There are no Sci-Priests. You do not seem to have any understanding about university work at all, did you even go to college?

There are sci-priests. They are scientists who think that they don't have to provide evidence for anything , ostracize those who do not confirm to the beliefs the majority of scientists believe and generally forget what science is.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

Pollution with greenhouse gas emissions and global warming are related, dont see how you can still deny it PE. Btw Jai your example of deforestation, just if you think about forests' implication with photosynthesis, it is also impacting and influencing climate change. Ocean acidification are also direct causes of greenhouse gas emissions, as Kreto pointed out earlier, oceans actually absorb most of the emissions, so the impact on environment is greatly reduced but at the meantime oceans face a great acidification, toxic for both aquatic fauna and flora. So everything is linked global warming included.

@ MGSB Yea, but these people are not scientists.

Edited 3/5/2016 18:24:18

+ 1 Angry

About your link tupac, empty arguments which could have been made by a 14 yo kid, this is what you call science?

So everything is linked global warming included.

Linked, but not causal. That is the key difference. Global warming may contribute to the various other environmental problems I cited before, but solving global warming will certainly not be a one-size-fits-all solution to the other problems and may in fact only have minimal positive effects.

Jai, global warming or the acidification of oceans have to be seen in a cause-effect relationship, what is important to note is that all these environmental changes have the same origin (unlike what Tupac or PE is currently refusing to accept): Men.

George Bush gave everyone GMOs so that they wouldn't know he did 9/11.

Yes certainly all the evidence suggests that these changes are mainly caused by humans. But that's different from saying that global warming is the sole cause of these other environmental problems. If that is what you're suggesting than the logical conclusion is: if we stop global warming than we can instantaneously solve all these other environmental crises. That simply isn't true thought because each is caused by a multitude of causal factors that amplify each other.

I'll give you a bit of perspective on what it would take to solve global warming, and then tell me if you're ready to take all necessary steps to stop it:

"According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation."

What does this mean. If scientists and politicians and those who believe in the danger of global warming truly want to end it they must take meaningful and dramatic steps towards lowering or eliminating livestock production. I highly doubt many people would sign up for this though.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html

That is a nice play, but you have to get the full picture:

https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/infografik_2140_Anteil_der_Wirtschaftsbereiche_an_den_menschlich_bedingten_Treibhausgas_Emissionen_n.jpg

I already knew this Jai, livestock produces more greenhouse gas emissions because it is mostly methane which is emitted, compared to CO2 it's a gas 25 times more impacting on climate change. Nonetheless the causal origins are again human activities.

Edited 3/5/2016 19:02:55

Kreto link in English? meine deutsche nein gut.

Angry, I think the point I'm trying to make is that environmental groups always attack and demand radical changes or reforms from the energy corporations and oil companies. However, I rarely or never hear these same calls from environmental groups against agribusiness or livestock producers. How do they expect to end global warming when they're not willing to attack or call out the biggest single cause of it?

I don´t like the USA*, all their institutions, everything related to them, *the USA except all
musicians except Justin Bieber who is actually Canadian but lives in the USA, all their secret
services, peanutbutter, Hillary Clinton, etc... except Donald J. Trump, etc...

In return, instead of trying to improve relations with the US, Russia has become fiercely anti-Western and anti-American as a reaction to the perceived saber rattling and incremental incursion into Russia's sphere of influence. In other words, Russia became an enemy of the US because the US thought they were an enemy.

What is Russian government (realistically) supposed to do for improving relations, when America and its buddies say it is a terrible, evil dictatorship that is invading powerless democratic Ukraine? Russia became a foe of America since America made it a foe.

Its disgusting that they don't understand that American lives are lost when we go on stupid wars.

To be frank, war improves the American economy, and in modern wars, every American soldier volunteers (to kill and possibly die).

Conservatives can't be anti-government and then want a big military.

Sure they can. As long as the government is not conservative.

I wasn't talking about the Russian narrative of RT, I was talking about the middle eastern one.

I don´t like the USA*, all their institutions, everything related to them, *the USA except all
musicians except Justin Bieber who is actually Canadian but lives in the USA, all their secret
services, peanutbutter, Hillary Clinton, etc... except Donald J. Trump, etc...

Even Warlight, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Windows, Mac, Wikipedia you hate these things, too?

Edited 3/5/2016 21:01:58

~ A " Someone needs a beer photo "