Best answer: I think you need to say anthropogenic global warming because it gives the dishonest alarmist an excuse to blame anything on something that would happen with or without our emissions. Many people die of cold related deaths and I have heard arguments that it exceeds heat related deaths. It could be argued that GW has saved more lives than any increase mortality from slightly more intense storms. They like to blame more intense storms on our CO2 emissions even though that is debatable and their shrill predictions don't really match reality.

We have increased food production and a nicer more moderate climate. History shows that those times are correlated with prosperity and health and that seems to the be case currently. We have the added advantage of carbon fertilization as well. Since good news makes alarmists head spin around like an un-exorcised Regan, they spew out other fake crisis like sea level rise, drought, mosquitoes, etc. All those fake crises result in fake deaths.

Best answer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Good one. Remember? Al Gore said there wouldn't be any ice at the North Pole by 2014. And another 'gentleman' claimed that by that time kids wouldn't know what snow was. Ha! Ha! This year some of the Colorado ski resorts have had the earliest openings (in October) ever.

Best answer: Nuclear winter is a harsh medicine

https://youtu.be/hwMPFDqyfrA

Best answer: Well, as others have pointed out, Antarctica is already habitable. Not only do animal species live there but we humans have a permanent presence on the continent with our scientific stations.

However, if you look around the coast and use some of the worst case projections of a 7C rise in temperature by 2200, then parts of Antarctica will begin to resemble parts of Norway and Sweden where there are villages.

Best answer: "Climate change" aka "global warming", is a lie put out there to control populations. Those that scream the loudest about it, have private jets and mansion estates. That should tell you all you need to know. Don't be deceived by worldly "authorities".

-----.

The truth is that Jesus loves you and wants to bless your life freely :) Most of all, Jesus wants you with Him forever, and not in hell. The truth is that every belief except one will lead to eternal torment in the lake of fire for every person. Because nothing pays for our sins except the death and blood of Jesus, the sacrifice of Jesus that is already accomplished by Him . Jesus loves you! The truth is that Jesus is God, and Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins in full, and then Jesus resurrected from the dead. Nothing else pays for our sins, not works, not deeds, not religions. So the only way to heaven and to avoid hell, is by believing in Jesus for eternal life (John 6:47), without adding any of your own works (Romans 4:5). Believe in Jesus to take you to heaven, and you will be in heaven, no matter what, guaranteed. That easy, thanks to Jesus! Tell Jesus that you thank Him that you will be with Him in heaven when you die, because you believe in Jesus! It is too late to be saved, after death.

I’m currently in veterinary medicine school and I’m going to specialize in exotic animals such as big cats. My husband is studying to be a neurosurgeon, and our plan is to move to either Texas or Africa and start a small, 10 acre sanctuary for big cats such as lions, tigers, and cheetahs. Cheetah’s are almost entirely illegal to own in the US so if we decided to live in Texas, we wouldn’t be able to rescue any. But our other option is Botswana, Africa. The only reason we would move there is IF there is a possibility of rescuing injured/abandoned wild cheetahs in hopes of release, or rescuing pet cheetahs from incapable owners. I know that it is legal to own Cheetahs in Africa but I am not sure which countries. So that is my question, which countries in Africa is it legal to own Cheetahs? I’d also like to state that these animals would not be pets, I would adopt them in hopes of changing their lives for the better. I don’t support exotic pet trade

Best answer: Obviously it isn't true. If it is a review and recommendation body, it is political body. It will review what is thrown at it by its biased paid groups and sift through what might be useful. It will then try to spin it to push their agenda. It is a ploy to get the ignorant to think it is a scientific organization when in fact it is purely political and its politics are leftist. It was formed to try to take advantage of the exaggeration of the threat of CO2 to push redistribution, increased taxes, and centralized control. GC gave a good synopsis of IPCC's purpose. I think they could discuss natural change but the fact is that wouldn't help their Cause so they try to minimize any natural causes and grossly exaggerate man-made causes. They also exaggerate the negative effects and minimize any positive effects. I suppose you could argue that it is true that it is review and recommendation body but that implies it isn't biased and that is why I say "not true".

Best answer: Less plastic, less oil, less of bad other stuff and taking part in events that will help the environment.

"“If left unchecked, the damage caused by climate change will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to the U.S. economy,” Schumer wrote to Trump on Dec. 6." OR "“If left unchecked, the damage caused by illegal immigration will cause untold human suffering and significant damage to the U.S. economy,” Schumer wrote to Trump on Dec. 6.

Best answer: There is no evidence that China will lower its emissions because they have agreed with Obama to increase them dramatically. Their agreements are worthless anyway but they didn't even pretend to care about reducing emissions. They'll take money if we give it to them and they will be very happy if we decrease ours because that will make them more economically competitive but they aren't going to reduce CO2 emissions anytime soon.

The list is topped by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait.