yes you do because you are giving china and india a green light to increasing emissions.Do I really need to explain how using Coal, Natural Gas and Oil is bad for you, the environment and the world!?
Widespread areas are likely to see storm surges on top of sea level rise reaching at least 4 feet above high tide by 2030,
can we wait for china to act?Nearly 5 million U.S. residents currently live on land less than 4 feet above high tide, and more than 6 million on land less than 5 feet above. from Ben Strauss
Can we wait for America to act?yes you do because you are giving china and india a green light to increasing emissions.
how can it be bad if you think it can be increased by developing countries.
i don’t care about china’s solar because it doesn’t stop china from planned emission increases of up to 30%
the paris executive order is voluntary and china will voluntarily reduce zero emissions and donate zero dollars before reconsidering in 2030.
however by 2030:
can we wait for china to act?
You’re making a false dichotomy between being against abortion as necessitating activity against climate change and vice versa. Doing both is perfectly reasonable. At the polls, one may have to make a choice and leave you to vote your conscious, but overall in the grand scheme there’s no dichotomy that forces us to only choose one good course of action.I have to agree with others who said you started this thread with a lot of *** U MPTIONS.
As one who studies medieval history exhaustively, yes, climate change is real. As one who studies medieval history exhaustively, climate change has happened without hair spray and car fumes.
I’m COMPLETELY missing how being pro-life could lead one to deny science (you pose some contradiction between being pro-life and the supposedly scientifically proven climate change), but if indeed there’s a connection and (as you ask) which is more important, I would say pro-life is more important.
If we kill our own children, what’s left to us? What do we even deserve if we kill our own children?
you need to find outWHAT does a Hockey Stick have to do with Climate Change?
Off topic?I have to agree with others who said you started this thread with a lot of *** U MPTIONS.
As one who studies medieval history exhaustively, yes, climate change is real. As one who studies medieval history exhaustively, climate change has happened without hair spray and car fumes.
I’m COMPLETELY missing how being pro-life could lead one to deny science (you pose some contradiction between being pro-life and the supposedly scientifically proven climate change), but if indeed there’s a connection and (as you ask) which is more important, I would say pro-life is more important.
If we kill our own children, what’s left to us? What do we even deserve if we kill our own children?
You sound like every Trump Supporter I’ve talked to.TeenCatholicGuy:
You don’t need the “US Government” to pay monies to the IPCC.
YOU can send them YOUR money without Government involvement right now.
At least THAT’S doing “something” right?
You can “purchase” some carbon credits too TeenCatholicGuy.
They will take your money.
Here is the link to the European Environment Agency (which has links to the European Climate Exchange. You can give your money to both of them. Or maybe you already have??).
eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data-providers-and-partners/european-climate-exchange
Here is the link to the Chicago Climate Exchange.
theice.com/ccx
Have you given them money too? How many carbon credits have you purchased so far from them?
I’ll let you or other readers post how you can ALSO send your money to the IPCC.
Just what ARE China’s “obligations” concerning the Paris Accords for say. . . next year? Or 2020? Or 2028?
Not at all. YOU issued the question of what’s more important. The sanctity of life is more important. Climate change happens. Historical fact. Killing off our own children…murdering an innocent child…our own children…in the womb is a conscious, personal, moral act, for which we as a nation, as a world, will be judged.Off topic?
OP already knows. Just playing games now.you need to find out
Or…consider addressing the ISSUES he’s actually brought up. Much easier to simply dismiss someone with the left’s current popular insult of ‘Trump supporter.’You sound like every Trump Supporter I’ve talked to.
Blah blah blah, Government should stay out,
____________ China, Paris Accords, China.
I did not make that dichotomy. The OP made that dichotomy.You’re making a false dichotomy between being against abortion as necessitating activity against climate change and vice versa. Doing both is perfectly reasonable. At the polls, one may have to make a choice and leave you to vote your conscious, but overall in the grand scheme there’s no dichotomy that forces us to only choose one good course of action.
