The reality of global warming: scary facts, and possible future consequences

It’s very likely that most people would feel uncomfortable if too much heat-emitting activities (such as cooking, use of electrical appliances, etc.) occur in their houses; in addition, most people would feel “very very” uncomfortable if there are no escape routes for heat generated from too many activities that produce heat, and make their houses difficult to stay in.

If the statements in the previous paragraph are true, then imagine how much more uncomfortable all living things on Earth would feel as a result of negative impacts man-made (artificial) activities on the environment—especially when generated heat is trapped within Earth’s atmosphere.

Man-made activities, such as breeding/raising livestock, and burning of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil to power industries, vehicles, and appliances in homes) usually release high quantities of carbon dioxide, methane, etc., into the atmosphere.

These gases, along with nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), amongst others, are greenhouse gases, and contribute to “the greenhouse effect”.

The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere, the more heat will be trapped within the Earth’s environment.

High quantities of trapped heat cause global temperatures to rise—“global warming”.

Extra details about the causes of global warming

Although details of global warming are well known, some important points will be stated for the benefit of those who might not know a thing or two about it.

Naturally, certain gases like carbon dioxide and methane (known as greenhouse gases—GHGs) help the Earth to trap the sun’s heat (cosmic rays) in the atmosphere, from where plants absorb it, use it to grow to maturity, and provide all types of food that empower all other living things.

Also, naturally, greenhouse gases warm the Earth’s surface to an extent that is enough to sustain all forms of life. Without greenhouse gases, the average temperature of the Earth would be around zero degrees (0º) Fahrenheit, instead of today’s temperature which is around 58º Fahrenheit.

(Note that a temperature of 0º Fahrenheit would not be sufficient enough to empower many important natural processes that keep most forms of life alive.)

Man-made activities, especially the burning of fossil fuel and coal, produce methane, other greenhouse gases, and carbon cycles that emit carbon dioxide which is absorbed every year by oceans, seas, plants, lands, etc.

Greenhouse gases cause the greenhouse effect and negatively impact global climate by warming.

97% of scientists believe that man-made activities are the major cause of global warming

Mankind has to be concerned about global warming, especially when multiple reviews of scientific literature have pointed to the fact that about 97% of scientists/climate specialists believe that man-made activities are the major cause of the high level of global warming which the world has been experiencing in recent times.

Also, according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists have concluded with 90% confidence that global warming is increasing beyond the natural level because of increasing heat-emitting man-made activities which produce lots of carbon dioxide through burning of natural non-renewable resources like fossil fuel oil, and coal.

In an Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, “atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are unprecedented in the last 800,000 years”.

It is now an indisputable fact that the earth is heating up. In fact, within the last century, the Earth’s temperature is believed to have risen by 1.3° Fahrenheit, and temperatures are still rising.

With global warming on the rise, in about 10, 20, or more years from today, mankind will likely feel a greater negative impact of man-made burning and heating activities if sensible ways are not discovered and used to halt escalating rates of heating activities.

The negative effect of gases generated from man-made (anthropogenic) activities has been observed in the climate system and is believed to be the major cause of global warming which has been observed since the middle of last century—the 20th century.

Evidence of the negative impacts of global warming

  • The thickness of ice in the regions around the north of the Arctic Circle has decreased by a surprising 50% within the past 50 years. Currently, much of the Arctic ice is just below the freezing point and is floating on water where it is highly sensitive to little rises in temperature that can make it melt completely.
  • Large chunks of ice at the South Pole around the Antarctic Circle, which have been stable for tens of thousands of years, are gradually breaking off. In fact, during the year 2000, a piece of ice with an area of about 4,200 square miles, broke off. Also, in the year 2002, a large piece of ice broke off in the Thwaites Glacier.
  • In 2007, Greenland’s ice shelves decreased in size by 24 square miles. In 2008, it decreased further by 21 square miles.
  • Each time the ocean rises vertically by one foot, it spreads horizontally by about 100 feet and covers more land. Researchers observed that sea levels rose by 8 inches in the past century, and this was due to the expansion of seawater as a result of absorbing more heat.
  • As the Earth’s temperature is rising, tropical diseases are gradually spreading northward; dangerous insects, waterborne diseases, and malaria are spreading northwards.
  • From reliable records of temperatures taken in the past, 1995, 2005, and 2010 ranked among the hottest years ever, while the period between 2000 and 2009 was once considered to be the hottest decade.
  • Recent levels of carbon dioxide emission have been the highest in the past 100,000 years.

