Is The World Getting Better Or Worse?

Deforestation is not the cause of the sudden rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Reforestation will do nothing to reverse the current trend of increasing carbon dioxide levels.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It's a band-aid on a head wound. If we are going to fix the actual problem, reforestation ain't it. The oceans make up the vast majority of both carbon fixation and oxygen production, in case you were wondering. Increasing the bird population will do nothing to reverse climate change. The Trump administration is stopping research on this front. In fact, they are trying to stop scientists from even saying that carbon emissions are to blame for climate change. Conservatives seem to be motivated by whatever Trump says. Trump is saying that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change. That's a massive problem.

Where do you get this stuff from? Where has anyone stated that we should all lie down and die?I find it rather stunning that a conservative like yourself would be completely unaware of the Republican party actively stopping research on climate change, and trying to dissuade people from accepting the science. The only way this is going to stop is if conservative voters start getting angry about it, and letting their elected officials know about it. What I am saying is stand up and let your voice be heard.

There are hundreds of millions of average people in the US who do care about carbon emissions and climate change. Trying to distract people away from this problem by pointing to other issues isn't productive. We do need to care what the government is doing because we can't lower carbon emissions without good public policy. Since Trump runs a rather large part of the government, it matters when he changes public policy based on his rejection of science.

Like what? How are you going to pay for 10's of billions of dollars of research? How are you going to pay for subsidies for renewable energy? How are you going to make sure that people are abiding by regulations?I don't think you have a good idea of the larger picture.

Reality does not conform to what you find persuasive.The 2008 recession should be a lesson for everyone. What we learned is that even the greatest minds in banking made the most basic mistakes because they were blinded by short term profits. This isn't a flaw found in just big fossil fuel companies. This is a flaw baked into human nature. When a company gets that big and is run by committee they will all too often make the wrong choices because they are blinded by short term profits. I would hope that you try to see if what they are saying is actually true.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Republicans have voted for $20 billion in subsidies for big oil companies. That's 20 billion of your tax dollars going to oil companies right now, per year. Do you still vote for Republicans that support these subsidies?

Ironically, flood waters might help you to get a grasp on what is happening. If there is a torrential downpour it can swamp the ability of natural mechanisms to get rid of the water, resulting in a lot of standing water (i.e. flood). The same is happening with carbon dioxide. There are natural processes that can pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but they aren't able to keep up with the amount we are dumping into the atmosphere.You won't accept all of the dates on this graph, but if you cram the entire history of atmospheric carbon dioxide into a short time period it can still show you how far above natural levels of carbon dioxide we currently are: During interglacial periods, which we are currently in, the natural concentration for carbon dioxide is ~280 ppm. We are currently over 400 ppm. There is zero doubt that humans are the cause of this.How much of an impact has this carbon dioxide made? These are climate models. The green line represents the predicted temperatures if we take increased carbon dioxide out of the model. The blue line represents the prediction of climate models if we include all of the carbon dioxide humans have put in the atmosphere. The black line is the observed temperatures. The difference between the black line and the green line is the amount of warming humans have caused. We know these models are reliable because the green line tracks with the black line before humans significantly increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. IOW, both models accurately predicted past temperatures, so that gives us confidence in them. You are aware that the US Constitution allows elected officials to make laws, right?

And out come the right wing hysterics.

The trustworthy information are those charts. Can you explain why you don't trust charts? If I described the chart in words would you trust it more?

They are lying. There are no legitimate scientific questions about the general conclusions scientists have come to with regard to climate change. Then how do you explain all of these Republicans lying about the science?

Faith, get thee to a history class. Start at the Crusades, and move forward through time slowly. It may be a bit scary, though, because no one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Ahem . . . SPANISH INQUISITION . . . Ahem I think we all agree that Christianity is the majority religion of the US. What is more difficult to get agreement on is that we have a secular government.

No True Scotsman fallacy. What would that even look like, and how would it differ from what we have now? Would that include a ban on gay marriage, even for non-christians? Would we throw homosexuals in jail? Would a christian nation force christian theology onto non-christians?

No True Scotsman fallacy.

I thought hard about it. Yep, still a No True Scotsman fallacy.