our CO2 will destroy us?
-- was attributed to John Muir and the creation of Yosemite National Park in the US.
What's happened with Climate Change (CC) Politics is that the western style of putting a price-tag on everything dallied reaction. Global Warming has been studied since Fourier in the 1850's. The World Metrological Society noted warming back in 80's and more and more scientists through the 90's pushed politicians as more --
Environmentalism didnt 'pick-up' at the end of communism. Environmentalism arguably stated in the US for a start. Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring (1962), was the first real book to critically show human effects to the environment. The first effective legislation, the Environmental Impact Assessment, was first passed in the US. Conservationism, the first time someone took a piece of wilderness as claimed it purely for it intrinsic value, --
I said thats when it really picked up. When all the focus on being green and when it became popular. I recognize it was around before then but in the mid late 90s spending increase many fold on enviromentalism. We do have the best healthcare too. Leaders and individuals from around the world come here for treatment. Also we have more economic freedom andsecurity than other western nations.
Kyoto is a fine example of that. The majority of the world wanted Climate Change being taken more seriously - the US and a few other Fossil Fuel Reliant Nations didn't. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution for example.
Oh and Elf, NASA have the world's best satellite imagery technology, and they have been monitoring both the Arctic and Greenlands ice melt since the 70's. They announced in 2005 that the rate of melt has increased since 2000. And Greenland's ice according to the Hadley Centre has the potential to raise Sea Level by 23feet. Greenland is melting at 1 meter per year at the moment and increasing.
Live by the Coast Elf? Think before you speak Elf.
And as for your retarded Antarctica argument, let me answer your retarded question with another question; how cold do you think the water is where it meets the ice at it's edges? Perhaps about 32?
well I don't know about you but..... yes the water might be 32 degrees only, in salt water, the temp must be much much colder, can't say what but remember it was near 0
Also elf, why does this always have to be about USA? Did you not look at those films I forwarded you? How many people was it that died in France from the heat-wave? Cause célèbre, non? The island Nation of Tuvalu, is that a tin-pot UN nation? Shall we just tell them to go fuck themselves - we don't care about your home and lives all that matters is the USA status quo.
Just because the UN is run by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Mentally-ill, etc?
And believe it or not, they had heat waves that killed peple during the ROMAN EMPIRE...and it wasn't caused by Hannibals elephants farting in Italy, as you would no doubt try to claim.
And the UN is run by Tin-pot dictators! Really is a representation of the US attitude towards the rest of the world, really. Basically, you want to do what ever you like, and don't like it when someone else tells you what to do. Better get used to it.. Chindia!
And yes, they had heat waves in past times. They also had a much lower population.
The world hates us for being successful? Man, I did not know we had so many sore loser. Wow, what a bunch a cry babies I mean really! And they think they can tame us by forming a "We'll try to be democracies" club and having a progressive president sign us up! It's like being in a fight with the guy who has an AC 130 and a minigun
Sore Loser? And I don't think the world hates you for being anything - that's a reflection of Your arrogance. The view of some is that the US is extremely hypocritical (a point I'd agree with) and self-righteous/deluded (expressed by Your comment). But to say 'hate', is ridiculous. Anyone who hates the US, hates society.
How are we hypocritical? I'd say the only thing we're hypocritical about is saying that we want the American dream while in the background, Politicians WE elected are trying to destroy it
The American Dream is not shared by the World's People Christoppher1994, and to assume that it should, or should suffer so you can live it - well what do you think? The US is not the World.
Yes, your right, my own gov' is trying to tame us along with the un. It's ANNOYING. There should be less gov' and the U.S. should break off from the U.N.
There would be no advantage for the US to leave the UN. The UN is not a force of power; it's a mechanism to achieve goals. The reason the UN & US keep coming into conflict is because the US wants what a lot of other countries don't. This is partly smaller countries trying to nestle in and be awkward, but also a little US selfishness.
The US is not selfish. We are one of the youngest nations all things considered and yet we are the best. We have the best healthcare, military, standard of living and freedom. Although they are being dimminshed by Obama and Bush thats another story. You know when we enviromentalism picked up? The 90s risght when communism was falling apart world wide. They still want to bring us down to conform to what their agenda is. Call me crazy I have done my research.
Well, I agree that the US has the most expensive military, but not the best healthcare or standard of living. Although, I also agree the US is a great country - one of, if not 'the best' (though I'm not sure what exactly makes anyone 'the best') of the western styled countries. However, associating communism to environmentalism is, for want of a better word, fucking-retarded.
Gore, personally I don't like him. I dare say you're right too. He may well have interests in Carbon trading schemes. Whether or not he's just getting into what he sees as an investment, or, like as you see it he's manipulating the situation to his benefit - to me, is the same thing to a politician.
That would entirely depend on which 'they' you are talking about.
Al Gore: Because he owns a "Carbon Offset" company and has already made millions off of this scam.
The UN: Because it's run by third world tinpot dictators who would like nothing better than to handicap the USA in any way possible.
Politicians: Because seeming to care about this kind of thing wins them the Left Wing Loonie Vote (As one of their biggest supporters, I think YOU can vouch for that one.)
P Michaels too is funded by Western Fuels or Exxon (they are the two biggest sponsors of the anti-scientists, does that shock you elf?) I believe. I read only recently a paper he wrote on expected mortality rates in the US linked to (or according to him 'not') global warming.
Lindzen, another Scientist interviewed in the film has written many papers on his Solar theories, I'm not qualified enough to argue them. I do know however he's also worked as a consultant for numerous companies and groups, OPEC being one.
Pat Moore, interviewed in the film, has always been an anti-nuclear energy supporter. One of the major arguments for CO2 reduction has been investment in NE. I keep bringing up Lovelock, if you haven't listened/read him, do so.
Watched the film, found it interesting. I might watch the whole film. I have a few points however. Firstly, Channel 4 has a history of viewing controversial films. "The Greenhouse conspiracy" & "Against Nature" were two anti-science films screened by them. The latter was made by the same guy as "The Swindle".
Elf, I never said the climate is driven by CO2. I said the climate is AFFECTED by CO2. Quite simple, so simple in-fact that even someone with a small, undeveloped and quite pathetic example of a 'functioning' Frontal Lobe as yourself could fathom, CO2 is produced by humans, CO2 causes warming, more CO2 - more warming, ergo - humans effect climate change.
Yeah Riiiiight....Like the Titanic was affected by a barnacle on it's hull and not the iceburg. You're on board with the whole "Man made CO2 will kill us all" bandwagon, TYwokki...you've SAID as much.
Götterdämmerung? I know Hitler used to listen to Vagner up at the Eagles Nest whilst dividing up Europe. He named two of the hills around him after characters in the opera. What German opera and world domination have to do with anything though!
And TBT, it was placed on the hull of ships to stop molluscs (barnacle being one such sp.) et al. fouling the ship. Since humans have been using it, it has had quite extreme environmental effects. Unarmed opponent, sounds to me like you're getting 'grandiose delusions' yourself, elf.
Blaming "global warming" on Man-generated CO2 is like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on a Barnicle on it's hull.
Whether or not TBT exists, or even was in use at the time of the Titanic's construction, does not invalidate the simile...it just makes it obvious that you BELIEVE that the similie is correct, so instead of trying to invalidate it logically or by citing actual information, you dig up some whiny nitpick.