Despite all the evidence some people still don’t believe in global warming

It’s surprising that with all the evidence presented to the world by science, quite a number of people still don’t believe the globe is heating or warming up.

It is obvious that such people need to be educated to an extent. The following points could really clear up misunderstandings, or unfounded beliefs:

  • Greenhouse effect causes global warming when the Earth’s atmosphere traps heat radiating from the Earth towards space. Examples of gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include water (H2O) vapor, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).
  • There are 2 types of greenhouse effects that are part of global warming: man-made (anthropogenic) greenhouse effect, and natural greenhouse effect. Man-made greenhouse effect is caused by mankind, while natural greenhouse effect (which is mild) is caused by nature.
  • Natural greenhouse effect is spurred by natural solar and cosmic rays, and is extremely important because it supports all forms of life.
  • The major problem is that the general greenhouse effect (natural + man-made) has been strengthened by man-made activities, and made life-threatening negative impact on the whole environment.
  • Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, clearing of forests, amongst others, have strengthened the general greenhouse effect (natural + man-made), and caused global warming to be higher than it naturally was in the near and distant past; also, recent negative effects of warming are worse than at any other time in recorded history.
  • Man-made activities (especially the incessant and excessive burning of large quantities of fuel) have increased the total quantity of heat and caused overall global warming (natural + man-made) to be higher than the natural level that cosmic rays have been producing for billions of years.
  • The greenhouse effect, which has increased excessively due to increasing man-made activities, is mainly attributed to increasing carbon dioxide emission levels.

One major question usually asked by people who don’t believe in global warming—and an answer

Question: If global warming is real, why is it so cold in some parts of the world?

Answer: Global warming is a gradual and ongoing process that does not prevent cold weather. Global warming can make average cold weathers not to be colder, and average warm weathers to be hotter: when temperatures are rising, it would be unlikely for colder weathers to occur, and likely for hotter weathers to occur.

Another thing is that a study of special local weather patterns could be misleading. Weather specialists have observed that cold winters in the North-eastern part of U.S.A. could be an exception; in which case, there is abnormal warm winter around the same period in the whole of the northern hemisphere.

Over time, scientists expect winters to become shorter as global temperatures continue to rise. Some researchers have observed that colder-than-average winters could be caused by climate change. How? As the climate warms, more water vapor is produced; it enters the atmosphere, intensifies rain and snowstorms, thereby creating colder and snowier environments—winter.

Possible negative impacts of global warming in the future—if man-made heating activities are not curbed

  • According to the United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by the year 2100.
  • The polar ice cap may vanish completely and permanently, and alter the Earth’s natural weather by changing the flow of air and ocean currents around the world.
  • If all the ice in Antarctica melts, sea levels would rise by about 180 feet worldwide.
  • If all the ice in Greenland melts, sea levels would rise by about 21 feet worldwide.
  • If ocean and sea levels continue to rise, there will be a gradual change in the orientation of the map of the Earth’s coastlines

Do you think mankind should completely put a halt to man-made activities that have been heating up the Earth and causing drastic negative impacts on the environment? Or, do you think global warming doesn’t exist, and mankind should continue with its current rate of fossil fuel usage and other activities that have been reported to be the cause of global warming? Comments about your opinion will be highly appreciated in the comment section below.

Thank you.


  • What is seen in talks of global warming abounds in fear and the utilizing of people by manipulating that fear. The people and organizations involved in that area make billions of $ per year by virtue of keeping the debate going when ice core drill samples have show that emissions are going down rather than up.

    This planet as a whole is like a living organism. Your body is not just home to your awareness/soul/spirit, it is home to bacteria too (of numerous kinds.) Just as your body adjusts and changes temperature/output wise on the fly, so does the planet. There is an outlook that the Earth has always and should always remain in a fixed temperature. The planet has never operated from that fixed way, just as your own body has not. The planet is adjusting and will keep doing so. Nothing is static nor should it be.

    A single large volcano output would be enough to extinct most life on the planet and put out a trillion-trillion times worth of emissions than a millennia of human invention ever could.

