I do not believe climate scientists. there predictions are hardly ever correct. whenever i make plans to do something outside based on weather it always ends up raining and if i dont plan anything because of weather it ends up being a nice day.
Although the article was talking more about emissions and pollution, I do agree that the gases discussed cause weather changes (even ones that disappoint us).
Climate is different than weather. It is a study of long-term patterns in a large area while weather describes short-term conditions in a given region.
No, I do not disbelieve climate scientists—I believe them. I think that their predictions and claims concerning emissions and pollution may be accurate. With the current rate of global emissions, especially in China and the United States, and the time it takes to plan and fully enact emission-cutting protocol, I think that we are too late even NOW to do anything. For example, the deal in Lima would not be enacted until 2020. In the near future (but not VERY near), I think we will reach the "tipping point" that the article mentions—a tipping point in which the world will face a series of problems that will be harmful [and no denial of fatal] to the human population (and economy). If anything, something should have been done long ago before the world got more commercialized, industrial, and energy-consuming. Obama commits to the United Nations emission cuts until 2025, and Jinping says that no emission decline is expected until at least 2040. By then, "late" would carry more than a number of times its urgency to react.
I do believe them because we have seen proof of the effects that greenhouse gases are having. We have had one of the hottest years in the last few years and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. I honestly don't think there is enough emphasis on this topic because so many people think that they can't do anything themselves which puts us in a rough spot because we honestly don't know how to handle this situation. Hopefully we figure it out before its too late.
I agree that there is WAY less emphasis than there should be concerning the topic, and that there is not really one fixed approach that can be taken (hence us not knowing what to do). I differ with you though, because I think that it is already too late. All of our efforts from this point forward will not really achieve anything IF it is too late anyway.
I disagree, I believe if we make an effort to change then the environment will heal its self naturally. Such as in the case of bioremediation where for example bacteria or other organisms can, overtime, degrade and clean up an oil spill in the ocean.
No because they have proof of the direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures and also of rising sea levels. I believe that their level of urgency is necessary because the effects we have made on the climate will be a long hard process to reverse.
I agree with Tori because I have a hard time believing in something that does not have any hardcore proof behind it. I feel like the example of greenhouse gases is not enough. They need to bring in some proof about an issue that we do not no much about. The idea that they have proof on a subject that the audiences are not as sure about it makes me more inclined to support them.
I do not believe climate scientists. there predictions are hardly ever correct. whenever i make plans to do something outside based on weather it always ends up raining and if i dont plan anything because of weather it ends up being a nice day.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the article was talking more about emissions and pollution, I do agree that the gases discussed cause weather changes (even ones that disappoint us).
DeleteClimate is different than weather. It is a study of long-term patterns in a large area while weather describes short-term conditions in a given region.
DeleteNo, I do not disbelieve climate scientists—I believe them. I think that their predictions and claims concerning emissions and pollution may be accurate. With the current rate of global emissions, especially in China and the United States, and the time it takes to plan and fully enact emission-cutting protocol, I think that we are too late even NOW to do anything. For example, the deal in Lima would not be enacted until 2020. In the near future (but not VERY near), I think we will reach the "tipping point" that the article mentions—a tipping point in which the world will face a series of problems that will be harmful [and no denial of fatal] to the human population (and economy). If anything, something should have been done long ago before the world got more commercialized, industrial, and energy-consuming. Obama commits to the United Nations emission cuts until 2025, and Jinping says that no emission decline is expected until at least 2040. By then, "late" would carry more than a number of times its urgency to react.
ReplyDeleteI do believe them because we have seen proof of the effects that greenhouse gases are having. We have had one of the hottest years in the last few years and it doesn't seem to be slowing down. I honestly don't think there is enough emphasis on this topic because so many people think that they can't do anything themselves which puts us in a rough spot because we honestly don't know how to handle this situation. Hopefully we figure it out before its too late.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is WAY less emphasis than there should be concerning the topic, and that there is not really one fixed approach that can be taken (hence us not knowing what to do). I differ with you though, because I think that it is already too late. All of our efforts from this point forward will not really achieve anything IF it is too late anyway.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, I believe if we make an effort to change then the environment will heal its self naturally. Such as in the case of bioremediation where for example bacteria or other organisms can, overtime, degrade and clean up an oil spill in the ocean.
DeleteNo because they have proof of the direct correlation between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures and also of rising sea levels. I believe that their level of urgency is necessary because the effects we have made on the climate will be a long hard process to reverse.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tori because I have a hard time believing in something that does not have any hardcore proof behind it. I feel like the example of greenhouse gases is not enough. They need to bring in some proof about an issue that we do not no much about. The idea that they have proof on a subject that the audiences are not as sure about it makes me more inclined to support them.
Delete