Nothing bad about it. Throwing millions of millions of tons into the air in a relative short amount of time is problematic because the planetary system cannot adapt that fast once the oceans can no longer suck it up.

Tupac, it's sad for you but it seems you are the one only listening to politicians, would you please start to find informations elsewhere, your hatred for some politicians (Obama, Clinton, Bush) blinds you at the point that you are not even able to accept the obvious, you still did not answered me, why is global warming a lie? Is it a lie just because Obama or Clinton said it existed? I told you earlier there is a general scientific consensus about this matter. So stop listening to politicians for once and get your own opinion on it based on empirical experiments, serious researches about climate change and its origins made for years, etc.

You even do not need to listen to scientists for this, just use your common sense, talk to elderly people like I did, people that have personal experience and noticed personally the change.

+1 Kreto

The planet can't adapt? The planet will be just fine, it's humans that scientists worry about.

I'm more concerned about non-global warming environmental changes being induced by human activity. Namely - deforestation, water pollution and shortages, eutrophication due to Nitrogen and Phosphorus dumping, total biodiversity loss, natural resource depletion, and ocean acidification.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041612000101

Look at table 2. There is a branch of ecology known as ecological economics that basically tries to quantify the services provided by ecosystem and the cost of human alteration or damage to them. For example they've estimated that Coral Reefs alone are worth $153,000 per hectare for the amount of erosion control they provide.

That is not entirely correct. I just had a reading from an ecology professor two months ago about arctic ecosystems. Without ice on the ocean, lots of species are screwed. But of course Jai is right.

Edited 3/5/2016 17:55:44

Well yeah the planet won't disappear because of humans and global warming, Humans are harming themselves more than anything else, once the planet gets sick of us, easy: massive extinction with a new cycle starting again as always, see Cretaceous, Jurassic or Triassic.

I'm not saying climate change isn't happening I'm saying humans aren't the main cause of it.

And the sci-priests refuse to provide proof for anything, often just saying that since they are sci-priests they are right.

So if humans aren't the main cause of global warming for these last 100 years (coincidence? It started with the industrial revolution, but yeah again simple coincidence...), what is the main cause? Volcanoes? Solar activity? Asteroids? Give me your explanation then.

+ 1 Jai. Pollution is a huge problem, but people toss it in with global warming like they're the same. Pisses me off to no end

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