    Liked by 7 people

    • thanks alot for visiting and commenting, but I don’t think you read the article which has important points from learned and well respected scientists on cases that have never been experienced before…so because volcanoes and the likes can occur and wipe out people, then mankind should deliberately continue heating the environment beyond measure: countless oil industries, factories, and the likes…

      also, you fail to address the fact that deliberate heating of the planet is unprecedented: as per recorded history, no other era has heated more the earth up more than the recent one… also, one thing your points are trying to say is that since life is full of other things we cant control, then it’s ok to continue heating up the planet… I can never buy such an idea….heating can/has to reduced, controlled or modified, whether volcanoes, the earth, or our bodies decide to change on their own, or not …

      Thank you

      Liked by 1 person

      • I have researched into it at one point and found scientists which provide evidence that things are the opposite to how it is conveyed. Those who take ice core samples from the north and south pole, showing less CO2 now than there was thousands of years ago, less even than there was 100 years ago.

        But this is not about convincing, it is an exchange of approaches/perception. I wholly respect your outlook and choices on the matter, as it no more wrong or right than my own. Each a choice within the infinite.

        Liked by 2 people

        • I find it hard to believe that 97% of brilliant scientists will come together and lie to the whole world

          Liked by 2 people

          • I think my last comment did not send. Let me know if it did though, I do not see it. This is a retype.

            Scientists are materialists. They deny the existence of souls/spirits/awareness and deny there being a source/God. They dissect human brains in the vain hope of finding a physical item that they can say drives each human experience. They only believe in what they can physically touch, anything they cannot touch does not exist to them. Naturally they operate from invested more limited ways/perspectives seeking to only confirm their reality and benefit their selves.

            Spirituality, religion, God, teaches us to see the intangible and connect with that. To transcend our limitations.

            Liked by 1 person

            • completely wrong and ambiguous to generalize and say scientists are materialists… your comments are beginning to have no relationship with the post just like certain bloggers do on posts… Google up everything in my post and you will see information in publications from UN and research groups of learned specialists who used years of study…some scientists could be materialists but many are religious and believe in GOD… Einstein and many others are not materialists; many are spiritual; that’s why they worked for the good of humanity…personally I don’t waste my time again arguing with people who just say anything and have no backup or authoritative sources for their claims… my discussion ends here since the foundation of our discussion is going off point, and will make me waste my energy typing, as the issue now is that scientists are materialists and all reports from their knowledge and years of practice, are deceptive… I will be wasting my time replying to comments that are unfounded… thank you… it was nice discussing with you… take care


        • I don’t see any reputable sources to back your claims that “at one point scientists…” show me evidence from reputable sources where up to 50% (not 60, or 70 or 97%) provided evidence to the contrary… show me where 90% of scientist agreed on something and it wasn’t true… show me… I dont argue against ambiguous statements when there is no reliable backup… thanks for discussing with you… I am already tired responding to unfounded comments…”but this is not convincing” is not a good comment because there is no specialty, no evidence from publications, no experience, just comments…. thank you…I’m off… take care

          Liked by 1 person

  • Very interesting. I think people would be more willing to make changes if they were specifically told what they could do. Something that could make a real difference. Not like “Meatless Mondays,” which won’t make a dent if McDonald’s is cranking out meat at the rate that they do.

    From my experience, beyond recycling (which many people already do), people need to feel that what they do will matter. Otherwise, I see the sentiment of “nothing I do will help if it’s me against Exxon (or add any other huge company here).”

    So, 1. specifics, and 2. that will make people feel they are making a difference.

    Anyway, my 2 cents. Thanks for the thorough explanation and blog! 🙂

    Liked by 5 people

    • your comment was nothing but awesome, very interesting…enjoyed each part of it… your points are like that of a specialist… what some of us believe is that if governments accept and acknowledge facts about the negative effects of global warming, then they should use their national political power, or international powers through UN to enforce regulations that will educate and compel people to do what ought to be done in order to save the environment from further decay…

      we read reports such as “the UN said this” and the “USA said that”; such comments don’t mean a thing if regulations or effective measures cannot be implemented and enforced after studying them…

      Thank you for very much for visiting, reading and making such great comment with very good points…

      Liked by 1 person

  • good one lhag

    Liked by 2 people

  • Let’s start with…normal tempature should be 0 degreees Farenheit. 32 degrees below freezing wouldn’t sustain much life anywhere on the planet so unless scientists believe that we should live on an ice planet, something is wrong with the entire picture. Second, you are fueling the AOC madness that the world will end in 12 years. Gore said that 12 years ago.

