April 30th, 2009 by admin
Climate Change and Global Warming are indeed a huge debate topic in all its controversy and media hysteria. The majority of people are up in arms over the thought of global warming and indeed they want the United States to sign the Kyoto Treaty and agree to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases.
We cannot say for sure how much the globe may be warming up though, how much is due to human activities versus natural activities, or whether these movements in global temperature would be mostly good or mostly bad for the majority of us.
Recently in an online think tank one person was berrated for placing a post in the Global Warming area of the website on a Chinese Flooding event which washed away 90 people and in another province killed 117 folks.
Though Global Warming doesn’t seem that bad, with many people’s idea of it being that of a world wrapped snuggly in a warm blanket, it’s something that needs to be taken seriously and it’s something that could greatly hinder, and destroythe future.
In a nutshell, Global Warming is the gradual increase of the temperature of the earth’s lower atmosphere. Basically global warming is the ascent of the earth’s surface temperature due to chemicals in the atmosphere. Some Global Warming Alarmists believe it is too late to stop the effects of mankind on our atmosphere and that these undesired effects will cause the triggering of major storms, freak weather and catastrophic situations. In order to control and avoid the effects of global warming we must first agree with a fact that it is happening, and take some steps to end or even reduce it. Maybe the whole world needs to rethink the level playing field rules over again and then we can sit down and talk about Global Warming, CO2 emissions and the Kyoto Treaty or a more realistic version of it.
Luckily most of the Global Warming theories are not based on very solid scientific evidence, but our Planet is going through a climate change cycle and this cycle, which is being caused by a series of inter-related cycles are warming areas our Planet among other things. There is no compelling scientific evidence that global warming is caused by anything other than ordinary, natural climatic cycles.Some Global Warming alarmists are now thinking it is time to invest their money in House Boat Stocks and pick out a big ship to live on?
So the debate of climate change battles on and whilst I see no end in site to it the doomsdayers will have you agree the sky is falling ,remember chicken little.So get yourself some scientific knowledge on the subject because if you dont you’ll end up becoming one of them.
Calvin Leonard
http://www.articlesbase.com/advice-articles/the-new-climate-change-debate-124416.html
insighthere Says:
Why do Americans tend to assert that Climate Change Debate is all about Republican vs Democrat?
For example people who say Climate Change is real are often branded "Liberals". Some Americans also claim that spreading the Climate Change message is nothing more than a method of controlling ordinary Americans. Has is not occurred to Americans than there are 5.7 billion human beings OUTSIDE of the USA and the state of the planet is not all about you?
donfletcheryh Says:
One attempts to corral as many uncommitted voters to one's side as possible. If one has any group more likely to support one, one then tries to co-opt them on the basis of membership in the group.
This works in many situations, because others in the group are not willing to cause a group split based on something that is not central to the group's main philosophy.
If for instance a Republican is going on about protecting Christian values, as Republicans, a Republican who is a Jew is likely to just suck it up rather than offend a large part of the Republican group by asking that we keep Religion out of politics.
Now climate change debate comes as two segments. One is science based, and one is leadership based… in this case leadership is personified in AL Gore.
We can see the science based debate as going on entirely separated from the leadership based debate. The Leadership based debate is pro and con Al Gore as leader. Well, it could have been pro and con Ralph Nader, if Ralph had created An Inconvenient Truth. And it could have been pro and con any of the Republican hopefuls had they created it.
But politics being what it is, if one side tries to lead, the other side must oppose, or find some way to steal the thunder of the leading person.
The interesting fact that many Democrats got on side with Al Gore quite quickly and a lot of anti-Gore people just happened to be in the other camp makes it a natural for political division.
References :
Dr Jello Says:
There is not one American who is for polluting the planet. Many people are responsible and just do the right thing.
Others don't think anything is being done unless government has laws telling the people how they should act.
This is the American schism. Does one choose to act responsible, or do people require to be responsible by the use of force, loss of money, or jail time?
Pollution control is a multi billion dollar business. The free market is demanding change and the market place is meeting that challenge.
However this isn't good enough for some. There are those who want the gvmt to force people into cars they think best for them. This is the liberal mindset, and should be opposed.
References :
Tuba in the Rose Parade Says:
There are elements within the Republican Party strongly aligned with big oil, car makers, etc. There is also a substantial antisemitic voting block, sympathetic to high oil prices as a way to fund the war on Israel. Trying to paint environmentalism as a "liberal" , "socialist", or "communist" cause legitimizes their agenda, at least in the eyes of the gullible within the Party. It is very similar to the political climate in the USA just prior to WWII.
References :
nomaggie Says:
As to your last question the answer is no.
We tend to think the world revolves around us. Just look at the fact we call ourselves Americans. Ask a typical American if a Canadian or Mexican is American -(which of course they are, 1st also North American, second Central or South American) - they'll say no.
References :
UK sense Says:
Lack of responsibility, realism and courage to do anything. Like in most countries including my own.
Avoidance. Same reason some people divert the subject when they are losing the argument.
References :
The fact that 90% of people have an IQ below 100 and the media are in a zombie control of the political lanscape
kidphysicist Says:
I'm sorry if this sounds racy, discriminating and offensive…. but I think a lot of people would agree that the simplest answer to your question is……….. because most Americans are stupid….. I said most…. not all….. think about it…
References :
littlerobbergirl Says:
tuba; its scary innit?
we have hopefully gone through that phase in the u.k. now, and all parties have some kind of environmental policy.
we did have precedent; our most conservative prime minister of the 20th century, Margret Thatcher, was one of the instigators of the IPCC. she got the heads up in the early 80s that all was not well, as a chemist she took it seriously. if we all had started mitigation measures 20 years ago we wouldn't be in this fix now.
its far to important a subject to be playing political games with.
References :
mjmayer188 Says:
The state of the planet is not all about us, but the rest of the world seems to think we should pay for it.
The programs and treaties that have been passed around would dramatically affect the US economy and exempt "developing nations" such as China and India. It gives them an advantage over the US.
We should all reduce pollution, but we need to maintain a level playing field.
References :
cookie Says:
Well who else matters? lol
References :