Human Freedom Index LOL what a joke. None of those 10 countries have the right to bear arms protected by a constitution, so that automatically puts the US above them. If you don't have the right to defend yourself, your family, and your property then you can't call that freedom. They don't have the right of free speech protected by a constitution either. Also Hong Kong isn't a country, it is a city of China which is a country with a huge list of human rights violations, like limiting how may kids you can have, religous freedom violations, labor violations, restrictions on freedom of the press, and the list goes on. Nice try but not even close, the USA still has more protected freedoms.You complain that we have dirty air and water then put China on a list of countries better than us, that's some irony right there.

 

I like clean air.

 

How do you talk to someone who doesn't believe in climate change? Not by rehashing the same data and facts we've been discussing for years, says climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. In this inspiring, pragmatic talk, Hayhoe shows how the key to having a real discussion is to connect over shared values like family, community and religion -- and to prompt people to realize that they already care about a changing climate. "We can't give in to despair," she says. "We have to go out and look for the hope we need to inspire us to act -- and that hope begins with a conversation, today."

 

The Montreal Protocol proved that the world could come together and take action on climate change. Thirty years after the world's most successful environmental treaty was signed, atmospheric scientist Sean Davis examines the world we avoided when we banned chlorofluorocarbons -- and shares lessons we can carry forward to address the climate crisis in our time.

Quote from Ronald Reagan in here!

 

I Like!!!!!! ^^^^^^

 

In this passionate call to action, 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg explains why, in August 2018, she walked out of school and organized a strike to raise awareness of global warming, protesting outside the Swedish parliament and grabbing the world's attention. "The climate crisis has already been solved. We already have all the facts and solutions," Thunberg says. "All we have to do is to wake up and change."

 

The repercussions of a colonial past are still ever present among the aboriginal communities in Canada. Through her talk, "Canada’s State of Emergency and How We Can Protect our Collective Futures", Pamela Palmater speaks about the impact that the modern lifestyle has had on the environment and the way the hundreds of years of colonial history within Canada are still echoing today. She discusses solutions to moving together in solidarity with one another for a world that cares for the land, one another and future generations. Pamela aims to unroot the echoes of the past by shedding new light on matters concerning her research.

 

I've commented here before and surely have not forgotten this thread. These is one of the problems that I have with the climate change crowd and politicians. Carbon taxes...

https://fueloilnews.com/2018/08/16/f...-a-carbon-tax/

It is nothing more than a money grab by governments and the cost would get passed on to the consumer and to businesses that need fuel for their operations. It makes no sense to me especially being from the state of Taxation, New York state where our King Andy Cuomo is blowing a gasket because the budget is $2.3 billion in the hole because all the rich folks are moving out because of the high taxes as he claims is the weather , I would not need any more taxes for my fuel as I already spend over 3 dollars a gallon now. What say you folk?

 

These CARB bureaucrats seem like some nice folks, don't you think? Carbon taxes and CARB screwing the little guys. What do you think?

 

Just passing this on for FYI. I'd love to hear what certain people have to say about it.



https://www.heartland.org/_template-...h%20covers.pdf

 

#AmazonRainforest


https://www.motherjones.com/environm...mazon-burning/

 

Well, if you do a background check on their report, you will it does not stand the national (or even international) "Test of Scientific Validity"...the report that was presented to congress was created By Exxon/Mobile Corporation...they were awarded the $130m research contract about 15 years ago....the research project was 10 year duration. If people really believe this report to be false, the I suggest you ping your congressmen and push for criminal investigation as this would clearly be "fraud, Waste & abuse of Taxpayer Money"....a multi-count felony...…..Rex Tillerson was the CEO throughout the entire contract performance & award

 

Number one, Beechkid... Thank you for responding. If I was to state that some of these climate change models that IPCC have run and presented as facts don't pass a "Test of scientific validity," I would have been ridiculed by a certain member here who would ask what my scientific credentials are to present such a disagreement with this alarmist view of climate change these days. I fail to see the onesidedness of disagreeing over science and related subjects. We are still learning about the deepest depths of the oceans, still learning things about sealife such as Great White sharks and discovering previously unknown life forms, so how can the subject of climate change be so "settled?" I am curious about what that means, not passing that "test" you mentioned, as the report link I posted was written by scientists.

I did look into what you referenced above to and there is no mention of the Heartland Institute or their report.

I am going to keep this respectful as I like to be treated the same way. There's one thing that has bothered about the climate change people and their perspective is the lack of any talk about one of the greatest factors that drives our weather: that big burning star in the sky, our SUN and it's solar flare cycles. Another factor I rarely hear them talking about is the effect of volcanic activity and their gas emissions on the planet. It's always the man made stuff that takes center stage as IMHO, this is an agenda driven platform that no one wants to address as such. Mr. Climate Change himself, Al Gore, has at least two or maybe three big homes in different parts of the country. How much natural gas or other non renewable utilities does he utilize for his big houses? Mr. Barack "Climate change is an existential threat" Obama himself is buying a $15 million huge crib for himself. So apparently you don't have to care about your carbon footprint when you're a rich politician. The hypocrisy is very telling.

For anyone who believes the Climate change agenda that we will be petroleum free in 10 years or more to "save the planet," then we will all be far worse off and/or dead because that is just not going to happen. The United States, Canada, and Europe are the ones making emissions changes for vehicles. Russia, China, Mexico, Cuba, South America and others I'm sure are not doing what we are doing. In order to save the planet, ALL nations and not SOME have to keep advancing on the emissions side of vehicles. They are not. So this is another point I bring up to climate change believers. Thanks.

 

The standard of "Scientific Validity" is...1) Does the test results meet the objectives, 2) Does it stand the test of repeatability (which is 3 or more times), 3) Has the test and results been duplicated by a 3rd party ...otherwise, it is just a "whitepaper"....which is opinion, and not subject to be valued as "scientific"....since it is based upon qualitative analysis and not quantitative analysis.

 

So climate change is to be looked at as a test of some sort; like a lab test testing the impact of a certain additive to enhance the lubricity of ULSD fuel?

All you did was throw this out there (scientific validity) for what reason? Did you even read the report?

Any comment on anything else I said? Or is this argument settled with you because I am against the climate change agenda? I'm looking for a two sided conversation. I'm not trying to change your mind, but it would be nice for you to defend your position instead of replying with something that had nothing to do with what I linked to.

The problem I see with this agenda is there is a lot of hypothesizing with greatly exaggerated global climate models from the IPCC,

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...climate-models

having unachievable goals using unrealistic methods and just the bombardment of the general population with the CC propaganda. It actually reminds me of the great "Russian Collusion" PR campaign.

The climate change crowd looks at this topic as a religion. That is the problem. The discussion is not up for debate and the conversation closed.

I'm for clean Air and water. I acknowledge that recycling has to remain relevant because of the plastic pollution in the ocean and waste in general. I acknowledge that we are over fishing the oceans. I acknowledge that we have to maintain, protect and conserve our natural resources as I live close to one of the Great Lakes. I acknowledge we have to maintain the air quality with modern, well engineered, efficient engines powered by gasoline and diesel.

But what I don't acknowledge is that man made climate change will cause the demise of human life. While battery technology has come along way as well as hybrid vehicles, they are not main stream yet nor will they be for quite some time. The range of the vehicles are not close enough yet to petro powered vehicles. Hang on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen. Fossil fuels will be here for years to come. And so will we. Just MHO. Take it or leave it.