Hockey Sticks and Al Gore has NOTHING to do with this thread.OP already knows. Just playing games now.
Ok, I take back my first thumbs up. I will have to change my post from “man made global warming theory” to “man made global warming bad hypothesis”. Or climate change. Whatever.@robertmidwest, you might not have “thumbs upped” what you thought you thumbs upped. Either that or I conveyed the wrong meaning of what I meant to say.
You misunderstand my point. You said that Global Warming is not a theory. Depending on the definition of “theory,” that is false.
In science, the word “theory” essentially means the best explanation for something given current evidence. It also takes a long time for a theory to become a law. So yes, Global Warming is a theory.
In the vernacular sense, “theory” is essentially the equivalent to a hypothesis in science. So in that sense, Global Warming is not a theory.
So when you said that Global Warming is not a theory, I pointed out that you may consider a potential need to clarify which “theory” you are using in regards to scientific matters because the stark contrast between the scientific and vernacular senses of the word do matter. (Discuss another topic that was a favorite discussion lately and you will see how important it is to clarify the dual meaning of “theory.”)
And I must agree with Robert that asking how someone can even call themselves Catholic for such a trivial statement does not help you at all. Believing in science is more in the secular realm. Catholics are free to believe the moon is made of cheese, which I’d say almost 100% of scientists would say is false, is permissible in Catholic morality. I would even hazard a guess that if asked, the Vatican would say the moon is not made of cheese, but Catholics would still be able to morally believe the moon is made of cheese. (Side note: I have a feeling that this analogy is going to give offense, but I couldn’t think of a better one.)
in my OP, I called into question what was the most important issue, Something we can fix (Climate Change) or something we can’t stop (Abortion)?I did not make that dichotomy. The OP made that dichotomy.
You sound like every Trump Supporter I’ve talked to.
I didn’t say “Government should stay out” (here).Blah blah blah, Government should stay out,
Just happens…Also in regards to natural cycles having happened, here’s a chart (top of the page) that illustrates how greenhouse gasses are at a higher level than any time in recent history, which just happens to coincide with the increased use of fossil fuels. There are also various articles you can peruse at your leisure too.
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
What do you think an “abortion” is?in my OP, I called into question what was the most important issue, Something we can fix (Climate Change) or something we can’t stop (Abortion)?
You are correct except when you state that “it takes a long time for a theory to become a law.” A scientific theory cannot become a law. Rather, theories can explain laws. A theory is the best we have, but it may be revised or even discarded if new evidence arises which the theory cannot verify.@robertmidwest, you might not have “thumbs upped” what you thought you thumbs upped. Either that or I conveyed the wrong meaning of what I meant to say.
You misunderstand my point. You said that Global Warming is not a theory. Depending on the definition of “theory,” that is false.
In science, the word “theory” essentially means the best explanation for something given current evidence. It also takes a long time for a theory to become a law. So yes, Global Warming is a theory.
In the vernacular sense, “theory” is essentially the equivalent to a hypothesis in science. So in that sense, Global Warming is not a theory.
So when you said that Global Warming is not a theory, I pointed out that you may consider a potential need to clarify which “theory” you are using in regards to scientific matters because the stark contrast between the scientific and vernacular senses of the word do matter. (Discuss another topic that was a favorite discussion lately and you will see how important it is to clarify the dual meaning of “theory.”)
And I must agree with Robert that asking how someone can even call themselves Catholic for such a trivial statement does not help you at all. Believing in science is more in the secular realm. Catholics are free to believe the moon is made of cheese, which I’d say almost 100% of scientists would say is false, is permissible in Catholic morality. I would even hazard a guess that if asked, the Vatican would say the moon is not made of cheese, but Catholics would still be able to morally believe the moon is made of cheese. (Side note: I have a feeling that this analogy is going to give offense, but I couldn’t think of a better one.)