Metaphor Elf, you were using a metaphor of "Titanic was sunk by a barnacle", to give the overall point - that a small insignificant thing such a mans CO2 output can't effect the planet - where-as my Allegoric-metaphor of TBT shows the opposite.. see?
In a game of whit as you put it, you need to be very smart to use a true simile. Smart like a bat in the day - one might say, ai Elf.
NO, I was saying that trying to blame large temperature changes on man-caused CO2 is LIKE blaming the sinking of the titanic on a barnacle and ignoring the HUGE BLOODY ICEBURG, YOU IMBECILLE!
AND, why are you arguing what you said/meant? Semantics, no elf, don't be silly now! A quick revision of what you said (recorded and plain to see) was, "the real Africans live in sub-Sahara". I then quite rightly pointed out that Egyptians/Arabs are 'real' Africans. Go re-read our discussion elf before shooting your mouth off like a precocious child.
So again, Africa (including arid regions as well as grasslands, okay?), has environmental refugees. FACT. Moving on...
To finish off what has been a great pleasure. You wrote before about the "Great climate change swindle", and I told you about the criticism it came under for being unfair, unaccurate and how a few of the scientist interviewed complained that they had been misrepresented. The show was short listed for an award just recently.
Arabs may live in the desert yes, and they and Egyptians are North Africans Elf. They are still Africans. It's a continent not a country. And that's not phonetics [I know how slow you are elf]. Can you give me the address of your Geography teacher? I'd like to go and slap them.
So, to conclude, the Sahara is in Africa, and Africa has climate refugees.
Oh, and you're a moron, let us all not forget that
You're refusal to recognize Env Ref's is ridiculous. I'm terrible sorry the TRUTH gets in the way of you being right. How inconvenient for you.
People moving because of changing climate are a recognized occurrence. Are you King Canute? And yes, yes elf there are people in Africa, Asia that are being forced to move because the weather is heating up so much their traditional lands are being ruined.
I never said there weren't people in AFRICA, you moron, I said there are MORE people in SUB-SAHARAN africa than in the rest, and that the climate in SUB SAHARAN africa hasn't changed significantly in the last 5,000 years, let alone in the last 30, which you and your god Al Gore would like us to believe.
I'm not sure you know what a desert is. You do know they don't all look like sand dunes? Go find out how deserts are formed, just to see how wrong you are. Little heads up "Hadley cell"
Okay, WV is a global warming 'gas'. But clouds play a bigger purpose then just warming. You know what albedo is right? Clouds are also different in types too. Higher up they thin, and less reflection. Lower down they warm, but only in a temporal time-span. How on earth you got to clouds being formed by heating of the planet - so more rain to moisten the desert, is beyond me. Have you got learning difficulties?
Clouds' Albedo effect (the reflectivity of light) is moslty in the visible spectrum and above. Infrared is more absorbed than reflected by clouds. Thus, the "Greenhouse effect"
Evaporation is caused by warmth. Infrared light increases warmth, therefore infrared light increases evaporation.
Increased evaporation = More clouds = more Greenhouse effect = more heat = more evaporation.
The only limiting factor is that when the clouds reach the dew point they rain out. Air pressure contols DP
I do, but you don't...if the atmosphere becomes supersaturated with moisture, deserts cease to become deserts.
But then you don't understand such concepts, you still think that climate is driven by a gas that composes a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, and not by solar activity. If there is enough moisture in the atmosphere that it can't all rain out before the air gets over the desert, it WILL rain there.
It doesn't matter if that amount of CO2 is 0.000001% moving to 0.0000011, it is still an increase. Ever heard of Svante Arrhenius? Maybe you ask him if Hummers and mass beef production is eco-friendly.
And yes elf, if there is enough moisture in the atmosphere even deserts could become fertile. Of course, as I said before, THAT statement doesn't allow for the complexity of the metrological system does it, Elf?
Yeah, there are skeptics, but there are always skeptics. What we are talking about is the planet and our environment. Putting the planet first and taking heed to what IS a scientific majority, seems much better an idea than listening to a minority because they are saying what you want to hear.
Brainwashed is only hearing what you want to hear, and the scientific community has been shouting IT loud for years. Only the politicians didn't want to listen. Now YOU don't either. Who's Brainwashed
It's strange how you call the G.W. lot 'brain-washed'. There's a plethora of reports outside of the IPCC reports. Fourier came up with the concept of warming in the 1800's, the World Metrological Society published papers on it long before Gore & Bush-ites started squabbling over it. In-fact, as I said to you before, so-do most of the big scientific fraternities agree (Royal Society, NASA, American Association for the Advancement of Science etc. etc. etc.).
Lastly, I really like your evaporation theory; I mean more clouds would reflect the suns rays too. There's actually a guy doing work like that at the moment, trying to create clouds over the ocean. One problem, you're completely disregarding the complexity of the metrological system. Plus, most dry places don't have the water to evaporate, and if they did, they'd want to keep that to drink/use. And, the time span you're talking about would take centuries. We have less than 50 years!
LIsten, Stupid. Clouds are composed of WATER VAPOR. As anyone who has gone outside early in the morning after an overcast night, and compared the temperature to a morning after a CLEAR night knows, Water vapor is a VERY STRONG greenhouse gas. Fortunately, it rains out if it goes above the dew point, so it doesn't just keep building up, but in arid areas, there is room in the atmosphere for a LOT more water. Given enough evaporation, you WILL get rain in areas that were previously desert.
I'd also like to know where you got the information that "warmer temperatures has always been associated with better times". Basic biology would disprove this point, as would ecology. Biology tells us that if the human body temp rises above 40deg, we die elf, not become happy people! Ecology tells us that the most productive areas on the planet in relation to biomass are not near the equator, but closer to the poles Elf.
The fact that "enviromental Refugees" don't exist is obvious. The fact that the arabs lived quite happily in actual DESERTS should be a clue that humans adapt very well to a wide variety of environmental conditions.
Oh, I forgot...you are just a parrot, with no logical deduction skills at all.
You do also realize that when the global temperature goes past one that certain crop species have tolerances to, the crop species die, fail to grow or have deformities? Ergo, people who rely on said crop species suffer, as does their livestock etc. They lose jobs, income, food sources and possibly their lives. Just to concrete that, the average life expectancy in Africa was 33 in 1990, it's now 31.5.
Firstly, I'm actually impressed your not one of the 50% of USA that believe that God created humans, but I'm slightly 'surprised' that you then follow such a profound statement with such a retarded one. "The climate there is perfect for humans". Elf, no no no no no no no. Just because certain parts of Africa are suited of life, doesn't mean the whole continent is too! You do know The Sahara is in Africa Elf, please say you do.
When most people use the word "Africa", they are referring to what is known as "SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA" that is, the part where actual "Africans" live, as opposed to "Egyptians" and the other northern groups that we don't normally call "Africans"
And just to point how wrong you are, the trend we're talking about has been going on SINCE the LAST ice age, 9,700 BC. So, seeing such warming change in such a small time-scale, as you yourself put it "decades is FAR too short a time" yet we ARE seeing massive change IN DECADES, just shows you trying to be clever, just makes you look more wrong (and lacking thought prosesses).
