jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (82 posts)

Arctic Ice Melting Faster Than Predicted: Global Warming is Real

  1. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/0 … amp;src=sp

    STOCKHOLM -- A new assessment of climate change in the Arctic shows the region's ice and snow are melting faster than previously thought and sharply raises projections of global sea level rise this century.

    1. sn53Anon profile image59
      sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I love your sense of humor. This is from the article you point to: "The melting of Arctic glaciers and ice caps, including Greenland's massive ice sheet, are projected to help raise global sea levels by 35 to 63 inches (90-160 centimeters) by 2100, AMAP said, though it noted that the estimate was highly uncertain.

      It is all about how we can fool them today.
      It is a fraud, a sham, a lie. Stop believing it. You will be a much better person if you refuse to allow predictions of what may occur in 90 years to rule your life today.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yes, much handier to carry a bucket of sand to stick your head in when challenged.
        Ignore all evidence of bad things happening because the naughty scientists can't put an exact figure on the likely outcome.

        "Hey guys, the ice caps are melting! How much exactly? Well we don't know exactly! Ha, then ignore it, it doesn't matter!

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          It is not evidence. It is a prediction.



          And it is a lie often told.

          1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
            Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Love your hubs.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, they carry more weight than some of his posts!

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                That's usually the case.

            2. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Why thank you Ron. Are hubs important to you? I have five in the works. But, as you know, they do take time.

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                You should at least finish one.  No, they're not that important but you don't want my alternative response to your comments. smile

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  I have one that took several days to research. I had to read a few books on the French Revolution. So I will formulate my hub over the next few weeks and publish one.

                2. DTR0005 profile image84
                  DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Hub light = less filling.

                3. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Done. Go read it. I insist.

                  1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                    Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Done.  The point of your hub is that the tyrannical grade school teachers will be led to the guillotine by angry mobs of teabaggers unless they give up their collective bargaining rights?

                    Bravo sir.

              2. recommend1 profile image67
                recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                This is exactly what Tk Sensei aka Sab Oh said when challenged about hubs.  Then, if I recall correctly, he put up a few heavily pixelated photos and some spun words into a Haiku shape and published them big_smile

                I guess you would be them/it then - changing the way you write your posts does not change the rudimentary thinking that creates the words.

                1. Ron Montgomery profile image61
                  Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Who did you used to be?  TKSenseiSabOh was more than 2 months ago.

                  1. recommend1 profile image67
                    recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    Sorry Ron - it is a totally open secret and I thought you knew smile  I am Chinaman of course, and alternate poet.  I thought you caught that when I mentioned your suspect fishing abilities some while ago !

        2. Evan G Rogers profile image79
          Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          ... whenever scientists use the terms "highly uncertain", they generally mean it.

          Those guys have Ph.Ds riding on the language they use.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Oh agreed, but when they are talking about highly uncertain about, say, how much sea levels will rise, that's a whole different argument than saying uncertain about sea levels changing.

      2. DTR0005 profile image84
        DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Well man, just for the sake of argument, let's say it's a reality. I think we have all entertained similar fantasies on Hubpages i.e., photo-shopped presidential birth certificates, etc.
        Purely from a libertarian standoint, all that prime realestate imperiled by rising water is going to hurt the land and property owners.. There!!!!! See it's not so hard when you put in those terms.....It's like getting a shot with a sucker chaser!

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Let us say that it is. Do you think it will make any difference? I do not. Some places will flood. And others will become more valuable.

          But it is not true, is it? It is just a fairy tale designed to scare as many people as possible out of their money and their liberty.

          1. DTR0005 profile image84
            DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            As you are clearly a reasonable man, you must at least entertain the idea. If it's just 30% correct, and that's not much, then it stands to reason that there is something to it, some real impact on global weather. And if you give it any percentage in fact, then you must admit that it can and will only get worse - unless you believe in a static universe.
            I am not so certain anything can be done to reverse it, but likely something can be done to prevent it from getting any worse. And history, unless you are a strict "5,000 plus year Creationist" cites plenty of examples, WITHOUT our influence, where he has been pretty bad.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Ah. A point we can agree upon.


              I do. I believe that climate variations have occurred throughout the existence of our planet. I just don't believe that Americans driving SUVs have anywhere as much influence over the variations as that nuclear furnace 93 million miles away has.

