These days when the president of the United States excuses himself from responsibility for the damages of global warming, it is worth remembering that the United States is great and important, but even an ignorant president is not omnipotent. Geologists have long declared the "human" geological period (Anthropocene)
These days, once again sad data are being published about the sixth extinction caused by man, therefore its name will be "the human extinction", and this is certainly not a compliment to the human race.
These days, the problem of global warming is rising even more strongly. Along with many others who deal with the environment, I also began to refer to global warming in the late eighties when the scientific world was clear about who was directly to blame for the warming, as well as the essential need to moderate the warming and its consequences.
I joined the warning camp. It was a time when there were those who treated the discussion of climate change as a joke. In the XNUMXs, when surveys and studies on global warming began to be published, there were those who joked about the issue. American senators claimed that all that would happen was "changing people's lifestyles", something along the lines of "it wouldn't be bad if instead of rice, fish would grow"...
But very quickly the Americans also began to suffer at home from the "arm's length" of warming and climate change, such as heat waves, periods of drought and devastating hailstorms that foreshadow more severe climate phenomena. These phenomena caused many of the skeptics to change their position and join a growing crowd that calls for initiatives to stop the damage.
In our immediate environment we are witnessing the consequences of global warming in the form of periods of drought and dryness that harm man and nature and at the same time rainstorms, flooding and floods in areas that have not known such phenomena. Some attribute the war in Syria to long and devastating droughts that caused millions of farmers to lose their source of livelihood.
Biologists and ecologists first warned of serious damage to wild animals and the extinction of species, citing warming as one of the reasons, in addition to harmful human activity such as the "occupation" of habitats, wild hunting and the spread of invasive species - that is, human activity is a major and almost sole cause of environmental damage.
The understanding quickly spread that if people do not care about nature, it must be made clear that the risks of harming nature cause direct harm to the human population. The climate scientists made it clear to everyone that humanity is not only the cause but also the victim affected by the warming and the other hazards accompanying it.
In the XNUMXs when the discussion about global warming began, there were hesitations and hesitations when the main question was: how can climate change be predicted for the next hundred years when there is no clear and sure prediction for the weather tomorrow or the day after tomorrow? However, while policy makers reacted with lukewarmness to the risks, the signs of warming increased and demonstrated their threatening presence in the entire world. Scientists' claim that the main cause of warming is pollutant emissions has also received an irrefutable boost. Within about thirty years, phenomena began to appear that clarified the danger. Coastal cities, islands and flat areas began to be covered with water, beaches in our country are getting narrower (also due to sand "robbery"), storms in the sea raise waves that wash and flood streets, areas that were "grain baskets" became plains scorched by dryness and dust, the desert expanded and many more phenomena Destructiveness.
The warming is already here and all the lukewarm attempts at a rally have at best a chance of a gift, certainly not a rally.
Therefore the question arises: what can be done after all?
- It is possible to stop destroying the coral reefs on the beaches, stop the deforestation of the mangrove forests, these are also "kindergartens" for marine creatures and also protect against storms and waves.
- Deforestation of the evergreen forests in the equatorial regions can be stopped. These forests constitute a huge reservoir of biological diversity and also absorb carbon dioxide and thereby moderate the warming.
- It is possible to stop the harm in wet areas (wetlands) that form a filter for the pollution that man pours into water sources.
- It is imperative to stop polluting the marine environment with garbage and plastic. The pollution damages the fish, that is, an important and vital food source.
- It is possible and mandatory to stop the desertification process because of destructive processing methods. Even if I personally like the desert, there are large and beautiful deserts and there is no need to create additional desert areas.
- It is right to move forward quickly and switch to producing more and more green energy from the sun and the wind.
These are activities and projects that will be carried out on a global scale, but everyone at home can also add to the effort by separating garbage, saving electricity and fuel, making a wise purchase that will prevent food in particular and consumer products in general from being thrown away. Above all, it is possible, important and essential to stop the distorted consumption culture.