Gore has thrown what would be a scientific discussion into the political arena, now everyone's squabbling over each inch. A more cynical observer might say perhaps that was the plan all along, after all, the US is getting what it wants either way. Of course, meanwhile, people are losing their homes, livelihoods and being driven to starvation in increasingly inhospitable parts of the globe, but the US has still got their Hummers.
Most Americans I talk to seem to see Climate Change as a divide between Republican & Democrats, liberal vs. rightwing. I'm British, couldn't give a toss about Gore and his policies, and most countries I've been to including the UK, political discussion is fought over how much will be done, rather than the US attitude of whether to do anything at all.
Read the Carbon War by J Leggett, you never know, you might get a whole new prospective on what happens when a international group calling for change goes up against an industry with massive shares in the most powerful country in the world.
AND AGAIN, get off warming is good for plants idiot, because in case you haven't noticed, some people already live in a greenhouse. The world is NOT USA, remember and a bit of warming isn't just going to make plants grow!!!
Yeah, and try telling THAT to the estimated 150million Africans from 24 separate countries who have abandoned their homes in search of food to avoid starvation since 1984. Or the 25million from Bangladesh left homeless from floods increasing in severity every year since 1988.
Maybe they'll all go to the Matenuska Valley in Alaska. Oh wait, that would affect the USA! Environmental effects to the US don't happen! Do they? Elf Elf Elf.
You mean the ones who were only starving because their dictator landlords stole all their food, not because of any change in the climate? Sorry, but the USA isn't responsible for that.
No Elf, I'm talking about the ones whove been forced to leave homes, farms, livelihoods because global increase in temp has made the original homes uninhabitable. Environmental Refugees Elf. Like those from the Island of Tuvalu. The UN officially called for an evacuation of their Island home because of sea level rise. Desertification in China is affecting 400million people elf. 400million. What's the population of the USA? 300million? Lot of people ai?
Africa elf, when they're [Africans] not becoming refugees because of wars over diamonds and oil, they're refugees because of the climate. As I keep saying to you, USA is not the world, and warming is not just going to make a few US farmers happy because they can have a longer growing season!!
Thumbs up.
morninggloryseed 1 month ago
Comment removed
scoobydoorocks10 7 months ago
Now China is the BIGGEST emitter of Carbon! Way to Go!
Gregourii 7 months ago
What do you guys think about creating an economic boost by changing our energy sources and infustructure?
It seems that if we are forced to change our infustructure and produce and consume (capitalisms favorite two words) new products that update our energy systems that we could greatly help our economy and create well paying jobs that also bring about energy security for America. This way even if global warming isn't real and just a hoax we will still have a stronger economy and cleaner air.
LibJibber 8 months ago
i just want to see if the comments are pending aproovil
xeadm 10 months ago
"Damn you Popeye". Haha! Nice!
eric5335 1 year ago 2
alla heter glenn i göteborg!!! :D
vickevitrum 1 year ago
@vickevitrum ---
men om nån heter Glenn beck skickar jag laserturken på han
underbjorn 1 year ago
Hahah. Aaah Gleen Beck, hilarious.
Stupid, ignorant ranting from his ultra conservative dummy speech.
underbjorn 1 year ago
what happened to Glenn? ever since he went to Fox he hasn't been the same. :(
nucleardeath07 1 year ago
lol clowns are always funny
eight18 1 year ago
The 0% thing got me laughing
AuburnAttack21 1 year ago
such a stupid guy - and in he is rly famous in the us ? ---- i like europe xD
CocaColaIceBear 1 year ago
@CocaColaIceBear K, stay there then?
lautzutao 1 year ago
@lautzutao
i would live in the US as long guys like Glen Beck are on TV ... This Guy is unbelievebal Stupid. Just watch the Episode, where he argues against Soccer.
CocaColaIceBear 1 year ago
@CocaColaIceBear "This Guy is unbelievebal Stupid"
Is he? Unbelievebalie so?
Ultranothing 1 year ago
@CocaColaIceBear He isn't always being serious. Your a tard for not realizing this. Did the music not give it away?
gohomewetback1 1 year ago
This man is dangerously insane. And people base their opinions off this nonsense.
willthack13 1 year ago
It's pretty entertaining... But really, people... Research for yourselves. Unless you consider yourself republican or a democrat.
If you're a republican, you don't need to research it. Anything that makes fun of liberals and calls them hippies obviously must be the truth.
If you're a democrat, you don't need to research it. Anything that comes from a republican must be a lie.
At the end of the day... We should all just continue with our capitalist system. So far it's worked out great for us. ;)
beentold 1 year ago
@beentold It made us into a superpower. Nationalism and capitalism need to go hand in hand that is what was lost along the way.
gohomewetback1 1 year ago
can't believe i used to love this stuff, still do for different reasons.
KangaKucha 1 year ago
So Russia already has a cap and trade system, their economic structure collapsed and Obama, Reid and Pelosi are pushing this? This has got to be one of the most socialist, if not communist pieces of legislation I've ever researched. Al Gore should be in an orange jumpsuit serving life in prison behind bars for attempting to introduce this propoganda as a means of enslaving the American people.
slvrserfr 1 year ago
Don't watch this republican trash.
trekkiepro 1 year ago
Glenn beck is such a tool.
Timmujin 1 year ago
China surpassed the US in carbon emissions in 2008. Bow before your new communist overlords, Glenn.
thunderwh 1 year ago
BUT WAIT...IT'S GET BETTER~!~!~!
GrandFunker 1 year ago
glenn beck is more popular than jesus
trapp313 1 year ago
Cartoon Network WAS awesome, now, this CN thing that replaced it in 2004....Kill Me Now! What happened? It's not even 100% cartoons anymore.
Glenn, you rule.
drinaldi2000 1 year ago 2
Except that we are using an immoral proportion of the earths resources compared to our population, so it IS fair to reduce our consumption more than other countries AND help pay for the transition from dirty energy. Jesus wouldn't burn fossil fuels.
pedropratt 2 years ago
you're an idiot. we use 25% of the worlds energy because we are 25% of the world's economy. would you like us to shut down all industry so the only energy consumption we use is private?
garethrogue 2 years ago 2
oh cartoon network...... What happened?
communistrecords 2 years ago
Glenn Beck is awesome.
plazmatical1 2 years ago 11
@plazmatical1 Your mom is awesome ;)
Fede17 1 year ago
The U.S. should stop enabling the UN, we helped created it and give them most of their funding but most of the nations in it HATE US... But they gladly take our money, they don't reciprocate trade agreements as beneficial as those we offer them and our government is full of politicians looking out for their own best interest accepting money from the special interests.
YIRMASTER 2 years ago 3
Doesn't it surprise anyone that the senate voted 95-0? I remember reading that in 2004 or so.
That means even the most "environmentally friendly" senators on the fringe opposed it. And 5 senators didn't consider it worth showing up for. Every single person representing us opposed this thing. There isn't one of them that believed it was in America's best interest. That should tell you something about how unfair the protocol was.
horriehomepage 2 years ago
Is it me or does it look like Glenn Beck fell asleep in a tanning booth? He has the goggle lines and everything.
quuaa1 2 years ago
Another little issue; that treaty was penned before global temperatures started inexplicably falling...
Hmm.
And then a couple years later, NASA found that Mars and Venus were changing temperature pretty much in sync with us!
Hmm.
Which means that they really have to cut carbon emissions on Mars...
..Or maybe there's this big, flaming ball of plasma in the sky that makes things hot and isn't always the same temperature.