              If you believe that you can have any influence over the sun then go for it. But typically the people who believe that man-caused global warming is real also require that an elite run everything. And that the third estate, the commoners give up their liberty, their freedoms and their resources. And that is tyranny. No thanks.

              1. kerryg profile image85
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Solar irradiance has remained more or less steady since the 70's.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  First, who told you that? Second, what is their agenda? Third, do you believe that you ought to give up your liberty because someone says there is a very bad, big thing out there that might happen in 90 years?

                  1. kerryg profile image85
                    kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    "First, who told you that? Second, what is their agenda?"

                    Um, it's observable science. Facts do not have an agenda.

                    "Third, do you believe that you ought to give up your liberty because someone says there is a very bad, big thing out there that might happen in 90 years?"

                    First, who said anything about giving up liberty?

                    Second, the effects of global warming are already around us. The vanishing Maldives, the mass destruction of forests across the Western US and Canada by beetles benefiting from warmer winter temperatures, the "global weirding" of weather cycles, so you have, for example, a record cold winter in Russia followed immediately by a record hot summer (and its attendant wildfires). For an even more recent example, the tornadoes and floods in the US Southeast last month were driven in part by near record high water temperatures in the Gulf. And for an example more relevant to the original post of this thread, the Arctic could be ice free in summertime as early as 2030, which is a good deal sooner than 90 years...

              2. DTR0005 profile image84
                DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                No I agree... but I truly do believe it is a bit foolish to believe that we can dump crap into the air for almost two centuries without impunity. As for an elite running the show, no thanks. I prefer to teeter on the fence and in the process, hopefully, keep an open mind.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes. But there is a difference between polluting where we live and claiming that we are destroying the plane because we live on it. This government has convinced you that the air all animals breathe out is a pollutant that must be controlled by taxing you until you rebel.

                  Don't believe them and don't go with them.

          2. MrMaranatha profile image84
            MrMaranathaposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Can I throw my two bits into this?
            Consider a couple of things...  There are two issues that are important.
            First thing is "what is Actually happening... Yes its getting warmer."
               But the Second important thing... and the question we should be asking is this... Does Mankind have anything to do with causing it?
            Answer is NO! 
            Global Warming is an Algorithmic cycle of the planet.  Over the course of hundreds of years the planets temp and tides rise and fall... the Co2  and precipitation levels are keys to the system but when you look at the planet in sheer magnitude of its size.... we are little tiny microbes that try and claim to be Earth movers and shakers... 
            Some of you have said that its Government Control... Money games in industry etc... Right... its that and much more.  :-)   
            Anyone think of a reason why you would want to lock up precious resources inside "Natural Areas" where nobody can go and mine them?  Easy... there are some people who already have surpluses of every precious thing imaginable... and the best way to raise the prices and make more money is to shut down the New  mining industries. 
            Want to know why Global Warming is so important?  Think of all the ways they are using this thing to benefit themselves and vote in their own pay increases...  Give themselves and their own think tanks and businesses Huge Grants and Fundings... all in the name of *choke choke* Science.
            Oh... and add one last thing...
            There is also a boat load of laws being passed that give these people more power and the people less rights...  All in the name of a Green Planet... know what I mean Jelly Bean?

      3. kerryg profile image85
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "You will be a much better person if you refuse to allow predictions of what may occur in 90 years to rule your life today."

        Thanks, but I've got kids who could conceivably be alive in 2100. I would prefer to leave them a world they can live in as comfortably as their grandparents and I have been able to.

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Do you believe that creating a centralized, tyrannical government will lead to better lives for them? That is the goal of the environmental whackos. And, apparently, you.

          1. kerryg profile image85
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Who said anything about creating a centralized, tyrannical government? I'd personally get started by cutting oil, coal, and ag subsidies.

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              To what other destination could your goofiness possibly lead?
              Is there any other part of your life where you willingly stop thinking and give up your sovereignty? If so you are ripe for the picking.

              Just consider. What do all of these models have in common? They all claim catastrophe off in the future. All of them. And they all insist that we become just a little less free and way less wealthy in order to pass power and wealth to the government. And tyranny comes. It is here already.

              1. kerryg profile image85
                kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Oh my god, ending subsidies! What an unconscionable violation of our liberties and basic human rights!

                Or, you know, our basic corporate right to make as big a profit as possible off the backs of the taxpayers. Same difference, right?

                Dude, shill more, why don't you? I think you've made it pretty clear whose side you're really on.