    Liked by 2 people

    • first, what is your background, specialty, years of experience in science, and what research have you done to disprove scientists’ comments regarding zero degrees Fahrenheit? you mean plants that need photosynthesis will get light in cold regions of 0 degrees Fahrenheit? no they won’t; and once plants can’t make it, there will be no food for man and animals…. maybe you don’t have a background or knowledge in science, if not you would have known about photosynthesis and its relationship with light and temperature… i won’t be surprised if your background is arts, political or social science…please click this link (title of research: the effect of temperature on the rate of photosynthesis. )

      where you will see the following comment from a study:

      “At low temperatures, between 32 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit – 0 and 10 degrees Celsius – the enzymes that carry out photosynthesis do not work efficiently, and this decreases the photosynthetic rate. This leads to a decrease in glucose production and will result in stunted growth. For plants inside a greenhouse, the installation of a greenhouse heater and thermostat prevents this from occurring”.—note that this just between 32 and 50 degrees Fahrenheit which are not as low as zero degrees… then imagine what would happen at 10 or zero degrees.

      also, the same study states that “for plants inside a greenhouse, the installation of a greenhouse heater and thermostat prevents this [stunted growth] from occurring”.

      second, what is it specifically that is wrong with the entire picture? be specific… third, show me from reputable sources where at least 50% (not even as high as 60, 70 or 97%) said the world would end….its wrong to call only one person’s name and generalize… anybody can wake up and say anything, but not an intelligent group that’s as high as 90% or more… that’s why I like peer reviewing science… name a group of reputable set of people that made such an ambiguous comment so that we can be sure many specialists agreed on such a comment… fourth, my post has nothing to do with predicting the end of the world… thank you


      • I’m just asking if you are parroting statistics that are dubious at best or if you have actually looked into this yourself.

        Liked by 1 person

        • you can Google up the accuracy of the stats/data in the post…In scientific research, which I have been doing, we prepare literature reviews and articles from authoritative sources… we dont make ambiguous comments without carrying out research by ourselves, or citing reputable sources that have carried out research… I use reputable sources and publications to prepare some of my scientific posts; the type that requires data like this one… maybe other bloggers don’t use reputable sources; they rather cook up stats/data, but I don’t…as is the practice in academia, we don’t publish anything without, either a combination of one or more of the following: personal observation, qualitative research/study, data, tests, or information from other people who have carried out research, etc.

          Liked by 1 person

  • Whether you believe in it or not, major changes to the earth have already happened. Loss of thousands of species in every eco system are being reported each week. Who is responsible for stewardship of our planet? We are. How fast, how dire the results; how effective interventions will be, is unknown, but doing nothing seems irresponsible as young people all over the world are trying to tell our leaders.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thanks alot for your comments but this article has nothing to do with major changes on Earth, which goes way beyond global warming, or activities linked with it; neither is the post about loss of species… its targeted at manmade activities that heat the world, and is causing the present environmental negative impacts, with future consequences…


  • Very interesting and informative!

    Liked by 3 people

  • Okay I’ll give a little if you will. If indeed this was a well researched post, where are the references and footnotes. In academia you would be rejected outright without references for your material. Some of the feedback above should tell you something about your assertion that 97% of scientists agree with the position or the possible solutions. These are precisely the statements brought out for the Paris accord that was later abandoned because the science behind it was completely debunked.

    Liked by 2 people

  • okay sorry, but I am searching for any real consensus or evidence that temperatures are rising too fast, or that sea levels are increasing. I have lived on Guam for 29 years now and no, the ocean levels are not rising.

    Liked by 2 people

    • as much as I know, you might not experience rising sea levels if the land elevation of Guam is too high… each part of the world is at different land elevation levels… so rising water would reach some parts of the world earlier than others…I am tired of typing, and I am at work now; if you desire, send me message at, I will make quick searches and give you publications or researches on any consensus or evidence that temperatures are rising too fast… thanks


      • Tell me where sea levels are rising. Tell me why 1 degree Farenheit in a century is dramatic. Tell me where and how 97% of what scientists agreed on this data. Answer me about the Paris Accord which was proven to be based on bad science (the models used had no basis in fact).