I know, wacky idea, huh?
BiggsReport 2 years ago 10
@BiggsReport Therefore, We can conclude that it is the ball of plasma, not the planets that is getting hotter
scoobydoorocks10 6 months ago
And you can't base an argument Not to do it on a "well they're not doing it, so why should we" stance. As I keep saying - doing the right thing is doing the right thing. I told you before to remember that the scientific community is massively behind the concept. No film [Swindle], made to be provocative and controversial, can go against the mountain of evidence (that is still growing) to prove to the contrary.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The only non fossil fuel that can provide sufficient energy and be sustainable is nuclear. All forms including fussion whcih I strongly support research of. Solar and wind are unreliable and not universally usable (some places get little sun or wind) Nuclear uses very little fuel and provides the most energy.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago 2
Now, the US has been more against dropping the use of oil (possibly because the US was built on it and the nobility of people like JD Rockefeller) than European countries, but there is an argument that moving towards more sustainable resources would be a good strategic maneuver too. After-all, All common [hydrocarbon] resources, including uranium, are finite. You can't ignore the arguments for anthropogenic effected CC just because you don't like the concept.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The "evidence" is not as it seems. Like the CO2 temperature one. Temperature drove CO2 rise and fall not the other way around. An 800 year lag exists. However temperature did correlate with sun activity, big surprise. People like Al Gore who are not scientis weigh in on important scientific things. Go through the "Top 2000" from the IPCC many are not scientists I even found a sceince fiction author and the report on CC is his greatest work.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago 3
But there is another way to look at it. The US has only really substantial amounts of coal left as its own resource. The rest, the US (and the west [EU] for that matter) will have to compete for against a growing in power China & India. This means the US, the west, will have to grow evermore dependent on States like Russia (that has vast amounts of oil, coal, gas & uranium), Iran (vast oil & gas), Nicaragua or more aggressively into Africa - a continent that is unstable and greatly corrupt.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Now what logic is this? Lets screw over the wealthiest nation on Earth while other less wealthy nations can get ahead. Thats communist ideology. While else would the US have to suffer while othe big countries like China, India and Russia(a big oil user and exporter) br unaffected but we are?
USAPatriot45 2 years ago 2
To anyone Dumb enough to believe anything "CitizenBobBarr" says: He whines about ME starting flame wars, because I can out-argue him with my eyes closed.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Lastly, because I really have to go now, Global warming is affecting mainly poorer countries. There are already Climate Refugees. There are literally people dying because of storms in Indian, floods in Bangladesh, droughts in Africa a multitude of different climate induced problems. You took offence to being called selfish. Is it selfish for them to expect you to change if it saves their lives? Or is their life worth less and they should be happy to give it up to carry on the American Dream?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Kyoto (and Cap & Trade) doesn't include trade industry, which is the main area of China's pollution. This is the same for the US. Only the US doesn't export as much as China, it just consumes. The point being, that the US lifestyle is not sustainable. So that needs to change, no?
TYwokki 2 years ago
My point about WWII and Britan. They had to fight the Axis or be conquered and who will let that happen? Especiall considering the actions of the Nazis. Their loss in money manpower and positions meant an empire was no longer able to be held.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
In case you didn't know, China is vastly rural and more importantly, grows the bulk of its food by old school farming (take a look
: watch?v=WWAO3ZhD8_Q&feature=related
compare that to the US version
: watch?v=79ScxbDXeKk
I think I made my point).
TYwokki 2 years ago
And with respect Patriot, you're completely missing the point. Way back months ago when I first started arguing with one after another US people about this video I pointed out that countries like China, India, Russia don't pollute like the States. China's population dwarfs the US for a start, so per capita; their pollution is minimial compared to the US.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Really? China doesn't pollute like the States? with them opening up 1-2 new coal plants a WEEK, i think they do. do a little research before posting next time
moss1873 2 years ago
Yes, China's indoctrination has been staggering. China's refrigerators jumped from 6 to 16million in under 10years. Shanghai has almost double the skyscrapers of NYC. In 1990, China consumed approximately 27quadrillion British thermal units of energy (7.8% of the world's total), in '06 according to the US DoE. They consumed 68.6 BTU (15.65% of world consumption). ---
TYwokki 2 years ago
--- The US, well the US consumes 25% of the worlds consumption of energy using 100 quadrillion BTU's.
Considering that the population of China is 1.3 billion, and the US's is 306 million, that's well over 2 billion more people and still consuming less energy than the US. Thanks for helping to reiterate my point. In future, maybe you should go and do some research before mouthing-off
TYwokki 2 years ago
My point was that even if the US screws itself over and stops all continuing pollution it wouldnt help if Global Warming was true. Their rate of increase is far past our and give it 25years and see where they are at along with India. So why should we ruin our country if other nations aren't going to in the name of something that is not true.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
If I tell you humans are literally attacking the planet - please don't tell me the US plants a few trees so it okay!
Believe me, I'm not saying this is all the US's fault - it's a global problem. But as I said before with the Taoism phrase, the west has not cared whilst there's been money to make. Now its different, because you can't hide from the escalating damage We are All doing to the environment. Are planet. Are home. Are responsibility.
TYwokki 2 years ago
I know about the trees in the US, did you know that according to CITES, the main importer of endangered and threaterened plant species (trees) is the US for furniture making? Not to mention the illegal Bush Meat trade that goes along with it [illegal timber trade]. Then there's the Palm Oil trade, fur trade, medicines from tigers etc. (did you know there are more tiger in the US than in the wild?).
TYwokki 2 years ago
Watch the Great Global Warmin Swindle with an open mind. I have watched Al Gore's movie and it was not factual. If you honestly watch it and listen to their facts it might change your mind. Many on the movie left the IPCC for they disagreed.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
There is a good question there; how in the future will India, China etc. adhere to carbon restrictions which they have agreed to follow in Kyoto. Although, saying and doing are two different things. China and India are getting involved greatly (and in direct competition with the US) for hydrocarbon resources in the Caspian Sea region and also the typically US dominated Middle East. This doesn't bid well to demonstrate they are putting in place the alternative infrastructure to allow for Kyoto.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The US has over 8x the oil Saudi Arabia has in oil shale. In fact we have enough in oil shale alone to fuel our economy for 41years. Not to mention ANWR, offshore and what we already are producing. We have Uranium too. Nuclear is also used and should be expanded greatly. Our poloticians driven by the idea of going green won't let us touch them though.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago 4
No dude, Senators in the pocket of coal and oil industries refuse to look at Natural gas as a clean alternative. Companies like Exxon and Chevron want us to be addicted to Saudi Arabian oil until there is none left.
raleighl 2 years ago
Suns/Solar activity: This theory was originally put forward by a scientist from Albania I believe as explanations for Ice Ages. It was rejected then as the process was too long to match recorded ice ages, plus, as celestial bodies run on such a precise time-line (you can measure the tides for example for hundreds and thousands of years into the future - its that precise and mechanical) it does't fit as global warming is not sequenced event.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The moon is predictable because its constant. Solar activity is not. Increased or decreased amounts of sun spots will change our climate and megnatic field. Furthermore Global Climate Change is not by humans. Temperatures from the 1900-40s rose despite that few nations were industrial. The in the Post War Economic Boom industrialism expanded but temperatures fell. So despite all this alleged pollution of greenhouse gases temperatures fell. Maybe you should note the Sun during this time.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
But just to answer these quickly.
