While increasing population comes with issues, this does not mean that the population cannot take better care of Earth. One very positive aspect to AGW is that we possess knowledge and we had/have time to do better. If we waste our time luxury then we are left in a reaction mode that will be much more painful than proactive actions today. Another positive about increased population is if world citizens can work together, proactively, they can make very large differences in short periods of time. Of course, any of these proactive actions require PEOPLE to learn and make better decisions...as long as most PEOPLE do nothing, mankind will be controlled by the effects of AGW...
Like it or not...PEOPLE ultimately decide everything...in the case of AGW and it's potential, it seems collectively humans are either in denial or too stupid to understand...BOTH are a huge detriment to society and the future of Earth...
But you aren't even curious enough to hear the other side of the debate. What do you call that? It is Arrogant & Righteous to believe the wrong scientific community. The one getting paid to promote the Agenda. How about learn where the other side is coming from? It is naive to believe the UN paid "scientists" They do not have your best interests at heart.
I am of the opinion that people ultimately do decide everything. However I also believe people with money and political influence, assuming those are somehow different, have much more influence then their numbers would suggest.
Once again, I'm not so arrogant and righteous to believe I know more than the collective scientific community. When it comes to science, there is ONLY ONE SIDE...
Always excuses for people not doing their jobs? If most Americans would read, would understand issues without partisanship, will actually vote for what's in the best interest of the nation, most all of our problems will be attended!
In which fantasy world do you think people will vote for the good of the nation over their own perceived interests?
I don't...and this is the problem that cannot be corrected...so tighten your shorts and hold on for a very bumpy ride...
Scientists dispute that idea. My gosh, it took decades for scientists to accept what Einstein said. As we speak, other scientists still would love to prove he is wrong.
Sorry...but there is only one scientific method. Science is a work in process and will forever be open to new information. It's not a matter of proving something 'wrong'...it's a matter of establishing a position based on the evidence, knowledge and technology we have today. My faith lies with science...
Well I will concede that they seem to vote the interests of the rich over their own interests. Not sure the interests of the rich are the same as the interests of the country.
Interestingly AGW is even older than any of Einstein's theories. I do like your last point. No matter what the theory and how much evidence there is to support it you will always find a naysayer.
Yes. That's kind of the point of science...to provide answers for the world around us. Also, the fact that CO2 is plant food in no way precludes it from interacting with the infrared part of the EM spectrum.
We'll see. Even as we've seen many eco doomsdays come and go. We will not eliminate fossil fuels. We will not implement even the minimum recommendations to stave off even the very worst of the predictions. We will not, and then we will see.
Exactly... which is why vegetation is up all over the world. CO2 is making Earth greener—for now By Samson Reiny, NASA's Earth Science News Team
I'm not sure what conclusion you are coming to here. I assume you noticed that this has been an ongoing factor - that is, warming has included this effect from the beginning. That is, this isn't some new factor that has come to save us. Also, it includes the same scientists noting that this factor can not be assumed to take care of the same % of human output of CO2 regardless of the amount we choose to emit. So unfortunately, things could get worse wrt this factor - far from it "saving" us. Now, someone might hope that this would mean more food. But, let's not forget that: - this is not a new factor but has been built in for decades. It doesn't suggest food output will improve anymore than it has already and remember it doesn't say this factor is going to get better or even stay the same. It's more likely that the extra CO2 will be less, not more helpful over time. - world wide, agriculture is being impacted by climate change, which is a worse enemy of food production than can be made up for by more CO2.
Climate change is only a problem for those who have a problem with human beings multiplying, filling the earth and subduing it,