How clever of the UN

[poddster]

Why did the UN and the Global Warming religion change from 'Global Warming" to "Climate Change"

After a decade of the earth not warming outside the normal fluctuation the UN was able to be contradicted and shown that Global Warming was not happening.

When the change was made to Climate Change the contradiction was removed because every one KNOWS that the climate changes and always has done.

Now lets see if the UN can demonstrate how humans are having an adverse affect on the climate.

[poddster]

---

@just_me_karen wrote:
I would love to live off the power grid, for several reasons:

- pollution and climate damage
- cost
- to reduce the dollars going into fat men's pockets
- self reliance

Climate change or no climate change, surely it's better to live cleanly? and support businesses that produce cleanly?

I reckon it'd be really sad if we gave up coal and replaced it with nuclear, as hinted by some politicians.

---

May I suggest that you do some research on those first 3 point items, you may find that you would be disappointed with what you find

[poddster]

T

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

  i wish we were allowed to speak freely here

---

That would be a novel departure from the status quo

[izabsmiling]

---

@ashjoma wrote:
No, it is not alright to keep polluting the world. Trouble is, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

The chemicals released into the environment are, eg mercury, heavy metals, dioxins, radiation from Fukushima

Carbon dioxide is not a problem

.

The agenda behind the new environmental religion/ low carbon lifestyle is being implemented by stealth.
Research agenda 21 for starters.

---

.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.The main pollutant creating warming.

Animals emit CO2  by breathing.

Carbon Dioxide becomes a man made pollutant when human activities in which require burning fossil fuels ie;petrol and natural gas ,cars,planes,power plants,factories .Over the past 150 years or so those human activities have raised carbon dioxide levels higher than they have been for thousands of years .

[poddster]

Iza you are mistaken

CO2 is just a small percentage of greenhouse gasses.  0.177% to be precise, of that around 0.03% is attributed to activities by humanity, hardly the major portion of greenhouse gasses.

And you may be surprised to learn that CO2 is not a pollutant especially in such a minute quantity.

Also as of yet there has been no indisputable link between co2 and an increase of global temperature.

The earth has been hotter than it is now on several occasions and no doubt the fluctuating will continue to go on until the earth expires

[lakeland27]

iza backs up what she says, now its your turn

you'll be needing some credible sources mind..

[spotweldersfriend]

A conspiracy theorist is one who tacitly admits they have insufficient data to prove their point.

[poddster]

LL perhaps you might like to attempt to justify the removal of the vast majority of greenhouse gas from the figures commonly quoted, that being water vapour that percentage being 99.999%.

[spotweldersfriend]

Greenhouse gasses trap heat causing more water vapour.Forrest Gump would even understand that.

[lakeland27]

like i thought.. nought.

if you want to get a point across you need some material that relates to it from a verifiable accredited source or sources. iza did this, its your turn now poddy. if you don't it may make you appear foolish. now spit it out .

[poddster]

Water vapour being the by far most abundant greenhouse gas (99.999%), under your theory would have led to positive feedback and thermal run-away millania ago.

Do you really believe that an eco system that has taken billions of years to stabilise would be so weak as to become destabilises by the puny activities of man?

Try to consider the mass of man, by volume, to that of the earth. humanity pails into insignificance