| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
#No-More-Ignorance
#DAPoliticalForumClub
#PoliticsAreParanoid
#PoliticalDebateClub
#OCCUPYart
#The99Percent
#OccupyDA
#OccupyArtists
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
But most of them don't care what kind of mess they're very potentially leaving for the future generations anyway, because "it's not gonna happen during my lifetime anyway, duh"
Way to go people!
On the scale of thousands to millions of years, typically, yes. But the changes happening so rapidly are all us, and thus harder for us and species who are used to millennia and more years of gradual change to deal with.
Global change over thousands and millions of years is natural. Global climate change over a couple centuries is not.
"Oh, almost all of them have declared bankruptcy?"
Well, if by "almost all" you mean "8%" of them, then sure. [link] And that's only counting the federally funded ones, not all green companies.
Which is pretty good for an emerging field, actually, since all new technology fields naturally have lots of winners and losers. For instance, just for kicks, here's a list of defunct computer-related companies: [link] Wow, that's kind of a big list. Guess that means the personal computing industry is a complete failure, according to your logic.
1. We achieve national energy independence by using less fossil fuels and more locally-generated renewable power, meaning we rely much less on foreign energy supply.
2. We achieve personal independence as well, by having "passive houses" that can stay heated, cooled, watered, and up and running in general while getting to worry less about power outages, droughts, not being able to afford or get out to fill up the furnace fuel tank, and so on. Bonus points for cheaper maintenance and utility costs, too. Which brings me to:
3. We save massive amounts of money in the long term by spending less money on generating energy.
4. We clean the air and water of smog and emissions.
5. Most energy conservation measures involve either minor changes in habit and/or doing the same thing you do now for less.
Meaning that the changes needed to combat climate change... save money and increase efficiency without decreasing productivity or utility. So, if it wasn't for the fake debate going on, most people would be voluntarily making these sorts of changes anyway, since they'd be extremely useful even if climate change didn't exist. Only in America can people be successfully brainwashed into thinking it's in their best interest to waste more money and resources than they need to.
However, I know exactly what the Shell, BP, Koch Industries, etc. will gain from denying climate change. MONEY.
'97%'
10,256 scientists were polled. ALL of them, American, so hardly representative of the entire world. Thousands of climate researchers in various fields of study such as solar, left out.
3100 actually answered the poll. So already, we're down to less than 1/3.
Comments left by the vast majority of them, argued against the narrow, leading questions in the poll, of which there were only Two.
In the end, the people who created the poll chose an extremely narrow group of 79 people, for reasons I'll let you discover for yourself, to represent the entire planet. 3% of that group disagreed with the assesment of the rest.
There you have it. Less than 3/4 of 1% of the scientists polled, represents '97%' of all scientists on the globe.