Frank wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 9:06pm:


I wish Frank could.

In Frank's case imagination and thinking are impossibilities with a cranium chock-full of extremist dogma.

issuevoter wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 1:35pm:


I had a hot shower tonight. The room was fogging with high humidity upon getting out. It had been raining last night and today. But, usually, the town is cool to cold and dry for much of the winter. I figure that 80,000 people using hot water for their showers probably increase the likelihood of rainfall in town by about 0.1%.

So, I look in the context of carbon monoxide being spewed into the atmosphere by millions of cars every day all year around. When the lockdown took place around the world, wildlife made their way back to cities. Pollution in India meant that they could see the mountains hundreds of kilometres away.

Some articles have stated:
*Reduction of air pollution and GHGs emission
As industries, transportation and companies have closed down, it has brought a sudden drop of greenhouse gases (GHGs) emissions.
*Reduction of water pollution
Water pollution is a common phenomenon of a developing country like India, and Bangladesh, where domestic and industrial wastes are dumped into rivers without treatment. During the lockdown period, the major industrial sources of pollution have shrunk or completely stopped, which helped to reduce the pollution load.
*Reduction of noise pollution
Noise pollution is the elevated levels of sound, generated from different human activities (e.g., machines, vehicles, construction work), which may lead to adverse effects in human and other living organisms.
*Ecological restoration and assimilation of tourist spots
Over the past few years, tourism sector has witnessed a remarkable growth because of technological advancements and transport networks; which contribute significantly to global gross domestic product.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7498239/

All these shutdowns have seen a much similar level of pollution not seen in over 100 years. But, 100 years ago, there were polluting factories and industrial waste at some level relevant to worldwide industrial nations.

The real issue is that all these pollutants have been flowing through the air in considerable amounts for the last 300 years. And yet, with all this pollutants, we are not seeing a considerable amount of climate change that could be noticeable by people who have lived and observed the weather and climate variations for the last 32 years.

I would suggest that whilst it is commendable that we use green technology, we should focus more on conservation of species for flora and fauna.

To answer your question: Any amount of pollutants can change the environment. But only slightly.

Belgarion wrote on Aug 10^th, 2021 at 1:54pm:

Another IPCC reports, another fit of hysteria and hyperbole.

Predictably enough, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has been greeted with hyperbole about fire, flood and tempest. It is ‘code red for humanity,’ according to UN general-secretary Antonio Guterres. ‘This report must sound a death knell for coal and fossil fuels before they destroy our planet.’

As ever with IPCC reports, the content doesn’t live up to the hysterical reviews. If the vision presented in it were the basis of a disaster movie you would want your money back.


The political activist and media slant is over the top, as usual.