  • Global warming is a very serious issue that most of people have understood but done nothing to help in reducing the impact.

    Liked by 3 people

  • Stepping past who’s responsible for global warming, we need to accept that we are in a stage where we need to take some action. Opposition to that is based on humanities greed. Greed, wanting more than you need, is strong to the point that it appears, in some respects genetic as well as conditioned.
    My query is how do we change humanities heart when it comes to greed?
    If we fail to start examining the actual issues we will continue to argue and view content and avoid the processes that keep us in the “failure to act” modality.

    Liked by 2 people

    • 👋👋👋… very thoughtful comment… I just had to clap and agree with all your points, very meaningful…

      like you hinted, action has to be taken; that should be now, because I think things have already been delayed for too long, especially with reports of countries still emitting large quantities of carbon dioxide, etc., beyond emission levels

      and yes, the greed of money (example businesspeople) and greed of power (example politicians) are the things making it difficult for people to cut down greenhouse gases emissions…

      I understand rich businesspeople own alot of factories, and might have heart attacks if their industries/factories operations are stepped down, or shut down … also, politicians who halt or reduce activities emitting gases could lose elections because of how unpopular regulations on cutting down emissions could be.

      I love your query: “how do we change humanities heart when it comes to greed?” great question… and probably that’s where the major battle lies — the mind/heart

      Liked by 1 person

  • Could we be creating our own hell?

    Liked by 2 people

  • It’s just amazing to me that there are still people who question this!

    Liked by 3 people

  • Thank you for following my blog. I look forward to reading yours.

    Liked by 3 people

  • I think we need to look for a balanced approach. It seems impossible to take humanity to pre-industrial society; we need to put control measures and develop alternatives. But regression is not a solution.

    Liked by 3 people

    • thanks for your comment Zeeshan, I agree with you that we won’t gain much going back to the days of our ancestors, but if we can’t effectively control the situation, maybe going back will preserve humanity better…on the other hand, solar energy and renewable energy, which are far less polluting, should be exploited more, instead of neglecting non-renewable fossil fuels along with all other types of fuels that release large quantities of carbon and GHGs after combustion…

      Liked by 1 person

  • ourkairosnow1017

    Yes and too think that our Gods Grace is bigger and more powerful to even global warming is an awesome thought indeed.
    Grace the gift that keeps on giving.
    And on that day the Lord created a New Heaven and A New Earth and death was cast into the abyss forever. Amen

    Liked by 2 people

    • thank you for visiting and commenting… your comment would have been well accepted by me, except for the obvious fact that GOD’s grace doesn’t overlook conscious negligence, especially when people are matured and intelligent enough to clearly distinguish right from wrong…there are no babies in this issue… I have 2 Bible verses for you:

      James 4: 17—Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it (new living translation);

      Romans 6: 1—What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase (new living translation)?

      Merging these 2 verses, I ask: when we know it’s wrong to pollute the Earth, shall we go on polluting it, so that GOD’s grace may abound—especially because there will be a new heaven and earth, which will come after people might have suffered and died?

      On a general note, if we consider these 2 verses along with the seriousness of the Earth-heating issue on ground, and compare them with what GOD says in his word regarding right and wrong, then it would be surprising why people use GOD’s grace as an excuse to keep on harming the environment.

      I’ts funny how a verse will be used as an excuse that everything will be alright, as if GOD gave mankind mud for brains when he asked us to take proper care of the world…


  • with all the negative effects of fossil fuel combustion occurring, and very clear points that should guide people on what to do, it is surprising how some people use religion or Bible verses to comfort mankind instead of advising them to stop what ought to be stopped. tantamount to playing GOD as if we are playing with someone who is corrupt.

    funny how someone will bring up the issue of new heaven and new earth that comes after all the suffering and pain, when the conditions of today require action. if you talk about new heaven and earth, also talk about hell; then one will understand how serious you are

    Some comments are a pity. on some other websites, authors don’t waste their time replying certain insensible comments. nice to share such a thoughtful article…

