Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who is responding to the tornados that we have had and are having as we post? Who is responding to the flooding? Government at all levels. I do believe that is what we created government for, to help handle crisis, small and large, that have to be handled as a society.
Yes, as the climate changes, and there are more weather related disasters, we will see more government involvement. Or would you rather see a Katrina like response?
I'd rather that misanthropic Chicken Littles like you, with your scaremonger non sequiturs, STFU and leave people alone.
Growing gubmint is all about the proactive use of force upon the citizenry, dumbshit.
The reputed intentions of do-gooder nanny windbags like you are irrelevant to this fact.
I don't care what the intentions are...The means of proactive aggression against harmless and peaceful people are abhorrent, no matter the supposed intent.
Try reading for comprehension sometime, Vermin.
Just wondering;
For 10 years the warmers said weather was going to get worse, and hurricane seasons were going to be horrendous.
For all of those years it's been mild. One was a record mild.
Why didn't any of the warmers stop and wonder if they were being fooled?
Why do warmers think it's a great idea to spike the ball on dead people and scream see we were right [finally]?
"Climate change? No, said Howard Bluestein, professor of meteorology at University of Oklahoma. "This is something that happens every 10 or 20 years when everything comes together like this. This is just natural variability.
"Most meteorologists agree with Bluestein"...from the Huffpost.
Seems like we gauge weather severity based on our own life experience, conveniently forgetting the first 4.5 billion years of weather events.
Citation?... like the fact that man emits more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!!!
"Climate change? No, said Howard Bluestein, professor of meteorology at University of Oklahoma. "This is something that happens every 10 or 20 years when everything comes together like this. This is just natural variability.
"Most meteorologists agree with Bluestein"...from the Huffpost.
Seems like we gauge weather severity based on our own life experience, conveniently forgetting the first 4.5 billion years of weather events.
No one is forgetting anything. It's just that you can't take the past as a template for the future, if underlying conditions have changed, like the fact that man emits more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!!!
such as....
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
and...
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Citation?... like the fact that man emits more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!!!
Citation?... like the fact that man emits more CO2 in DAYS than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!!!
...Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value...
such as....
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
and...
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Please support these assertions with scientific reference and citation.
such as....
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
and...
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
Please support these assertions with scientific reference and citation.
If allowed, i would have
I generate more energy than I consume and do so through renewable and sustainable (non-CO2 emitting) sources, I would prefer to simply have more people follow a similar path. But I agree with you that life would be much more simple if people that seem to hate technology and the advancements and economic benefits of modern scientific understanding would simply "walk the walk" of their rejectionist luddite talk, the rest of us could go about building the future. As Frank Rowland (president of the AAAS back in the early 90s and a Nobel laureate atmospheric chemist honored for his work on the discovery of stratospheric chlorofluorocarbons' role in ozone depletion), is quoted as saying; "...Whats the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all were willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?..."
The problem with your post is that you've created a Straw Man. Who are these "rejectionist luddites" you're talking about? No one on this board that I know of!!!
I generate more energy than I consume and do so through renewable and sustainable (non-CO2 emitting) sources, I would prefer to simply have more people follow a similar path. But I agree with you that life would be much more simple if people that seem to hate technology and the advancements and economic benefits of modern scientific understanding would simply "walk the walk" of their rejectionist luddite talk, the rest of us could go about building the future. As Frank Rowland (president of the AAAS back in the early 90s and a Nobel laureate atmospheric chemist honored for his work on the discovery of stratospheric chlorofluorocarbons' role in ozone depletion), is quoted as saying; "...Whats the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions, if in the end, all were willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?..."
The problem with your post is that you've created a Straw Man. Who are these "rejectionist luddites" you're talking about? No one on this board that I know of!!!
I see a board filled with people who have seemingly rejected science and the technological solutions science is offering as well as the sound economic benefits that further development of, and the switching over to, of more efficient and sustainable energies will bring. I'm not sure why they reject it, but I suspect that it is some misguided political bias given their rampant use of the terms "librul" and "commie." Which have little or nothing to do with the science or realities of Anthropogenic Global Warming.
