2
2
0
1) Yay or nay?
2) How does your opinion affect your:
a) lifestyle choices regarding the environment?
b) political opinion regarding the environment?
2) How does your opinion affect your:
a) lifestyle choices regarding the environment?
b) political opinion regarding the environment?
Posted in these groups: 
Environment
Politics
Environment Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 22
4
4
0
It is a forced science that the Government and academia are using to scare people. Propaganda is all it is. I will not change my life style. I will continue to pick up my trash as we all should. I do believe in protecting our environment.
(4)
(0)
Ruth Jones
Global warming is really a very big issue. I think by changing little bit habits from our daily routine we can save the environment. The main cause of global warming is harmful gases like carbon, methane, etc. So we should try to use these gases less. When I was a student I thought how can I help combat global warming? Then my brother suggested to me https://www.wales247.co.uk/how-can-students-help-combat-global-warming, where I can get a lot more information about global warming, and also the way which I can do to save over earth from global warming.
How can students help combat global warming?
One of the biggest challenges people face in the 21st century is dealing with global warming. Global warming already has significant effects on the environment. Ice on rivers and lakes is breaking early, glaciers have shrunk, trees are flowering sooner, and animal and plant ranges have shifted. Basically, the effects that were predicted by the […]
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Not in the least little bit... I believe that "global warming" is just so much political BS. There has always been cyclic climate changes and there always will be.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
What we're seeing now fits no natural pattern. Claiming that warming/cooling is natural is a great argument if the data matched.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Jean, I don't see how scientist accurately collects the data and form their opinion has any political aspiration. I believe scientist is warning the law maker so they can make law governing excessive pollution which has alter the climate. Any REAL scientist would look at the data and accept it's conclusion. I took a course from Central Washington University in Oceanography and Climate. I can assure you the data is irrefutable about the changes in the Earth's climate.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
Everybody is entitled to his/her own opinion about this. Even the scientists disagree.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Does anyone remember the "Hole in the Ozone" frenzy in the 80's? That one really had a huge backing. It was man-made and due to Freon that time....until someone figured out that a) the hole had always been there, and b) one volcanic eruption releases something like 10 times the equivalent of all the man-made Freon in the world. Dupont was the big winner in that one. Coincidentally, their patent on R-12 Freon had run out, and the Freon craze caused the fed to outlaw R-12, with R-134 being the replacement. Any guesses who owned the patent for R-134?
(3)
(0)
SPC Greg Burnett
WE WERE TOLD THAT ELIMINATING CFCs WOULD ELIMINATE THE HOLE IN THE OZONE and we needed to do that because cancers caused by increased radiation coming through the hole would be one of the leading causes of death worldwide by, IIRC, 2010. Specifically, they would be cancers that started out as skin cancer. Many countries have all be eliminated CFCs and the hole hasn't gone away. In face, now there seems to be one over the arctic. And deaths from cancer that started as skin cancer are not now a leading cause of death worldwide.
What it really boils down to is that the panic mongers that KNOW what they are talking about are pretty much full of shit.
They scream and holler and are proven wrong again and again and again.
If they would even say "with the current level of understanding we have, this appears to be what is happening" but no, they claim to have a complete and irrefutable understanding and knowledge and anyone that questions them is a freakin' idiot.
The fact that they themselves are wrong consistently while claiming to have a god-like mastery of the "science" kind of makes them look like the idiots to me.
What it really boils down to is that the panic mongers that KNOW what they are talking about are pretty much full of shit.
They scream and holler and are proven wrong again and again and again.
If they would even say "with the current level of understanding we have, this appears to be what is happening" but no, they claim to have a complete and irrefutable understanding and knowledge and anyone that questions them is a freakin' idiot.
The fact that they themselves are wrong consistently while claiming to have a god-like mastery of the "science" kind of makes them look like the idiots to me.
(1)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
MAJ (Join to see) we DO have increases. The hole has varied in size from 13.8 Kilometers to 29.6 Kilometers over the last 25 years, with not a lot of discernable pattern, other than that most smaller hole years are followed by a larger hole year and vice-versa. The one overlaying pattern is that it continues an overall rise in size over the period of years that we have been CFC free....By that, I mean as CFC free as we can be without banning volcanoes.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CFCs last for a long time in the atmosphere. Look at the data - the hole is half what it was in the 70s when we first saw the problem and the trend is reduction and stabilization.
(0)
(0)
SGT Richard H.
MAJ (Join to see) Where is that data? I'm trying to keep an open mind, Sir, but NASA's data shows the hole to be approximately 22 times what it was in 1979 now, and just a few years ago (2006) it was nearly 27 times the size it was in 1979. While I am more than willing to consider other sources, I have to also consider that few other sources (or none) will have the extra-terrestrial view or access to technology that NASA does. It should be noted also that the "hole" isn't exactly a hole. It's more like a thin area. Ozone density is measured in DU (dobson units) and the baseline is 300 DU, for what the ozone "should" be. The DU measurement of the hole essentially follows (not exactly) the same pattern as the diameter of the hole....however, "Not Exactly" is a key factor. It did fall from 1979 to 1991, and then rise a bit, but some of the lowest points have been in the last few years (95.0 in 2011 compared to 101.0 the year before and 118.0 the year after). One additional point is that one of the top 4 things that destroys ozone is Nitrogen...yep, that Nitrogen. The gas that makes up 78.09% of our atmosphere.
As a side note, and by way of comparison CO2, the "culprit" du juor in the latest crisis, ideally makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, which means that current levels of CO2 (0.03952%) at worst, are .00052% above ideal.
