• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the environmentalists of the 20th and 21st centuries end "climate change"?

Why don't we completely eliminate everything that's causing climate change RIGHT NOW?

really, mellie.....how old ARE you? what is the point of this post?
 
Damn it. Aren't these kind of baiting threads against the forum rules? If not, they should be.

No one cares about people's pissing contests outside of the thread in which they originated. Believe it or not, some people actually take the subject of the thread at face value, instead of assuming it's a way for someone to call out someone else and show the whole forum who has the bigger ****.

And it still doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers didn't end slavery.
 
This wasn't a baiting thread. It was a simple question to make a point. Environmentalists don't advocate completely eliminating every single thing they believe is causing the death of our planet because it would mean total destruction of our economies. If the founding fathers would've completely eliminated slavery immediately, it would've devastated our newborn country. The economy of the south would've been totally collapsed on itself. These things have to be done carefully with baby steps.

Do we agree?
 
If I cared, I probably would have posted in the Founding Fathers thread. But instead I posted in a thread about the environment. If you didn't want to discuss that subject, then why would you make a thread about it when there is already one about the subject you DO want to talk about?
 
Last edited:
And it still doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers didn't end slavery.

Nor does it change the fact that 21st century environmentalists won't "save the planet". By the way, I voted "no" on the other thread. Obviously.
 
really, mellie.....how old ARE you? what is the point of this post?

30. The point has been stated. Now, would you like to discuss or insult?
 
Nor does it change the fact that 21st century environmentalists won't "save the planet". By the way, I voted "no" on the other thread. Obviously.

The planet is not in need of saving though, we are in dire need of a new energy source though, fossil fuels won't last much longer.
 
If I cared, I probably would have posted in the Founding Fathers thread. But instead I posted in a thread about the environment. If you didn't want to discuss that subject, then why would you make a thread about it when there is already one about the subject you DO want to talk about?

To make a point about a subject using a different subject. Do you agree that the founding fathers ending slavery immediately would've completely devastated America?
 
The planet is not in need of saving though, we are in dire need of a new energy source though, fossil fuels won't last much longer.

We agree on this, Star. I was going for the more fanatical environmentalist (let's face it, most are liberals) who thinks "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!" You're more of a sane liberal on that topic. :)
 
To make a point about a subject using a different subject.

You could have done that in the thread in which the subject arose, instead of creating an "Everyone look at me" thread.

I'm done with this ****ty thread. Later.
 
You could have done that in the thread in which the subject arose, instead of creating an "Everyone look at me" thread.

I'm done with this ****ty thread. Later.

1. All threads are "everyone look at me" threads.
2. I'm still not sure why you seem so angry. Why not just follow the conversation? Why not answer the question posed as a comparison to your response about environmentalism?
 
To end AGW, you would have to resequester all the fossil fuel released carbons. Obviously, we haven't done that. In fact, we've started burning even more fossil fuels. So, we continue to go in the wrong direction, increasing the speed at which the runaway greenhouse effect takes place.
 
To end AGW, you would have to resequester all the fossil fuel released carbons. Obviously, we haven't done that. In fact, we've started burning even more fossil fuels. So, we continue to go in the wrong direction, increasing the speed at which the runaway greenhouse effect takes place.

If we stop all manmade greenhouse gases going into the air, it will only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the air by 3%. 97% is out of our control.
 
200 years from now when Americans look back on the 20th and 21st century, will they say that the environmentalists today ended climate change?

No, of course not. Climate change is a constant natural phenomenon and cannot be stopped or started, even.
 
The planet is not in need of saving though, we are in dire need of a new energy source though, fossil fuels won't last much longer.

Nuclear power is sufficient for electricity generation.

We have hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of methane to tap into, not to mention coal up the wazoo. "Running out" hardly describes our present situation.
 
If we stop all manmade greenhouse gases going into the air, it will only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the air by 3%. 97% is out of our control.

That 97% is part of the carbon cycle. The 3% we put out there was not in the cycle, and represents a net increase in carbon currently moving around the biosphere. Thats why burning fossil fuels is problematic.
 
