Yes, it presents the challenges and concludes that the technology is already there to make a start as long as we apply ourselves and not duck out with the easy (but wrong) option of just carrying on with the status quo.
Future generations will judge whether we did the right thing. They may not have the same opportunities as we do - once the damage is done - it's done.
When a chronic becomes scared or insecure (because their beliefs have been challenged) they will in this case add more and more facts and figures to feel safe again.
Their pattern will defend their belief even if it kills them and it may even do that. Actually, they can not see or hear anyone else and so to stop having to feel they will continually gather facts and figures to be acknowledged and heard..this pattern is called chronic.
This is how the pattern of chronic works, they will never be wrong and will try and discredit and attack anyone having an opposing view. If it was different then their world would come crashing down and they would have to ask themselves,'' If I am not that person trying to save the earth then who am I?''
@Michael
you keep repeating yourself.
He must be a "chronic."
When a chronic becomes scared or insecure (because their beliefs have been challenged) they will in this case add more and more facts and figures to feel safe again.
Their pattern will defend their belief even if it kills them and it may even do that. Actually, they can not see or hear anyone else and so to stop having to feel they will continually gather facts and figures to be acknowledged and heard..this pattern is called chronic.
This is how the pattern of chronic works, they will never be wrong and will try and discredit and attack anyone having an opposing view. If it was different then their world would come crashing down and they would have to ask themselves,'' If I am not that person trying to save the earth then who am I?''
Being ignorant about science is not a challenge to science.
I suggest you go and play with something without sharp edges.
This is the normal response to a chronic pattern, when their beliefs are challenged they will attack and attack to try and feel safe. In this case they are hiding behind science in an attempt to not having to connect with themselves and feel. This is their world and who they have become-take that away and they become totally exposed and lost.
Their response to what I have written will be to attack, they will say everyone can have their option but will not allow it.
A fascinating FACT about this (non-picture) above (from post #8069) is that yesterday the BBC ran an almost identical picture from a few seconds BEFOREHAND, and those same people in the picture were ALL LAUGHING. The Joke is on us -- reading important geopolitical meaning into this picture is just as silly as ascribing meaning to the BBC picture of the Leaders (same positions) when they were loudly laughing, as per the BBC. Both pictures tell the public NOTHING about what was actually discussed, or decided, or the results of the 28 paragraph G7 Communique, which the United States later refused to sign off on. Photo-ops for the masses. Nothing more or less. More blather to stir people up, keep them distracted, and emotional charged. Neat trick don't you think? Small wonder the planet keeps heating up, as our G7 Leaders spew hot air, and continue to distract and misdirect us.
VicountVonJames
Micheal. We will happily accept that you have the right to an opinion once you provide a reason for having said opinion.
The right to have an option should not come with CONDITIONS, it is the ability to accept and respect another person`s option that is required. Can you provide that?
A sad story in Australia which has been put down to the effect of climate change.
Giant African baobab trees die suddenly after thousands of years
Is global warming man made or the natural cycle of the planet?
VicountVonJames
Micheal. We will happily accept that you have the right to an opinion once you provide a reason for having said opinion.
The right to have an option should not come with CONDITIONS, it is the ability to accept and respect another person`s option that is required. Can you provide that?
There is no reason to respect everyone's opinion on a scientific subject, any more than there is any reason to respect everyone's opinion on a difficult chess position even if they have revealed a lack of any knowledge of chess or any reasoning behind their opinion and their view is judged as entirely wrong by those who are expert and have provided detailed, valid explanations. It is appropriate to explain to such a person that they are wrong, why they are wrong and how it is possible to reach correct conclusions.
If this person then repeats their irrelevant and incorrect opinion many times while continuing to fail to provide any basis for it, do they merit respect?
Is global warming man made or the natural cycle of the planet?
Have you been living under a rock for the last 10 years?
A bit ironic considering you just replied to a comment made over 3 years ago!
@Elroch (re #8082)
That is sad and not just for the trees. Humans need them - foods, medicines, building materials, air filtration - so many things that we risk losing if our environments are compromised.
Currently huge amounts of pristine forest in Indonesia being cleared to grow palm oil for food and fuel. Just feels like there should be a better way of managing things so that we don't just destroy but at least preserve some areas.
Trump has been selling off National Monuments to mining.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/08/climate/bears-ears-monument-trump.html
ELROCH wrote
''There is no reason to respect everyone's opinion on a scientific subject,''
This is a normal response for a chronic pattern, they refuse to listen to anyone`s option that differs from their`s, why? because they FEAR being exposed and their world comes falling down, who are they then?. A person always in thier head will do it at the price of not being able to feel.
A bit ironic considering you just replied to a comment made over 3 years ago
Still more attacking.....
A fascinating FACT about this (non-picture) above (from post #8069) is that yesterday the BBC ran an almost identical picture from a few seconds BEFOREHAND, and those same people in the picture were ALL LAUGHING. The Joke is on us -- reading important geopolitical meaning into this picture is just as silly as ascribing meaning to the BBC picture of the Leaders (same positions) when they were loudly laughing, as per the BBC. Both pictures tell the public NOTHING about what was actually discussed, or decided, or the results of the 28 paragraph G7 Communique, which the United States later refused to sign off on. Photo-ops for the masses. Nothing more or less. More blather to stir people up, keep them distracted, and emotional charged. Neat trick don't you think? Small wonder the planet keeps heating up, as our G7 Leaders spew hot air, and continue to distract and misdirect us.
June 12th -- the BBC is doing yet another silly analysis of The Meaning of This Picture of G7 Leaders ?? Their BS is breathtaking. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44426442
and here's more Internet BS below on the exact same non-topic --
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/real-photograph-g7-leaders/
Lots of interesting material there, and I am glad to see it agrees with many of themes of discussion that have arisen here (100% renewable future, shift to electricity, larger grids, energy storage as chemical energy from electrolysis, etc.) It also adds some themes that have hardly come up (demand management is a less sexy idea that can help a lot,. like energy efficiency can).