                1. sn53Anon profile image59
                  sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                  Perhaps you will join me now in calling for the Fair Tax. It seems to be the best way for each of us to get what we want.

                  1. kerryg profile image85
                    kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                    The so called "fair tax" is an excuse for rich people to pay fewer taxes and poor people to pay more. So, no.

      4. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this



        Actually there is more and more evidence that this is affecting our lives today.  If the Antarctic ice cap melts completely, which could happen in the next few years, we are going to see dramatic changes in the climate. 

        It's not 90 years down the road, bud, it's right here and right now.  I have personally lived through more extreme weather events in the past 5 years than in the 30 years before that combined.

      5. kerryg profile image85
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Having now had a chance to glance over the original report, it's actually probably quite conservative, because it doesn't take into account feedback from thawing permafrost, which could release an additional 100 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere by 2100, or methane from Siberian swamplands and the East Siberian continental shelf, which contain approximately 1,000 billion tons and 1,400 billion tons of methane respectively. Methane, as you may recall, does not last as long in the atmosphere as CO2, but in the short term is 20-30 times more potent as a greenhouse gas. Models taking these feedbacks into account predict sea level rise by 2100 of closer to 5 meters than 5 feet.

        1. sn53Anon profile image59
          sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          You drank the kool-aid. You should not drink the kool-aid. It always leads to your undoing. It is a prediction in support of several agendas. One is to get more research grants. The other is tyranny.

          1. kerryg profile image85
            kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I find it truly interesting that the single most common argument I see against anthropogenic global warming is that people want to make money off it.

            Why is Al Gore investing in carbon offset companies (I am opposed to carbon offsetting, by the way) sure proof that AGW is some global conspiracy to make him rich, while the strong motivation of oil companies - the most profitable businesses in the history of the world - to obscure the harmful side effects of oil consumption is completely ignored?

            Somebody here is drinking kool-aid, but I'm pretty sure it's not me. (Hate the stuff, actually.)

            1. sn53Anon profile image59
              sn53Anonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              Money perhaps. Power most certainly. And that is where the tyranny comes in. At first it is coercion. Then prison time. Finally show trials and executions.

    2. hottopics profile image57
      hottopicsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      There is no global warming. Scietists say what they want to get what they want. The weather is just a cycle like everything else. When I was a kid, we were taught in school and the scientists then said we were going to have a global freeze. Everthing was pointing to it. Now it is warming and we are going to burn up. Scientists, make up your mind. Next if the ice caps melt the ocean will not rise. Let me prove it to you Fill a glass with Ice. Then fill water to the top. Clock how long it takes for the melting ice to rise and overflo the glass. For those who do not want to do this I will give you the answer. It never will overflo. Frozen water is the same mass as unfrozen water, It displace the unfrozen water.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        So all the icebergs, all the ice covered land will not raise the sea level when they melt and combine with the sea?

        Now try over filling your glass with ice, so the ice actually stands up above the rim and watch the glass overflow as the ice melts.

        1. hottopics profile image57
          hottopicsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Just keep following with blinders since you cannot think for yourself. What no bridge to buy comment this time?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I rather think you are the one wearing blinders and unable to think for yourself.
            You demonstrate a distinct lack of understanding of Ice formation and reactions between salt and fresh water.

            What's up, you up for buying another bridge already?

            1. hottopics profile image57
              hottopicsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              NAH, already own several, make good money from the tolls people pay to cross. Sure glad I have you to post my distinct lack of understanding. Suprised to not see you claim the sea cannot freeze because it has salt in it. I guess you think salt water and fresh water cannot mix and that is why the water will rise, because the fresh water will sit on top of the salt water. No point in trying to explain the realities of it. You know better and we are all stupid

              1. John Holden profile image59
                John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

                Go on then, explain the realities of it then.
                Tell me exactly why a melting iceberg perhaps a hundred feet high does not raise the water level.
                Does the water stay piled up?

                This I must see.

      2. Ron Montgomery profile image61
        Ron Montgomeryposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Yeah, science sucks!  Just read the bible, it says so in Leviticus. mad

      3. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        As has already been pointed out in this thread, the problem with the Arctic ice cap melting is not the rising sea levels, but the change in ocean temperatures (and therefore, ocean currents) caused by 1. a large volume of cold freshwater entering the ocean and 2. the loss of the reflective surface of ice which keeps the arctic ocean from absorbing solar energy. 