Water Vapour: In different periods of warming, clouds/water vapour will reach different altitudes (Stratocumulus, Nimbostratus etc.). These will be thinner, so will reflect the suns energy differently. In warming conditions clouds will raise - lower reflection - eventually disperse. Low level clouds never remain at low levels as can't be argued as a real constant in CC.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Patriot, semantics are unnecessary. You know what is pollution. It is contamination. It matters little whether something is natural or not. Do you know what Biological Pollution is? With Elf, the guy I was originally arguing with, I've been though every little point bought up (especially by those from ;Global Warming Swindle'). Read back, save yourself asking more of the same questions.
TYwokki 2 years ago
--- Ask yourself when asking about selfishness, who exactly should pay to revert and/or shape the change needed? Ask yourself too, who, if not the US, can start that change? If the US is the world leader, as so many US people love to keep telling me, shouldn't they lead the way now - or does money change that logic?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Define pollution for me. Is CO2 pollution if so you are polluting as your breathe. As I said earlier the numbers don't lie. Our production of a minute gas which has a minute effect on our atmosphere is not harming us. You have yet to refute my facts about the sun and super novas maybe you should consider all the external forces too. I am not a "green" nu tbut I am not for destroying forests for the hell of it. And by the way we have more acres of forest today in the US than when it was founded.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
If people can blame the NRA as racist because they were founded in the same year as the KKK, then Communism falling and enviromentalism rising at the same time are surly related too.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
-- It all to do with the UN Conference on Biological Diversity (the Jakarta Mandate). They established the Principle of 'The Polluter Pays'. The US is the world's biggest polluter, so the US pays the most. Unfair - possibly - possibly not. The US has made millions and millions polluting. --
TYwokki 2 years ago
Lets think about this. If people want to spend billions of dollars each year to destroy your reputation and validity of your product wouldn't you defend yourself? Would you like to live without oil and coal? No reliable power or car or cell phone etc. Your just like the guys in Atlas Shrugged: The rich are bad, they only care about themselves, what have they done for us? Money is evil etc. Corporations make your life easier and goods cheeper allowing you to get them more easily. Yet that's bad?
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Finally, on the Climate Change politics; don't get the politics and science confused. And Cap & Trade has been demonized in the US, but it is unfair to objectify the ideology. It [C & T] is the fairest system to felicitating CO2 emission reductions. It doesn't effect trade emissions, so developing countries won't be unduly affected --
TYwokki 2 years ago
CO2 limitations are merely aimed to hurt the rich, which you see just. CO2 is a small gas. Other greenhouses gase exist including water vapor which is a lot more of the atmosphere. Earth changes based on the sun and supernovas in space. Study some more astronomy and you will understand. You are the one confused here.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
--The Wind of Change speech was given a few years later as Britain granted independence to it former colonies. So, being financially restricted, having little power in the M.E. (the stage where even to today, big powers try to keep or get footholds) and the release of India, Australia, Canada etc. the British Empire ended.
TYwokki 2 years ago
You basicly proved what I said about Britan. Britan was suffering in many ways after the war. Thus being able to retain its empire was impossible. In fact Churchil's plan to invade the Balkans and lik up with the USSR was shot down because it was "imperialistic".
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
And Patriot, Britain after WW2 owed the US because of the Lend-Lease Act billions of dollars. Britain was only able finish off paying that ($886million) in 2005. Also, in '52 I think, Britain, and France tried to take over the Suez Cannel (the last stronghold the British held in the Middle East) in Egypt but they were stopped by the UN/US. ---
TYwokki 2 years ago
-- the whole administration, had massive ties to oil (Bush both Jr & Sn owned or had shares in oil companies)? Now, try to tell me their [the oil companies, their scientists, the politicians] motives are pure. More-so, try to tell yourself that, please. Just when did the trying to save the world environmentalist become the bad-guy, the big businessman only looking for profit the good-guy?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Did you know that oil companies offering scientists $1million to prove there is no link between CC and humans? Did you know that many of the scientists who have come out against Anthropogenic CC have been under employment of oil companies? The Bush administration who was in charge at the start of Kyoto, --
TYwokki 2 years ago
And climate change is a natural process. I don't think anyone argues that. Its how humans effect the rate of change that's under scrutiny. All the big scientific organisations are following that humans are attributing to CC. In the academic world, there's very little opposition to that. That is an undeniable fact. You should remember that full most and for most.
TYwokki 2 years ago
I have foun people on the IPCC who are not real scientists. Roger Zelazny is a science fiction and fantasy author yet he is on the top 2000 world scientists.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
And No Patriot, No you haven't done your research.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Britan lost its empire because of the casualties of war. Parts like Malaya were captured and men slaughtered. North Africa campaign also took a toll on them. Plus Britan its self was hit by bombing raids and missles from germany and blockaded. Britan and its forces were suffering badly after the war so colonies declared independence. Learn your history
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Plus develpoing nations in Africa need oil and coal to hope to develop anytime soon. China and India are increasing their CO2 production each day and have no intention to change until they are wealthy. If we are selfish then China was be too. All legislation for "Climate Change" increases government power. It destroys liberty and freedom and allows the government to control our lives. They say debates are over. Trying to silence people is a keep point of an authoritarian. I do research.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Picked up - or gained more popularity? It took the depletion of almost a quarter of the rainforests before someone said "hey, fuck-me, we're running out of rainforest!" Climate Change is exactly the same. In Taoism they have a saying - when all is well, nothing is done. Unfortunately, in countries with power, the western countries, all has been well. But that is changing, negatively. Hence why now, environmentalism is becoming so important.
TYwokki 2 years ago
I find it such a shame the US is not more behind environmentalism.
If you did as much research as you claim, you'd recognize the importance of changing our attitude towards the environment.
TYwokki 2 years ago
And sorry im not gonna fuck myself over just cause global temperatures rose less than half a degree. Meanwhile China and India can become wealthier. But thats how the UN sees it. Its only fair USA your already rich let the other countries get some wealth will you get fucked over.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
No I don't think I reiterated your point. I originally said that Britain lost its Empire doing the right thing fighting Axis powers spreading Fascism. The financial cost and the loss of strategic positions around the globe meant Britain could not maintain its Empire around the globe. Churchill knew the cost of fighting the war - it cost him his position in London. I don't want to get dragged into an argument about WWII. I was merely making a point about doing what was right.
TYwokki 2 years ago
So yes, yes the US is selfish. It's selfish because it puts its way of life, its ego of being 'the best', before other nations.
Think about this for a second: the Second World War cost Britain its Empire, but at least Great Britain was able to stand up and say it did the right thing. Climate Change requires the US to stand up and do the right thing - never mind the costs - Because it's the right thing to do. Is that not what can make you The Best?
TYwokki 2 years ago
How are we selfish though. We commited to rebuilding Europe after WWII which took a total of 12years. Furthermore scientists warned of "Global Cooling" when temperatures sank for decades, despite increasing CO2 since WWII. Then temperatures go up and then "Global Warming" ironically after the world reccesion in the 80s. Now its "Global Climate Change" because it will change. An 98page EPA report even said temperatures will decline for two decades.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
When Bush, and his largely Oil mined party were in power, they would never had published or even looked at such a report. It's arguable whether Obama or any other US party would have been interested if these Economic Reports had been published. Never mind the fact that a host of Island Communities stood up before US representatives during UN meetings pleading for them to take notice of the Nations literally sinking below the waves - way back in the early 90's.