And as usual, the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
25 תגובות
The time has come that instead of controlling the human population for the sake of the environment, there will be control of the environment for the sake of the human population
There is also an entry on Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Miracles
You are mediating with a stubborn and bored troll
Really cool
my father
For some reason I can't show you links.
They exist, it just takes a little integrity to find them.
The deniers made accusations against the scientists who showed the warming and especially against Michael Mann. Mann and his friends were acquitted of all charges. of course.
A large part of the denial comes from the Heartland organization, which also claims that no connection between smoking and cancer has been proven...
my father
My comment is blocked - apparently it contains links that you claim do not exist.
No facts will change your mind, eh?
my father
Avi Belisovsky explained the lie to you. Those who inflated their own lies, those who deny themselves. There was a lot of dirt at the time,
The story you mention is about a scientist named Michael Mann who was accused of falsification and concealment. Mann is acquitted of all charges.
It is very convenient for you to say that it is not documented online, because as usual, you will not let the facts change your mind!!!
my father
Avi Belisovsky explained the lie to you. Those who inflated their own lies, those who deny themselves. There was a lot of dirt at the time,
The story you mention is about a scientist named Michael Mann who was accused of falsification and concealment. Mann is acquitted of all charges.
It is very convenient for you to say that it is not documented online, because as usual, you will not let the facts change your mind!!!
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry
Zinser, Todd J., Inspector General of the US Dept. of Commerce, in a letter to Sen. Inhofe, February 18, 2011, wrote, "We found no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data comprising the GHCN-M dataset.
http://www.science20.com/uploads/1770191916-429173860.pdf
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/30/climate-scientist-cleared-of-research-misconduct
The deniers don't need ammunition of real facts they can easily make up. Your claim has also been proven wrong. The deniers took a record year - 1998 and measured it for years a little less warm but still in the ten hottest years and said that there is a cooling. That's not how you measure a trend. Checks means and standard deviations. And why start in 1998, why not in 1990 or 2005? Because that's how the oil gods want it. post Scriptum. The 15 hottest years are all in the 21st century, what does that say about the trend?
for miracles
Regarding the hiding of the information from the nation in the decision on global warming and the Kyoto conference
What to do if you can't provide links to information on topics that were published in the news headlines at the beginning of the millennium. (There wasn't even an internet like there is today)
What happened was that a group of scientists found that the Earth actually cooled by increasing these particles in the decade preceding the conference, and this was hidden in order not to influence the UN decision, the issue was discovered later and caused a scandal that at the time starred in the news and armed the deniers with a lot of ammunition.
I don't usually respond to attempts to provoke people like Nostradamus does and succeeds,
But when a delusional and snarky "genius" hangs on his words without understanding the article
or the response of the instigator of the Madani I am required to support the "gatekeeper"
who correctly defined - Dr. blah blah - and I will add that he is probably a troll
who in every response identifies himself by a different name and this time really chose to define himself
As - - - an insolent fool whose words deserve to be swallowed by their writer,
The keyboard does not burn when you type nonsense on it
But when things get rowdy
It is appropriate that the editor neutralizes the garbage...
Since the writer of the list does not respond to the commenters' comments, then:
The very name that the moron chose to show off - Dr. Blah Blah - shows the substandard,
A sub-level that is expressed in the lack of understanding of the reading and in the interpretation that is built on the gigi shota,
The fool also relies on a prophet of rage who does not hide his political leanings to snob
And to inspire Danes,
It is appropriate that the editor of the website censors toxic and inciting comments.
also like this one.
The cause of global warming is not human behavior but its proliferation. In 1800 there were a billion people in 1930 there were 2 billion people. Today there are 8 billion people. Eight billion. 8000000000 people and this creature wants to eat and live in houses, etc. So there are tens of billions of animals that are raised for human consumption and more and more forests are lost to agricultural purposes because the people and their animals need to eat. If you want to significantly reduce emissions, you need to significantly reduce the number of people. That's the whole story. Who is willing to sacrifice his children for the good of the cause? Who is willing to give up having children for the sake of the cause?