        One the arctic ice cap is gone, we are pretty much screwed.  Global climate change will be out of our hands. 

        Get back with me on this in about 5 years and we'll see who's right.

      4. kerryg profile image85
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        The number of scientists who actually predicted global cooling in the 70's is greatly overstated. The idea was spread mainly by sensationalist popular media, and the majority of actual peer-reviewed scientific papers during the period that made any future climate predictions at all were talking about global warming.

        Additionally, although you're correct that melting floating ice won't raise sea levels, there is a significant amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica that is resting on land, and melting that ice could raise sea levels by 5 feet by 2100 (five meters according to the most pessimistic models) and rising 10-20 inches per decade thereafter for centuries.

        As William and others have pointed out, massive amounts of fresh water pouring into the oceans (whether from melting ice on land or on water) could also disrupt the Gulf Stream, which would throw the world's weather into chaos.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    Actually water rise is not the big fear. The problem is the stoppage of the warm water currents like the Gulf Stream.

    1. William R. Wilson profile image60
      William R. Wilsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      With the attendant disruption of global weather patterns.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Aye, and us in the UK would really cop it.
        It'd be as cold as Siberia here without the Gulf Stream.

  3. IzzyM profile image88
    IzzyMposted 6 years ago

    I would love to see a decent discussion of all this without the sockpuppets/political masketeers joining in.

    I'm not going to say global weather patterns aren't changing, but they do anyway, regardless of mankind.

    It's almost a year since we had a major movement in an iceberg in the South Atlantic, which was predicted to cause global climate change.

    And yes I wrote a hub about it.

    Meanwhile, some random volcano in Iceland had a hissy fit and spewed forth yet more volcanic ash in to the atmosphere, which yet again changed the goalposts.

    Then we had a major earthquake, that affected Japan badly.

    All of these factors affect global weather patterns, and I fail to see the connection with mankind as a causative issue.

    Sorry to those who believe otherwise, but I think Mother Earth knows what she is doing. We may not like it, but hey, we are only visitors for a short time.

    Earth in its vast history has been through worse, and survived to tell the the tale.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Izzy, I live in Manchester which was, and still is in some circles, known as the rainy city.
      It's true, we had rain virtually every day and then all the old industries died and left, taking the rain with them.

      I find it impossible to believe that we don't affect the weather patterns.

      1. IzzyM profile image88
        IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        It makes sense because someone has created the algorithm, if you like, to make it so.
        Have you looked at sunspot activity in your given time-frame?
        Sunspot activity has nothing to do with what we on Earth do.

        I appreciate what you are saying. Glasgow isn't exactly an un-industrialized nation....city even.

        I did for a while , but now just refuse to swallow the politically-driven nonsense they want us to believe.

        They have their own agenda, and that involves them becoming rich. End of story.

      2. hottopics profile image57
        hottopicsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        John,

        So based onyour theory about the rain, if the industry moves out of the Brazilian rain forrest the rain will stop?  Oh yea there are no industry there, its a jungle

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          But cut all the trees down and watch the land turn to desert!

          1. hottopics profile image57
            hottopicsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Nothing like twisting and spin. I admit you love to do it. The subject was industry and rain, not the forrest and rain. I was pointing out there is rain in the forrest without indutry there. As to cutting the tree down in the forest, we all know if that continues the rain will become less to actually stopping. Trees, not industry

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              No Danny, nowt to do with industry, just man's influence on climate.

        2. kerryg profile image85
          kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Unless the air is super-saturated with water vapor, cloud condensation nuclei are required for precipitation to form at temperatures above freezing.

          There are many different types of particles that can serve as cloud condensation nuclei. Some of the most common are put out by trees, hence the well known relationship between forested regions such as rainforests and rainfall patterns. Certain types of man-made pollutants can also act as cloud condensation nuclei, so although I don't know anything about Manchester's rainfall patterns specifically, John's claim that the death of polluting industries in Manchester led to less rainfall in the area is entirely consistent with known science.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks Kerryg smile
            Add into the equation that much of the industry was steam powered and that steam was released into near saturated air and bingo.

    2. profile image54
      ForYourInfoposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah I have heard a lot about global warming and I think it was started by men. But what we are doing to stop polluting our Mother Earth?
      The bitter truth is we can't do anything but it. But at least we can change ourselves by using Eco friendly items and by growing plenty of trees and plants in our houses and so on.