TYwokki 2 years ago
It wasn't the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that changed the mind of the US politics towards CC, it was the US equivalent to the British Stern Report, the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Report (watch?v=y88sgDM9HmA).
TYwokki 2 years ago
-- and more evidence came to show that climate change was happening - and more to the point - that humans were aiding that greatly to that change.
When Kyoto stated, the US was not interested. Since Carter in 70's, the US has been involved in Oil and the stability that oil gives, and the US wasn't going to give that up just because a few other nations were suffering because of CC.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Climate change is the most fucking retarded name. CLIMATES CHANGE. It is fully normal for ice to melt and freeze. Every year it changes. Furthermore we make up a portion of the CO2 output which is a small greenhouse gas. Methane and Water Vapor, which is the largest one, are more responsible for the greenhouse effect.. Furthermore the sun goes through cycles of activity affects the amount of heat we absorb. Also cosmic rays from supernovas affect our cloud formation. Yet our CO2 will destroy us?
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
-- was attributed to John Muir and the creation of Yosemite National Park in the US.
What's happened with Climate Change (CC) Politics is that the western style of putting a price-tag on everything dallied reaction. Global Warming has been studied since Fourier in the 1850's. The World Metrological Society noted warming back in 80's and more and more scientists through the 90's pushed politicians as more --
TYwokki 2 years ago
Environmentalism didnt 'pick-up' at the end of communism. Environmentalism arguably stated in the US for a start. Rachel Carson's, Silent Spring (1962), was the first real book to critically show human effects to the environment. The first effective legislation, the Environmental Impact Assessment, was first passed in the US. Conservationism, the first time someone took a piece of wilderness as claimed it purely for it intrinsic value, --
TYwokki 2 years ago
I said thats when it really picked up. When all the focus on being green and when it became popular. I recognize it was around before then but in the mid late 90s spending increase many fold on enviromentalism. We do have the best healthcare too. Leaders and individuals from around the world come here for treatment. Also we have more economic freedom andsecurity than other western nations.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Kyoto is a fine example of that. The majority of the world wanted Climate Change being taken more seriously - the US and a few other Fossil Fuel Reliant Nations didn't. The Byrd-Hagel Resolution for example.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Oh and Elf, NASA have the world's best satellite imagery technology, and they have been monitoring both the Arctic and Greenlands ice melt since the 70's. They announced in 2005 that the rate of melt has increased since 2000. And Greenland's ice according to the Hadley Centre has the potential to raise Sea Level by 23feet. Greenland is melting at 1 meter per year at the moment and increasing.
Live by the Coast Elf? Think before you speak Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
And as for your retarded Antarctica argument, let me answer your retarded question with another question; how cold do you think the water is where it meets the ice at it's edges? Perhaps about 32?
See where I'm going with this?
cobrompton 2 years ago
well I don't know about you but..... yes the water might be 32 degrees only, in salt water, the temp must be much much colder, can't say what but remember it was near 0
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
Also elf, why does this always have to be about USA? Did you not look at those films I forwarded you? How many people was it that died in France from the heat-wave? Cause célèbre, non? The island Nation of Tuvalu, is that a tin-pot UN nation? Shall we just tell them to go fuck themselves - we don't care about your home and lives all that matters is the USA status quo.
TYwokki 2 years ago
"Tin pot dictators" - who are they?
Why does the US have such a negative attitude towards the UN? You used to love them until they disagreed with US/Vietnam!
TYwokki 2 years ago
Just because the UN is run by the likes of Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Mentally-ill, etc?
And believe it or not, they had heat waves that killed peple during the ROMAN EMPIRE...and it wasn't caused by Hannibals elephants farting in Italy, as you would no doubt try to claim.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
And the UN is run by Tin-pot dictators! Really is a representation of the US attitude towards the rest of the world, really. Basically, you want to do what ever you like, and don't like it when someone else tells you what to do. Better get used to it.. Chindia!
And yes, they had heat waves in past times. They also had a much lower population.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The world hates us for being successful? Man, I did not know we had so many sore loser. Wow, what a bunch a cry babies I mean really! And they think they can tame us by forming a "We'll try to be democracies" club and having a progressive president sign us up! It's like being in a fight with the guy who has an AC 130 and a minigun
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
Sore Loser? And I don't think the world hates you for being anything - that's a reflection of Your arrogance. The view of some is that the US is extremely hypocritical (a point I'd agree with) and self-righteous/deluded (expressed by Your comment). But to say 'hate', is ridiculous. Anyone who hates the US, hates society.
TYwokki 2 years ago
How are we hypocritical? I'd say the only thing we're hypocritical about is saying that we want the American dream while in the background, Politicians WE elected are trying to destroy it
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
The American Dream is not shared by the World's People Christoppher1994, and to assume that it should, or should suffer so you can live it - well what do you think? The US is not the World.
Please don't be another Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
well if the American dream is not shared by the world, why are so many people trying to get in?
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
And by the way, Taming 'you', there's no need. From reading your recent DoE reports, You're doing it by yourself!
Now, if you've not got anything intelligent to say go play with Your toy guns now
TYwokki 2 years ago
Yes, your right, my own gov' is trying to tame us along with the un. It's ANNOYING. There should be less gov' and the U.S. should break off from the U.N.
Christoppher1994 2 years ago
There would be no advantage for the US to leave the UN. The UN is not a force of power; it's a mechanism to achieve goals. The reason the UN & US keep coming into conflict is because the US wants what a lot of other countries don't. This is partly smaller countries trying to nestle in and be awkward, but also a little US selfishness.
TYwokki 2 years ago
The US is not selfish. We are one of the youngest nations all things considered and yet we are the best. We have the best healthcare, military, standard of living and freedom. Although they are being dimminshed by Obama and Bush thats another story. You know when we enviromentalism picked up? The 90s risght when communism was falling apart world wide. They still want to bring us down to conform to what their agenda is. Call me crazy I have done my research.
USAPatriot45 2 years ago
Well, I agree that the US has the most expensive military, but not the best healthcare or standard of living. Although, I also agree the US is a great country - one of, if not 'the best' (though I'm not sure what exactly makes anyone 'the best') of the western styled countries. However, associating communism to environmentalism is, for want of a better word, fucking-retarded.
TYwokki 2 years ago
the Irony is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually protects Human rights better then the US bill of rights.
KidsTrax 2 years ago
Comment removed
TYwokki 2 years ago
Was Bush and the Oil companies any different though?
Politicians these days are businessmen, whichever country you're in. Political apathy aside, I think it's fair to say you can't trust them.
TYwokki 2 years ago
They, you tell me who they are?
Gore, personally I don't like him. I dare say you're right too. He may well have interests in Carbon trading schemes. Whether or not he's just getting into what he sees as an investment, or, like as you see it he's manipulating the situation to his benefit - to me, is the same thing to a politician.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Okay elf, let's just say Im wrong and you're right, just why would 'they' be lying?
TYwokki 2 years ago
That would entirely depend on which 'they' you are talking about.
Al Gore: Because he owns a "Carbon Offset" company and has already made millions off of this scam.