As a side note, and by way of comparison CO2, the "culprit" du juor in the latest crisis, ideally makes up 0.039% of the atmosphere, which means that current levels of CO2 (0.03952%) at worst, are .00052% above ideal.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
How does it affect my lifestyle? Not one bit. I don't believe that "we" (mankind) are responsible for global warming, aka "climate change."
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
This topic has been mentioned or brought up in different ways. Without mentioning names (you know who you are) we have several very knowledgeable people who have a deep understanding, professional credentials, highly informed opinions about this topic who disagree. I have seen information, comments, articles, and all sorts of stuff from both sides regarding this issue.
Is it possible that both are right and both are wrong? Meaning it is a natural occurrence but humans have contributed (not the cause nor to the extent the media claims)... basically the old saying there are three sides to every story (yours, mine, and the truth)? But perhaps politics, special interest groups, and financial interests have gotten in to way of proper research and clouded the results? Therefore concluding at singular narrow minded focus?
Is it possible that both are right and both are wrong? Meaning it is a natural occurrence but humans have contributed (not the cause nor to the extent the media claims)... basically the old saying there are three sides to every story (yours, mine, and the truth)? But perhaps politics, special interest groups, and financial interests have gotten in to way of proper research and clouded the results? Therefore concluding at singular narrow minded focus?
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Pete Fleming Well said. The first thing I do when I see somebody publishing anti-AGW stuff is google their name. Almost always attached in some way to the petro industry.
(1)
(0)
Cpl Tou Lee Yang
Pete, if those people have professional credential, that would mean they're scientist. And if they're scientist, I don't know how they can refute the data that is collected from the buoy all over the ocean. Those data are not being altered in the middle of the ocean by someone on a boat. I took a course from Central Washington University and the data we have to gather from NOAA tells one story and it points to global warming.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Something else made up by bleeding heart liberals to promote their agenda. Personally I think that the earth goes through cycles and from time to basically has to refresh itself. Since humans do not live thousands of years at a time, how are we to know if this has ever happened before other than listening to give theories.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
"Global warming" is a catch phrase. I believe we are to be good stewards of our natural resources, but that "all" of the "climate change" is mankind induced....I don't think so.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I saw the new "COSMOS" show, and did perhaps gain a different perspective, on the difference between climate, and weather. However-Any kind of a "solution" or actual "change" that might prove to be beneficial, from any "authority" figure, has shown to be no more than another opportunity to minimize everything that made America great.
Now, don't get me wrong. I know that acid rain in the 70's was a real thing, and we, as a society were able to affect change, that reduced the amount of pollutants that caused "acid rain".
Having said that, I have not heard, seen or got a whiff of any real solution to the "supposed" ongoing climate change, that will make any difference, OTHER THAN killing American productivity.
The world is a very big place, and there are many billion other people that produce much waste, besides us here in the states. Do you think China, will take the lead? What about India? How about Pakistan?
Sadly, I feel personally that the objectives of "solving climate change" really are nothing more than politically motivated pot shots, aimed at reducing American quality of life, further decreasing our gross domestic out put, and mostly just putting us back in our place, while they (the rest of the world) ignore all their responsibility in our ongoing quest to create the perfect place, where all are in fact equal, there is no war, and everyone can live as one "Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."
John Lennon, Imagine....
First there was nothing, then God said let there be light. Then, the Heavens and Earth, and then internal combustion, the flat head Ford, Rock music, the mini skirt, cannabis, the 2nd world war, and now ISIS, trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Of all the things that I hear about the end of the world, er, uh, climate change, I NEVER hear about any solutions, other than stop producing.
Talk to me about a creative means to that end, and I will be all ears. Until then, not so much.
Now, don't get me wrong. I know that acid rain in the 70's was a real thing, and we, as a society were able to affect change, that reduced the amount of pollutants that caused "acid rain".
Having said that, I have not heard, seen or got a whiff of any real solution to the "supposed" ongoing climate change, that will make any difference, OTHER THAN killing American productivity.
The world is a very big place, and there are many billion other people that produce much waste, besides us here in the states. Do you think China, will take the lead? What about India? How about Pakistan?
Sadly, I feel personally that the objectives of "solving climate change" really are nothing more than politically motivated pot shots, aimed at reducing American quality of life, further decreasing our gross domestic out put, and mostly just putting us back in our place, while they (the rest of the world) ignore all their responsibility in our ongoing quest to create the perfect place, where all are in fact equal, there is no war, and everyone can live as one "Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..."
John Lennon, Imagine....
First there was nothing, then God said let there be light. Then, the Heavens and Earth, and then internal combustion, the flat head Ford, Rock music, the mini skirt, cannabis, the 2nd world war, and now ISIS, trying to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Of all the things that I hear about the end of the world, er, uh, climate change, I NEVER hear about any solutions, other than stop producing.
Talk to me about a creative means to that end, and I will be all ears. Until then, not so much.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Brother you make many fine points. My biggest issue in the world is the obscene accumulation of wealth and many times at the expense of back-breaking labor. People become wealthy sometimes merely by inheritance and fortuitous stork. I know the Lord said, "the poor will always be with us'. But that does not mean we destroy the planet with pollution but as I and others have alluded to, the big polluters are China and India and they basically tell us to back off while we will pay taxes for a green cottage industry offset by Washington cronies.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Brian Herman
But that is the dilemma, isn't it? Quality of life in America, OR, back tot the stone age, with the native tribes in the Amazon..Why don't we hear about a legitimate third option? Probably for the same reason we only hear Democrat or republican points of view that only slander the other party. Never about what will solve a problem, or make a permanent fix. There is just too much money in the fight, rather than a solution!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I make choices to conserve water, energy, and other resources that are impacted or have an impact on climate change. My political decisions are influenced, in part, by environmental concerns but I am not a single issue voter.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google