Climate Change by crown jakarta management capital environmental scams

[Michaelstevess]

I accept that for many the question of rising global temperatures and changing weather patterns remains a question. But rather than continue to debate and discuss whether or not we should be reducing environmental pollution because of the threat of rising global temperatures, can we please all agree to stop arguing in favor of pollution? Pollution that the New York Times recently reported is linked to 1.2 million premature deaths in China and 3.2 million around the world.

Much as a magician distracts his audience from what they are doing with one hand by getting them to focus on the other, those who loudly and publicly remain skeptical about the impact of these pollutants on the environment at a macro-level never, cannot, and do not attempt to argue the well-established fact that what we are pumping into our atmosphere is altering the chemical composition of the air we breathe (changing the climate) and is now the seventh-leading cause of death in the world.

So let us not allow ourselves to fall for the misdirection by those who have a vested interest in dumping known poisons into our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate and instead focus on the fact that these emissions are, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050.

Isn't that enough of a reason to act?

 

[editec]

YES it is, Michael.

The Globall Warming debate provides a wonderful cover for polluters.

Why and how?

Because if one complains about some local polluter, the polluters immediately pin one with the label ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST and try to paint YOU with the same brush as they're ALREADY painting the GLOBAL WARMING theorists.

We just went though something much like that here in Searsport.

We citizens objected to a project BECAUSE IT would have DESTROYED OUR TOWN AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES, so naturally our detractors tried to make us into GLOBAL WARMING NUTTERS, clueless hippies and anti-capitalists.


BELIEVE ME, there is a vast difference between a enviromentalist's and a NIMBY objections to a developments.

The NIMBY objection is specific and local, the environmentalist objection is theoretical and collective.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, the "Conservatives" lump both the environmentalists and the people warning of the effects of the increase in the GHGs in the atmosphere together. And call us all 'watermelons', green on the outside and red on the inside. As if opposing putting known poisons into the air we breath and the water we drink is a sign of communist ideology.

For those of us that are trying to point out that fact that what we put into the atmosphere has a known effect, in this case the GHGs, and that effect is detrimental to society, the predictions made in 1981 by Dr. James Hansen for the present were pretty damned accurate. Where he and the other scientists failed, was that the sensitivity of the climate was greater than predicted. So we may well see the Arctic Ice gone for part of the summer by 2020. And the extreme weather events that were predicted for our grandchidren seemed to have arrived a bit early.

 

[westwall]

I accept that for many the question of rising global temperatures and changing weather patterns remains a question. But rather than continue to debate and discuss whether or not we should be reducing environmental pollution because of the threat of rising global temperatures, can we please all agree to stop arguing in favor of pollution? Pollution that the New York Times recently reported is linked to 1.2 million premature deaths in China and 3.2 million around the world.

Much as a magician distracts his audience from what they are doing with one hand by getting them to focus on the other, those who loudly and publicly remain skeptical about the impact of these pollutants on the environment at a macro-level never, cannot, and do not attempt to argue the well-established fact that what we are pumping into our atmosphere is altering the chemical composition of the air we breathe (changing the climate) and is now the seventh-leading cause of death in the world.

So let us not allow ourselves to fall for the misdirection by those who have a vested interest in dumping known poisons into our atmosphere at an ever increasing rate and instead focus on the fact that these emissions are, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, set to become the top environmental cause of mortality worldwide by 2050.

Isn't that enough of a reason to act?

GHG's are NOT pollutants. I agree REAL pollution absolutely needs to be controlled. Regulate the hell out of particulates and chemical residue, but CO2 is the absolute bottom of the food chain. Control is impossible, all the schemes do is steal money from poor people and give it to rich people.

 

[Saigon]

I read an article a couple of weeks ago saying that pollution in parts of London is now as bad as during the 1930's, when the Great Fog (which was actually a combination of fog and smog) caused thousands to die of asthma and breathing disorders, and giving rise to major changes in British industrial legislation.

While this is no longer from heavy industry as it used to be, it is still generated by traffic and a massive influx of people into the city during the past 50 years.

It always baffles me that many on this board would still oppose the legislation that saved tens of thousands of British lives.