  4. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "sockpuppets/"
    Sorry if I irritate you. I was born that way.

  5. William R. Wilson profile image60
    William R. Wilsonposted 6 years ago

    Earth has been through a lot, yes.  Humans, and the other living things that share this planet with us, are the ones who are going to suffer. 

    If you doubt the connection between the actions of 6 billion humans and global weather patterns, I have written a series of hubs on it.  The evidence is quite compelling.

    1. qwark profile image60
      qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      William:
      There is no doubt that we humans are adding to a natural phenomenon.
      Have you studied the natural effects of "precession" on our planet i.e. climate/seasons?
      Qwark

      1. William R. Wilson profile image60
        William R. Wilsonposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I have looked into this.  The Milankovitch cycles have been known for 100 years and they are not enough to cause the climatic shifts we are seeing. 

        If you have further information that I might have missed, feel free to link it and I'll look over it.

        1. qwark profile image60
          qwarkposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Hi:

          As I said, there is no doubt we humans are adding to the effects of this natural phenomenon.

          "Precession" has been a natural assist in creating the ice ages and in the creation of "warming," over periods of about 26k yrs.

          "Man" is not the sole cause (creator) of global warming.

          Over a period of about 4 million yrs,
          WE humans have survived these changes.
           
          WE are a greater danger, to our continuing existence, than are to "natural" happenings.

          If "man" could reach up and grasp the first rung of the evolutionary ladder and come together as a concerted, synergistic unit, there is no doubt that he'd be around for many more k's of yrs.

          That scenario, tho, is not a viable one.

          Qwark

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "They have their own agenda, and that involves them becoming rich. End of story."
    Don't know who 'their' is but it is corporate capitalism that promotes the idea of no global warming, because less industrial pollution means less profits. Not sure who would make more money by less
    industry.

    1. IzzyM profile image88
      IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I could easily be confused all over again. This is why I don't participate in this forum, normally.

      You know, and I know, there are political forces at work.

      I prefer to listen to the scientists. Then again, political forces have been dragged into it all and we now have some scientists denying or manipulating data.

      Earth has survived how many Ice Ages? How many warming periods? And this all LONG before man existed.

      In fact, MAN (us) is nothing more than a blink in the eye of Earth's long history.

      Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?

      That is maybe what we need to ask ourselves.

      1. kerryg profile image85
        kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        "Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?"

        We've been doing it on a local level for thousands of years. Now that there's 6+ billion of us and hardly a single part of the planet not touched by human impacts, why shouldn't our impacts be global?

        Consider also that the Earth has spent millions of years sequestering excess carbon underground so it won't get into the atmosphere, and we're on track to burn up all those millions of years of stored carbon and send it straight to the atmosphere within a few hundred years.

        1. DTR0005 profile image84
          DTR0005posted 6 years agoin reply to this

          Good point.

  7. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 6 years ago

    "Are we so presumptuous as to assume that we can change weather patterns?" Cut down a rain forest and create a desert. Completely changes the weather patterns in the area.
    Your right, doesn't matter over the gazillions. However I am here and now and will personally not be held much responsible if I have some kind of gazillion presence.

    1. IzzyM profile image88
      IzzyMposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Yes I understand that - cut down a rainforest and create a desert. We, in the West know those things. but can we honestly turn round and say to those people who cut it - who cut it down for their survival - that they couldn't do that?

      Survival is all, no?

      If some rich nations knew how to feed the poor starving people in some equatorial belt, why didn't they either feed them, tell them how to feed themselves, or shut up?

      But oh no, those people had to cut down rainforests, and let's face it, it is rainforests we are talking about, and now we have global weather changes which were in part due to the burning of fossil fuels, part due to our overuse of carbon fuels, part due to cows over-farting for all we know.

      When all the time, things that are completely outwith our control were going on, like sunspots, and movement of ice flows. But they don't count in the political world. What...? something a politician can't control?? Doesn't exist in their minds.

  8. Will Apse profile image88
    Will Apseposted 6 years ago

    It is always the people who failed science in school who go on to become climate change deniers. These failures make the perfect dupes for the old industries who stand to lose so much in the change over to a sustainable economy.

    So we have the future of the planet being determined by the failures and those driven by pure greed who exploit their pawns ignorance and insecurities so adroitly.

    I used to care but now I am not even sure humanity deserves a future.

 
working