You mistake me for a party-line democrat!
Gore is a scum-bag politician and I am not surprised to find he is a energy hog or whatever. Hypocrisy runs deep among politicians, who with very few exceptions give lip-service to the public, but actions cater to money. My post is not about him other than to say it likely would have been better if he had not been involved in spreading the message of climate change because that caused the opposing party to desire to undercut the validity of his statements (that is what politicians do, after all).
Please, give me a good (non-politicized) link showing that climate change is not a global phenomenon! That is a much more interesting statement (to me) than saying Al Gore is two-faced!
Air pollution and water pollution in the U.S. are certainly better than they were in the past (it has been many years since we have seen rivers in the U.S. on fire), but don't mistake that for indicating that the overall impact on the earth has been reduced.
Absolutely not, I am using the West Bank as an example of competition over limited resources. I do not believe the effects of Global Warming/Climate Change have limited resources enough to cause wars yet, but that may be the most significant means by which climate change impacts the world in the near future.
My point is humanity normally has a difficult time avoiding wars. Adding the stress of a changing climate (food reduction, loss of property value, etc) is likely to make for more desperate people.
The Nazis of WW2 taught us the dangers of leaving people in desperate situations, assuming you recognize that the desperate situation of the people of post WW1 Germany set the stage for Hitler to become a leader. That was after-all why we decided to assist in the post WW2 reconstruction of Germany (and Japan).
I wasn't coming after you, I just wanted to bash Algore.
Climate changes occur constantly- that's the one constant. Also, when they use a short period of time (even 200 years is a short time, really), they're trying to fit a narrative to their model. Have Humans affected the planet in bad ways? Impossible to answer that with "No" and get away with it. However, I commented about 'global warming' isn't what's happening. In order for this to be a correct name for it, the temperature would have to be higher in all test locations since the beginning of the sample period and it isn't. If this is going to be discussed scientifically, it needs to be dead accurate in all ways, including terminology.
I would argue that if the water and air in the US are better than in the past, it IS an indication that the planet is cleaner, or at least it would be if the rest of the World had maintained their own impact. The fact is, that much of the rest of the World HASN'T and some, like China, India and other countries that didn't have a large manufacturing base are polluting like it's some kind of contest and if you think about many products that are imported to the US, a huge amount use materials that can't be used here in ANY quantity by a manufacturer because they're too toxic before they dry/cure. I don't know what they do with the fumes, but I doubt they're particularly stringent in their collection/neutralization measures.
The question about temperature was a reference to what law enforcement knows- when the temperature goes up, tempers flare, too. However, far too many conflicts are based on ideology, rather than some other reason that could be avoided through compromise.
My opinion is this- if anyone thinks our impact on the planet can be stopped or reversed quickly, they don't understand science, OR people. There's a push for alternative fuel sources and I'm all for that, but it's not particularly focused. Part of the problem in this is the cost of fuel and its energy density vs other fuels- if we could find something that was equal to petroleum, it would be used now but there's no fuel that can be consumed that won't produce some kind of by-product and carbon-based fuels happen to be plentiful.
Humans ALWAYS have a difficult time avoiding wars and physical conflicts and this has only grown with the increase in population. The population of humans has grown from about 1 Billion in 1800 to roughly 7.5 Billion now- it's expected to rise to 11.2 by the year 2100- that's unsustainable and one thing that could solve the energy problem & all of what goes with it is a stabilization in the number of people on the planet. We can't feed everyone now- how will it be possible to feed 65% more?
One thing that hasn't happened in a long time is the plague. Wars have killed millions, but that's still not the same level of lives lost from the periods when this one disease killed large percentages of the total population. We know the mechanism behind its spread, we know how to treat it and now, we have more people than resources. I'm not saying the resources aren't available anywhere, I'm saying that in many places, they just don't have much more than dirt or sand and in those places, there's very little manufacturing, even by hand.
Again, I'm not arguing that the climate is changing, I just don't like people using the wrong words- this needs to be dealt with specifically, not generally and IMO, the US needs to do a better job of educating people. It's not difficult to recycle- it takes a little effort, but many won't do it unless they're forced. It's not hard to use less energy, but again, people need to see a good reason and replacing a working bulb isn't going to see many volunteers. The rising cost of energy works well, though- my energy bills are lower than more than five years ago because I have switched to LED bulbs, although I had been using CFL for a long time.