Nuclear power is sufficient for electricity generation.

We have hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of methane to tap into, not to mention coal up the wazoo. "Running out" hardly describes our present situation.

Running out of economically viable oil perfectly describes the present situation. Oil production peaked a few years back, we're on the decline now. Eventually the only oil left will be unfeasibly hard to remove oil.
 
That 97% is part of the carbon cycle. The 3% we put out there was not in the cycle, and represents a net increase in carbon currently moving around the biosphere. Thats why burning fossil fuels is problematic.

I would say it's problematic, but it's not causing climate change. It's more of a problem for our lungs than anything. We need to develop the tech to provide clean energy, and we need to start now. It's that simple, we are going to run out of fossil fuels soon, and we need to get the jump before we are in a crisis. Also getting a jump on other countries, and profiting off the tech would be a bonus, along with the environmental improvement.
 
I would say it's problematic, but it's not causing climate change. It's more of a problem for our lungs than anything. We need to develop the tech to provide clean energy, and we need to start now. It's that simple, we are going to run out of fossil fuels soon, and we need to get the jump before we are in a crisis. Also getting a jump on other countries, and profiting off the tech would be a bonus, along with the environmental improvement.

I agree with your entire statement except the underlined portion. Looking at the concept, there is really no way to deny it is causing climate change, the only question is how much. Because carbon is a moderately effective greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere is pretty large. However, over time, AGW will become more and more apparent, and at that point, we will have to spend a lot more money, and effort to fix the problem.
 
I agree with your entire statement except the underlined portion. Looking at the concept, there is really no way to deny it is causing climate change, the only question is how much. Because carbon is a moderately effective greenhouse gas, and the atmosphere is pretty large. However, over time, AGW will become more and more apparent, and at that point, we will have to spend a lot more money, and effort to fix the problem.

We might be undergoing the beginning stages of a climate shift, but we don't have enough evidence to know that we are causing it.
 
We might be undergoing the beginning stages of a climate shift, but we don't have enough evidence to know that we are causing it.

Not 100 % true. We have strong evidence that we are contributing to it. Not conclusive evidence to my mind, but strong enough to want to act on it.

By the way, your 97 %/ 3 % comment is one of this misleading statements that sound really good until you look at them. Without the 3 %, you have a stable system. When you mess up the stability of a stable system, it will have very definite effects.
 
200 years from now when Americans look back on the 20th and 21st century, will they say that the environmentalists today ended climate change? Let's assume the supposed problem with "climate change" will still be in play in 200 years......people then might say............

Why didn't those environmentalists do everything they possibly could to end it? Why didn't they ban ALL electricity, ALL gasoline, ALL methane gas if they KNEW that those things are causing climate change? They obviously weren't REALLY concerned about the Earth or they would've completely eliminated any and all poisons on our Earth.

The 20th and 21st century environmentalists were just a bunch of Earth-haters who were raping the planet for their own pleasures. Anyone who says they were lovers of our planet are delusional and clearly revising history.

They'll say what a bunch of arrogant suckers, who thought they had the power to change the environment, when they couldn't even make it rain.
 
Not 100 % true. We have strong evidence that we are contributing to it. Not conclusive evidence to my mind, but strong enough to want to act on it.

By the way, your 97 %/ 3 % comment is one of this misleading statements that sound really good until you look at them. Without the 3 %, you have a stable system. When you mess up the stability of a stable system, it will have very definite effects.

The fact is we don't know for sure, more research needs to be done, and I'm not convinced. I'm more worried about fossil fuels running out, and having the ultimate energy crisis.

The 97% is a stable system, but is that 3% really making it unbalanced?
 
If we stop all manmade greenhouse gases going into the air, it will only reduce the amount of greenhouse gases that go into the air by 3%. 97% is out of our control.

The earth can sequester the natural quantities of greenhouse gases, it was the man-made sources in addition to the natural sources that overcame the earth's ability to handle it.
 
Back
Top Bottom