The UN: Because it's run by third world tinpot dictators who would like nothing better than to handicap the USA in any way possible.
Politicians: Because seeming to care about this kind of thing wins them the Left Wing Loonie Vote (As one of their biggest supporters, I think YOU can vouch for that one.)
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
And Big Business in Green politics, try looking into "Community Wind Energy" Elf.
You ever been to Denmark?
TYwokki 2 years ago
P Michaels too is funded by Western Fuels or Exxon (they are the two biggest sponsors of the anti-scientists, does that shock you elf?) I believe. I read only recently a paper he wrote on expected mortality rates in the US linked to (or according to him 'not') global warming.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Lindzen, another Scientist interviewed in the film has written many papers on his Solar theories, I'm not qualified enough to argue them. I do know however he's also worked as a consultant for numerous companies and groups, OPEC being one.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Pat Moore, interviewed in the film, has always been an anti-nuclear energy supporter. One of the major arguments for CO2 reduction has been investment in NE. I keep bringing up Lovelock, if you haven't listened/read him, do so.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Watched the film, found it interesting. I might watch the whole film. I have a few points however. Firstly, Channel 4 has a history of viewing controversial films. "The Greenhouse conspiracy" & "Against Nature" were two anti-science films screened by them. The latter was made by the same guy as "The Swindle".
TYwokki 2 years ago
In a nutshell:
Kyoto, just like sub-prime loans and welfare are just a tools used to destroy the US.
Minionuup 2 years ago
i fucking hate glenn beck
howdyimme 2 years ago
Elf, I never said the climate is driven by CO2. I said the climate is AFFECTED by CO2. Quite simple, so simple in-fact that even someone with a small, undeveloped and quite pathetic example of a 'functioning' Frontal Lobe as yourself could fathom, CO2 is produced by humans, CO2 causes warming, more CO2 - more warming, ergo - humans effect climate change.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Yeah Riiiiight....Like the Titanic was affected by a barnacle on it's hull and not the iceburg. You're on board with the whole "Man made CO2 will kill us all" bandwagon, TYwokki...you've SAID as much.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Obviously you've never heard of Tributyltin.
I'll watch the video and get back to you at some point. Don't go away now elf!
TYwokki 2 years ago
So you looked up some obscure chemical on Wikipedia that has nothing whatever to do with the discussion at hand...
I'm still engaging in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Obviously you've never heard of Götterdämmerung.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Götterdämmerung? I know Hitler used to listen to Vagner up at the Eagles Nest whilst dividing up Europe. He named two of the hills around him after characters in the opera. What German opera and world domination have to do with anything though!
TYwokki 2 years ago
And TBT, it was placed on the hull of ships to stop molluscs (barnacle being one such sp.) et al. fouling the ship. Since humans have been using it, it has had quite extreme environmental effects. Unarmed opponent, sounds to me like you're getting 'grandiose delusions' yourself, elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
TBT is irrelevant to the SIMILE I was using.
Blaming "global warming" on Man-generated CO2 is like blaming the sinking of the Titanic on a Barnicle on it's hull.
Whether or not TBT exists, or even was in use at the time of the Titanic's construction, does not invalidate the simile...it just makes it obvious that you BELIEVE that the similie is correct, so instead of trying to invalidate it logically or by citing actual information, you dig up some whiny nitpick.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Metaphor Elf, you were using a metaphor of "Titanic was sunk by a barnacle", to give the overall point - that a small insignificant thing such a mans CO2 output can't effect the planet - where-as my Allegoric-metaphor of TBT shows the opposite.. see?
In a game of whit as you put it, you need to be very smart to use a true simile. Smart like a bat in the day - one might say, ai Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
NO, I was saying that trying to blame large temperature changes on man-caused CO2 is LIKE blaming the sinking of the titanic on a barnacle and ignoring the HUGE BLOODY ICEBURG, YOU IMBECILLE!
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
I know what you were saying, you cretin, I'm pointing out how useless an analogy it is. Stop your whinge, you sound like a baby!
TYwokki 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I know what you were saying, you cretin, I'm pointing out how useless an analogy it is. Stop your whinge, you sound like a baby!
TYwokki 2 years ago
AND, why are you arguing what you said/meant? Semantics, no elf, don't be silly now! A quick revision of what you said (recorded and plain to see) was, "the real Africans live in sub-Sahara". I then quite rightly pointed out that Egyptians/Arabs are 'real' Africans. Go re-read our discussion elf before shooting your mouth off like a precocious child.
So again, Africa (including arid regions as well as grasslands, okay?), has environmental refugees. FACT. Moving on...
TYwokki 2 years ago
To finish off what has been a great pleasure. You wrote before about the "Great climate change swindle", and I told you about the criticism it came under for being unfair, unaccurate and how a few of the scientist interviewed complained that they had been misrepresented. The show was short listed for an award just recently.
You ever read 'An Enemy of the People'?
TYwokki 2 years ago
watch?v=xzSzItt6h
Refute THAT...if you can.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
broken link Elf. Try just the title like: - Pioneering climatologist James Lovelock interview
or send as a personel message.
TYwokki 2 years ago
It got cropped somehow:
watch?v=xzSzItt6h-s
(Lost the -s for some reason.)
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Arabs may live in the desert yes, and they and Egyptians are North Africans Elf. They are still Africans. It's a continent not a country. And that's not phonetics [I know how slow you are elf]. Can you give me the address of your Geography teacher? I'd like to go and slap them.
So, to conclude, the Sahara is in Africa, and Africa has climate refugees.
Oh, and you're a moron, let us all not forget that
TYwokki 2 years ago
Now to really show you up.
You're refusal to recognize Env Ref's is ridiculous. I'm terrible sorry the TRUTH gets in the way of you being right. How inconvenient for you.
People moving because of changing climate are a recognized occurrence. Are you King Canute? And yes, yes elf there are people in Africa, Asia that are being forced to move because the weather is heating up so much their traditional lands are being ruined.
TYwokki 2 years ago
I never said there weren't people in AFRICA, you moron, I said there are MORE people in SUB-SAHARAN africa than in the rest, and that the climate in SUB SAHARAN africa hasn't changed significantly in the last 5,000 years, let alone in the last 30, which you and your god Al Gore would like us to believe.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
You can't even get the NAME right. What a brainless boob.
I said "The Great GLOBAL WARMING Swindle"
I don't care how much criticism "The great CLIMATE CHANGE swindle is under, since it is obviously something else.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
I'm not sure you know what a desert is. You do know they don't all look like sand dunes? Go find out how deserts are formed, just to see how wrong you are. Little heads up "Hadley cell"
Have you heard of ocean deserts?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Okay, WV is a global warming 'gas'. But clouds play a bigger purpose then just warming. You know what albedo is right? Clouds are also different in types too. Higher up they thin, and less reflection. Lower down they warm, but only in a temporal time-span. How on earth you got to clouds being formed by heating of the planet - so more rain to moisten the desert, is beyond me. Have you got learning difficulties?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Clouds' Albedo effect (the reflectivity of light) is moslty in the visible spectrum and above. Infrared is more absorbed than reflected by clouds. Thus, the "Greenhouse effect"
Evaporation is caused by warmth. Infrared light increases warmth, therefore infrared light increases evaporation.
Increased evaporation = More clouds = more Greenhouse effect = more heat = more evaporation.