It is true that we can change the way we produce energy so that we emit less pollutants and less greenhouse gases and I am happy that solar energy is becoming cheap enough to compete with polluting forms of energy production and I hope that technology will be developed for the rapid absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (I heard that growing trees does a good job If they are not old - that is, the world's forests need to be renewed to cut down old trees and plant small trees in their place) but in the end the biggest change will come from reducing the human population and the animal population that man raises for his needs in polluting habitats.
Indeed Nostradamus is right. The lack of objectivity and the understandable bias is already revealed in the opening sentence of the Dr. for nothing matters: "But even an ignorant president is not omnipotent..."
Apart from the fact that none of the claims in the above flighty scribble are original, the scribbler pats himself on the back as one who warned at the gate before the world's scientists had even a faint idea of the dimensions of the phenomenon. We really have here a mutation of Einstein with the prophet Ezekiel. And in general, what can be expected from a doctor who writes in dirty language (maybe it's Dr. Google Translate?) and who pushes his political agenda to his imaginary musings about imaginary warming, which politicians and capitalists concocted to milk the pockets of the masses around the world a little more.
my father
"The most harmful to this issue is the political connection that connects the left - liberal - to the environment"
The meaning of the word political is governmental. And for something to change it must become a matter for the government and not remain at the level of theoretical scientific discussion. Even if it naturally pollutes the pure scientific discussion. There is no choice if we want environmental pollution to be reduced (regardless of whether they reduce carbon dioxide emissions, air and soil pollution will also be reduced)
The one who made the issue related to the right and the left (in the US at least, there are countries where it almost doesn't concern the right and the left, either it's a consensus or it's not really interesting to any politician) is the mobilization of the left on the issue. If it bothers the right he can simply join the effort.
In connection with the economic internet that certain bodies have to reduce pollution, this is excellent and the world should encourage more and more the creation of economic interests for the benefit of reducing pollution that will stand against those who have interests in the continuation of pollution
To - Berry the "genius",
In the past I already wrote that "end of response in reading comprehension",
But it turns out that for "geniuses" this has no meaning since they are busy
in stupid reactions that stem from abysmal ignorance,
And yet again:
Many better than me know that without a healthy natural environment
A healthy human society will not survive,
Since humanity is engaged in destroying the environment
After all, the chance of survival of a healthy natural environment depends (as you partially understood)
In stopping the destruction of nature by the people (like you?)
and also in stopping the explosion of the human population, (as you partially understood),
What can be done through education and raising the standard of living of large populations and societies,
I don't know about Ramat Haim, but according to your response, it is clear that education is failing
Because "sterilization" is an idea of fools and a race "genius" (like you?)
which have already caused disasters on a "biblical" scale,
Therefore it would be better if you kept your nightmares to yourself!
You don't write 'Poter' itself, but 'Poter' itself
my father
What are you talking about? An argument cannot begin with "it is known"...
It is known that in the history of the earth there were periods of warming, cooling, ice ages, the snowball earth theory and more
Is there a statistical way to substantiate the claim that the current warming is indeed a result of the actions of humanity?
For example, to prove that the temperature is rising at a faster rate than in pre-human warming periods?
For miracles - it is well known that shortly after the decision was made at the UN, it was announced that the scientists knew that the reports from the last decade showed that the Earth actually cooled, and they deliberately hid the information from the UN, (it is true that this cooling was meaningless) but the very hiding of this information made a lot of noise, the case This one became public and gave ammunition to the deniers.
In my opinion, the inaccuracy in the publications, the exaggerations and the prophecies of the apocalypse that in the end do not come true give ammunition to the deniers.
There is a focus on propaganda films and a complete disregard for the claims of the deniers instead of having a scientific debate with them.