    Liked by 5 people

    • thank you for visiting and making such a thoughtful observation… your points echo most of the points the post highlighted: people should know what is going on wrong and take a different path—simple and short…someone talks about a new heaven and earth, without talking about hell, as if they are GOD, and have suddenly decided to discard hell because GOD overlooks every sin… hmmm, hell is right there too, just opposite the new heaven and earth

      most times, the decision to discuss with everyone, is a waste of time that’s why some other blog owners might have done what you said…personally, I keep discussions open and close stop them when I start noticing comments that support laxity, nonchalance, carelessness…

      If you look at comments on this post, it will be easy observe that I shouldn’t have wasted my precious time responding to some of them in the first place… why? because the comments lack depth…

      Thank you for visiting, reading and making a meaningful contribution…

      Liked by 1 person

  • The principal problem means the human overpopulation not leaving enough space for all the other creatures here on our blue planet. And the human population is still growing and growing. This can’t work out and is usually not discussed in an appropriate manner. Simply how to feed all these people when the African population will double in the next decades as predicted?

    Liked by 3 people

    • the issue of global warming is not reliant on population, but the type of energy-using or heat-emitting activities the population is using; and there are many types and options; with fossil fuel combustion as the most climate threatening one…

      everybody who agrees in anthropogenic causes of global warming would agree that if a population of 10 million people use other far lesser GHG-emitting activities instead of fossil fuel, the climate would be far better than (for example) when one single person uses fossil fuel combustion to operate 10000 factories around the world, and release alot of GHGs…so its not so much about population, but it’s about the type of heat-emitting activity the population uses, and the number that are using it; and these activities can be regulated by specialists or advisers who work with world leaders…

      if the population is educated and their activities are regulated by world leaders such that they can depend on energy sources that emit far less GHGs than fossil fuel combustion does, then we won’t have the type of hotter climate we have today… you can complain about population when it comes to littering of waste in rivers and lands, and overconsumption of resources (overconsumption won’t be an issue for societies that increase their agricultural activities)…when considering global warming, population not as significant as the rate of high impacting GHG fossil fuel heat-emitting activities, and less impacting ones like solar energy and renewable biofuel energy that are in use

      Liked by 1 person

  • Mr Ihagh, I took a cursory look at this topic and it is simply outstanding. We mostly think that the effect of global warming is a joke. Ironically, we there is no other planet we can migrate to if we do not take drastic measures to contain this grave menace. Good work.

    Liked by 3 people

  • Thank you for your blog post on climate change. Was there a reason you chose “Global Warming” over “Climate Change”? For me “climate change” better reflects what is actually happening to our planet. Take for example the moronic congressman who appeared in congress with a snowball as proof that scientist are wrong about global warming; his case would have been less compelling if he said “climate change”.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’re welcome and thank you very for your comment..although “climate change” is very appropriate, I chose “global warming” because of concern over the unregulated quantity and rate of fossil fuel combustion, which was one of the main talking points in Paris, and which is unprecedented… your comments about the congressmen make me laugh, but is a befitting description for their inept attitude over the issue.


  • Very interesting blog,I’ll come back later and have a proper read.

    Liked by 2 people

  • Reblogged this on Norvergence and commented:
    Thanks for this post.

    We at Norvergence working in the same field and making people aware of global warming.

    Liked by 5 people

    • your welcome, thanks alot for reblogging the post… the news is negative but people need to be aware… if those with political power don’t want to do the needful, the people who voted them, if properly educated on the issue, can compel politicians to have a rethink… good enough some groups (old, new, and anything in between) that are creating social awareness on the issue, and social awareness can lead to positive political change

      Liked by 1 person

  • Can there be many more posts about one subject. Considering the depth of articles around this one stands out. Many thanks.

    Liked by 3 people

  • Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You definitely know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your blog when you could be giving us something informative to read?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Great post! These sort of posts are so necessary in this day and age as we reach a critical point from which there will be no turning back. I’m glad to see there are other like-minded bloggers out there 🙂

    The deniers really do my head in… And the governments really need to stop playing bipartisan politics when it comes to these issues. This is going to be a global issue and need global teamwork to address. Our wasteful lifestyles are going to need to drastically change as well. It’s time for a new way of living.

    Liked by 1 person

  • You are a very smart person!

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.