The only limiting factor is that when the clouds reach the dew point they rain out. Air pressure contols DP
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
When I was reading your comments on moisture and the desert, one thing struck me, you really don't have a clue what you're on about, do you?
TYwokki 2 years ago
I do, but you don't...if the atmosphere becomes supersaturated with moisture, deserts cease to become deserts.
But then you don't understand such concepts, you still think that climate is driven by a gas that composes a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere, and not by solar activity. If there is enough moisture in the atmosphere that it can't all rain out before the air gets over the desert, it WILL rain there.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
It doesn't matter if that amount of CO2 is 0.000001% moving to 0.0000011, it is still an increase. Ever heard of Svante Arrhenius? Maybe you ask him if Hummers and mass beef production is eco-friendly.
And yes elf, if there is enough moisture in the atmosphere even deserts could become fertile. Of course, as I said before, THAT statement doesn't allow for the complexity of the metrological system does it, Elf?
Stupid Boy!
TYwokki 2 years ago
Yeah, there are skeptics, but there are always skeptics. What we are talking about is the planet and our environment. Putting the planet first and taking heed to what IS a scientific majority, seems much better an idea than listening to a minority because they are saying what you want to hear.
Brainwashed is only hearing what you want to hear, and the scientific community has been shouting IT loud for years. Only the politicians didn't want to listen. Now YOU don't either. Who's Brainwashed
TYwokki 2 years ago
It's strange how you call the G.W. lot 'brain-washed'. There's a plethora of reports outside of the IPCC reports. Fourier came up with the concept of warming in the 1800's, the World Metrological Society published papers on it long before Gore & Bush-ites started squabbling over it. In-fact, as I said to you before, so-do most of the big scientific fraternities agree (Royal Society, NASA, American Association for the Advancement of Science etc. etc. etc.).
TYwokki 2 years ago
Lastly, I really like your evaporation theory; I mean more clouds would reflect the suns rays too. There's actually a guy doing work like that at the moment, trying to create clouds over the ocean. One problem, you're completely disregarding the complexity of the metrological system. Plus, most dry places don't have the water to evaporate, and if they did, they'd want to keep that to drink/use. And, the time span you're talking about would take centuries. We have less than 50 years!
TYwokki 2 years ago
LIsten, Stupid. Clouds are composed of WATER VAPOR. As anyone who has gone outside early in the morning after an overcast night, and compared the temperature to a morning after a CLEAR night knows, Water vapor is a VERY STRONG greenhouse gas. Fortunately, it rains out if it goes above the dew point, so it doesn't just keep building up, but in arid areas, there is room in the atmosphere for a LOT more water. Given enough evaporation, you WILL get rain in areas that were previously desert.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
I'd also like to know where you got the information that "warmer temperatures has always been associated with better times". Basic biology would disprove this point, as would ecology. Biology tells us that if the human body temp rises above 40deg, we die elf, not become happy people! Ecology tells us that the most productive areas on the planet in relation to biomass are not near the equator, but closer to the poles Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
I don't know what you're not getting about Environmental Refugees Elf, is it beyond your comprehension?
TYwokki 2 years ago
The fact that "enviromental Refugees" don't exist is obvious. The fact that the arabs lived quite happily in actual DESERTS should be a clue that humans adapt very well to a wide variety of environmental conditions.
Oh, I forgot...you are just a parrot, with no logical deduction skills at all.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
You do also realize that when the global temperature goes past one that certain crop species have tolerances to, the crop species die, fail to grow or have deformities? Ergo, people who rely on said crop species suffer, as does their livestock etc. They lose jobs, income, food sources and possibly their lives. Just to concrete that, the average life expectancy in Africa was 33 in 1990, it's now 31.5.
TYwokki 2 years ago
It's calle "Evolution", hollow head. New species evolve to fill environmental niches vacated by less adaptable species.
Even a moron like YOU should be able to grasp that much.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Firstly, I'm actually impressed your not one of the 50% of USA that believe that God created humans, but I'm slightly 'surprised' that you then follow such a profound statement with such a retarded one. "The climate there is perfect for humans". Elf, no no no no no no no. Just because certain parts of Africa are suited of life, doesn't mean the whole continent is too! You do know The Sahara is in Africa Elf, please say you do.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Apparently, I know more about Africa than YOU do.
When most people use the word "Africa", they are referring to what is known as "SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA" that is, the part where actual "Africans" live, as opposed to "Egyptians" and the other northern groups that we don't normally call "Africans"
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
And just to point how wrong you are, the trend we're talking about has been going on SINCE the LAST ice age, 9,700 BC. So, seeing such warming change in such a small time-scale, as you yourself put it "decades is FAR too short a time" yet we ARE seeing massive change IN DECADES, just shows you trying to be clever, just makes you look more wrong (and lacking thought prosesses).
Well done, you are officially stupid.
Silly little Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
Gore has thrown what would be a scientific discussion into the political arena, now everyone's squabbling over each inch. A more cynical observer might say perhaps that was the plan all along, after all, the US is getting what it wants either way. Of course, meanwhile, people are losing their homes, livelihoods and being driven to starvation in increasingly inhospitable parts of the globe, but the US has still got their Hummers.
LEVYbrain 2 years ago
The US is so insular.
Most Americans I talk to seem to see Climate Change as a divide between Republican & Democrats, liberal vs. rightwing. I'm British, couldn't give a toss about Gore and his policies, and most countries I've been to including the UK, political discussion is fought over how much will be done, rather than the US attitude of whether to do anything at all.
LEVYbrain 2 years ago
Read the Carbon War by J Leggett, you never know, you might get a whole new prospective on what happens when a international group calling for change goes up against an industry with massive shares in the most powerful country in the world.
AND AGAIN, get off warming is good for plants idiot, because in case you haven't noticed, some people already live in a greenhouse. The world is NOT USA, remember and a bit of warming isn't just going to make plants grow!!!
TYwokki 2 years ago
Tell that to the farmers in the Matenuska Valley in Alaska. An increased growing season WILL cause more plant growth.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Yeah, and try telling THAT to the estimated 150million Africans from 24 separate countries who have abandoned their homes in search of food to avoid starvation since 1984. Or the 25million from Bangladesh left homeless from floods increasing in severity every year since 1988.
Maybe they'll all go to the Matenuska Valley in Alaska. Oh wait, that would affect the USA! Environmental effects to the US don't happen! Do they? Elf Elf Elf.
TYwokki 2 years ago
You mean the ones who were only starving because their dictator landlords stole all their food, not because of any change in the climate? Sorry, but the USA isn't responsible for that.
RedwoodTheElf 2 years ago
Comment removed
TYwokki 2 years ago
No, no that's the other 1.5million.
No Elf, I'm talking about the ones whove been forced to leave homes, farms, livelihoods because global increase in temp has made the original homes uninhabitable. Environmental Refugees Elf. Like those from the Island of Tuvalu. The UN officially called for an evacuation of their Island home because of sea level rise. Desertification in China is affecting 400million people elf. 400million. What's the population of the USA? 300million? Lot of people ai?
TYwokki 2 years ago
Africa elf, when they're [Africans] not becoming refugees because of wars over diamonds and oil, they're refugees because of the climate. As I keep saying to you, USA is not the world, and warming is not just going to make a few US farmers happy because they can have a longer growing season!!
Am I getting through Elf?
Prob, not, you're a moron
TYwokki 2 years ago