Crosswords2 mins ago
Climate Change Is Not Man-Made.
55 Answers
I posted my reasons for that statement over six months ago. The post was removed, I presume, because a mod didn't like to hear that. However, here is another reason.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i include this purely to show that it's not just a lefty conspiracy like some people say it is... in fact conservatives should be all over the environmental cause as it's about preserving hunanity's shared heritage... a stable environment. i think she articulated a very clear way in which one can be green and still be right-wing if that's important to you.
"Mr President, the evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the International Community, do about it?
In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take.
I am thinking for example of action to deal with pollution of rivers—and many of us now see the fish back in rivers from which they had disappeared.
I am thinking of action to improve agricultural methods—good husbandry which ploughs back nourishment into the soil rather than the cut-and-burn which has damaged and degraded so much land in some parts of the world.
And I am thinking of the use of nuclear power which—despite the attitude of so-called greens—is the most environmentally safe form of energy.
But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.
It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
We have to look forward not backward and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort."
she was 100% right.
In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take.
I am thinking for example of action to deal with pollution of rivers—and many of us now see the fish back in rivers from which they had disappeared.
I am thinking of action to improve agricultural methods—good husbandry which ploughs back nourishment into the soil rather than the cut-and-burn which has damaged and degraded so much land in some parts of the world.
And I am thinking of the use of nuclear power which—despite the attitude of so-called greens—is the most environmentally safe form of energy.
But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.
It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases.
We have to look forward not backward and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort."
she was 100% right.
Mrs Thatcher eventually saw through the "climate change" scam and had further thoughts on the subject. In 2003 she wrote the book "Statecraft" and in it said ... //climate activism a "marvelous excuse for supra-national socialism," and denouncing Al Gore's calls for international cooperation around climate change "apocalyptic hyperbole."// ... and //"a new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-center governing classes," praised former President George W. Bush for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and bemoaned the “costly and economically damaging” schemes to limit carbon emissions.//
Mrs Thatcher was indeed an environmentalist, but she was never fooled by false science and never countenanced unverifiable data as proof. She was a scientist not an emotionalist.
Mrs Thatcher was indeed an environmentalist, but she was never fooled by false science and never countenanced unverifiable data as proof. She was a scientist not an emotionalist.
10,000 years ago most of the Northern Hemisphere was covered in an ice sheet which was in places miles thick. It melted as the Earth warmed up. Now either primitive man made a lot of pollution and released massive amounts of methane, carbon dioxide, smoke and hot air or this was a natural occurrence.
https:/
Feel free to go through and point out where the precise mistake(s) is/are, what flaws exist in the analysis, which data sets are mistaken, what the alternative explanation is, and so on and so forth.
That human activity is responsible for changes in the climate is essentially as established as gravity at this point. It may make you uncomfortable. It may make you feel somewhat powerless to do much about it. It may feel too daunting a task to do anything other than mitigate. But to pretend it's a complete fiction is, at this point, wilfully and dangerously ignorant.
Feel free to go through and point out where the precise mistake(s) is/are, what flaws exist in the analysis, which data sets are mistaken, what the alternative explanation is, and so on and so forth.
That human activity is responsible for changes in the climate is essentially as established as gravity at this point. It may make you uncomfortable. It may make you feel somewhat powerless to do much about it. It may feel too daunting a task to do anything other than mitigate. But to pretend it's a complete fiction is, at this point, wilfully and dangerously ignorant.
jim: //But to pretend it's a complete fiction is, at this point, wilfully and dangerously ignorant.//
I'm not sure who is saying that human activity isn't responsible for SOME changes in the climate, how could it not be? but that is not to say it is ENTIRELY responsible.
panta rhei
(all things are in flux)
Heraclitus
I'm not sure who is saying that human activity isn't responsible for SOME changes in the climate, how could it not be? but that is not to say it is ENTIRELY responsible.
panta rhei
(all things are in flux)
Heraclitus
Khandro;
I'm not sure who is saying that human activity isn't responsible for SOME changes in the climate, how could it not be? but that is not to say it is ENTIRELY responsible."
Well that's a start. If human activity is partially responsible, then humans can modify their activity to help reduce climate change. It might be difficult, but it's something we can work at. If you're overweight, or addicted to tobacco or whatever, then you can either fight it or give in, and you might be able to save yourself from personal harm. In the case of climate change, it affects everybody on the planet, not just you, so you should really do all you can to fight it.
I'm not sure who is saying that human activity isn't responsible for SOME changes in the climate, how could it not be? but that is not to say it is ENTIRELY responsible."
Well that's a start. If human activity is partially responsible, then humans can modify their activity to help reduce climate change. It might be difficult, but it's something we can work at. If you're overweight, or addicted to tobacco or whatever, then you can either fight it or give in, and you might be able to save yourself from personal harm. In the case of climate change, it affects everybody on the planet, not just you, so you should really do all you can to fight it.
Latest Posts
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank13 mins ago
Shopping & Style13 mins ago
Film, Media & TV19 mins ago