I'm talking about the wrong psychology and tactics, not the facts.
The facts show that emissions have not decreased and the UN agreements are worth nothing.
And there is an economic interest not only for the other side but also for companies that invest a lot of money in alternative energy, and in countries that do not have oil and strive to get cheap energy and more.
I would like the discussion to be purely scientific, completely objective, and free from financial interests.
For everyone who wants to "control the human population for the sake of the environment", please get sterilized and save at least future generations from hearing these dangerous incitements.
my father
It's fine to express an opinion, but it should be based on real information.
The UN has never hidden information - the IPCC report has been published and is open to anyone who wants to read. I'm sure you haven't read it…
Regarding the Fed, there are a lot of lies on the net designed to disprove the effect of human warming. They will tell you that the water vapor has a greater effect and that the person almost does not emit water vapor. They will also tell you that methane has an effect several thousand times greater than the effect of PADH.
These two things are true (like the beginning of every good lie), but they have no meaning!!! There are mechanisms that balance the concentration of water vapor, the amount of methane in the atmosphere is negligible and so on.
The ones who brought politics into this matter are the Republicans who are appointed by the oil companies.
Father, don't let the facts change your mind...
The most harmful to this issue is the political connection that connects the left - liberal - to the environment - to the distorted Kyoto/Paris agreement that turned this important issue from a scientific issue and an issue of environmental quality into a political agreement that represents the liberal left - democratic and politically correct only, and the Kyoto patent that allows companies to buy emissions Money is a terrible and terrible idea.
Instead of the issue arising as a scientific issue and becoming a worldwide problem unrelated to politics, it will be anchored in binding standards and laws. (as they did with the use of freon - who remembers the hole in the ozone, as they did with the use of asbestos and so on), it became a political issue left and right.
And not only is it harmful from this point of view, but the issue of focusing on CO2 emissions alone causes that there will be an ignoring of all other greenhouse gases and an ignoring of other reasons for the increase of greenhouse gases in the air, for example the pollution of the sea and the destruction of algae (which record carbon dioxide and emit oxygen), the destruction of the world's vegetation, for example the cutting down of the rain forests, and other environmental damages that also indirectly lead to the destruction of vegetation.
Everything is very true.
But, one of the problems is that they turned the issue of global warming as a result of CO2 emissions, (while ignoring the other causes of global warming, and also while ignoring the other pollution problems) they turned it into a political economic business issue, they brought it to a decision in the UN as an abduction, and also without revealing All the scientific information that was available at the time and thus gave another opening to cast doubt on this theory.
The Kyoto/Paris agreements is a bad agreement that allows rich countries to buy emissions from poor countries with money, this is a terrible distortion of the required solution. And it doesn't work and doesn't bring any results to this day.
The United States did not agree to the Kyoto agreement with the understanding that it was unable to abide by it, which was also proven to be true.
Obama, because of his obsession with pleasing the voters and the liberal world, tried to lead the United States in the direction of this agreement but failed (and the results of the agreement are a serious failure for this idea), therefore I am not surprised by the current president of the United States that he comes from a right-wing Republican party and therefore the voters He and his supporters are oil gods and owners of polluting factories and there is no doubt that their economic interest is against the Kyoto agreement. Therefore, his refusal to recognize the Kyoto/Paris agreement is not a matter of wisdom or intelligence, but economic interest and a desire to please his voters.
Of course he has reasons for this and the bad results of the global progress on reducing emissions and all the distortion that exists on this issue and the ammunition given by all the prophets of the apocalypse who exaggerate and their delusional prophecies do not come true only fuels this opposition.
Nostradamus
What is the connection between the nonsense you wrote and the article here?
Leftists who care so much about the environment and continue to embrace the Islamic countries that produce the most oil.. I wonder why.. maybe because they both have the same ultimate goal and that is the end of Western civilization, and a new world order