What happened to actual discussion ?

You're right. the government it trying to:
1. bring things to our attention that will happen regardless, but still worth motoring. So when your favorite fish spot dries up and hunting grounds die down, not to mention beached turning toxic, we can make a connection with how fast the CLIMATE CHANGE (loud enough for ya? ) happened in recent years compared to how fast it happened back in the day.

2. So what the govenment wants you to walk/ride a bike to work. A good number of people live 5-10 miles form work every day yet drive a big truck just to go sit behind a desk all day. Then they go to the doctor and have to get a 200k+ proceduer because they were to lazy to eat a healthy diet and get the minimal amount of exercise.


Damn that government is sneaky

 

And that's our own choice, the GOV. has NO influence over that part of MY life.

 

No the gov cant control weather, or the like, because if it could then george bush really didnt care about black people .

no you cant legislate people, but you can give government incentives for the people to do whats best for them selves.

Bringing a issue to light and making simple requests is all the government is really doing. Because the people who live close to work, getting there by human power will not just make you feel healthier, it will also save some money which in today's time some people who bring in 200k are feeling the heat D)

 

Full Derp mode

 

Anybody want to guess the time of the industrial revolution based on CO2 levels from the last 1,000 years.



These same atmospheric samples have been taken all over the world (some taking samples as far as 40,000 years), and the results are nearly identical all over the planet. CO2 levels doubling in 100 years is not the result of volcanoes. I'm pretty sure they've been around for a while.

Simple scientific fact. CO2 is one of the chief temperature regulators in our atmosphere. More CO2 = More temperature.

And for those who like to tow the line "natural cycle of the planet", whether you're right or wrong, it's the first time it's made this cycle with us on it.

This isn't about the survival of the planet. It's about the survival of our species.

Mass extinction is also a natural cycle of the planet. We are possibly the first species intelligent enough to prevent or at least delay our own extinction due to environmental changes.

You can choose to ignore and/or deny the problem, just don't stand in the way of those looking for a solution. And while you've got your head up your ass, I hope you find a nice cool spot for your grandkids to live.

 

Sorry you see things the way you do. If it is as you see it, what would be your plan to change it to suit you better?

 

I wasn't referring to the name you called me, but to the fact that I don't share your faith in the government. So in terms of your secular political religion, I'm a heathen.

And this is why I don't share your religious faith in government:

There's nothing more deceitful than government funded "science".

 

Aaaaah....

The ole back porch.

Back in the early Destin days, they used to keep multiple sets of binoculars on the bar for "beach viewing"

That spot - Silver Beach, was a well known nude beach. And the young ladies used to have no problem obliging.

 

Bet your glad you are in Canada. I all was feel better when I'm up there payed any mind to Maine's governor?

 

Sorry Oz but,,THIS

 

Sounds like that hurts. In the future, if you pick your line more carefully or use a spotter, you can avoid this.

 

wut

 

I don't have a religious faith in government but go ahead and repeat yourself a couple thousand more times if it makes you feel better

 

Rainman forgot his wileycs

 

From the same article

You must have accidentally not included this part

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%.

 

Does this mean that you believe science funded by a for-profit entity to support their profit-making interests is the epitome of unbiased, pure scientific inquiry?