Corporate Media And Climate Change

Granny says, "Dat's right - it's gonna be just awful if we don't stop climate change...
icon_grandma.gif

Obama Predicts Submerged Cities, Mass Migrations, Food Supplies Decimated ‘If We Don’t Act Boldly’ on Climate Change
September 20, 2016 | In a speech to the United Nations Tuesday, President Barack Obama said if the world does not “act boldly” on climate change, there will be "mass migrations," submerged cities and "decimated" food supplies.
“If we don’t act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations and cities submerged and nations displaced and food supplies decimated and conflicts born of despair,” said Obama.
“The Paris agreement gives us a framework to act but only if we scale up our ambition, and there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy,” he added. “So for the wealthiest countries, a green climate fund should only be the beginning,” Obama said.

“We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries and only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair,” he said.

Obama Predicts Submerged Cities, Mass Migrations, Food Supplies Decimated ‘If We Don’t Act Boldly’ on Climate Change
 
Almost as if there's an actual debate about climate change.


Let's have one. I'll start:

On planet Earth today, one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, has 9 times the ice of the other, is on average 50F colder, and puts 9 times the ice into the oceans (some 46 times the molecular H2O the Miss River dumps in the Gulf).

Why?

Why does one Earth polar circle cool Earth more than the other???


Start the Jeopardy! music
 
There is no debate with climate change. It happens all the time. Has for billions of years.
DUH
 
You say that and your evidence, as far as I can tell, is your contention that at some point in history Greenland was covered with ice while North America was not.

The "evidence" that CO2 warms the planet is a good deal more direct. CO2 absorption spectra has been measured in the lab with great precision. The spectra of downwelling IR radiation from the clear night sky has been recorded. It is a known FACT that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain bands of light. The effect of that action is to slow the rate at which IR energy escapes the planet's atmosphere. Thus an increasing level of CO2 will invariably lead to an increasing equilibrium temperature.

How does your historical idea, thus far supported only by your unsubstantiated assertions, refute ANY of what I've just said? Whether you think the empirical evidence supports the idea or no, show us why CO2 would NOT warm the planet.
 
You say that and your evidence, as far as I can tell, is your contention that at some point in history Greenland was covered with ice while North America was not.

The "evidence" that CO2 warms the planet is a good deal more direct. CO2 absorption spectra has been measured in the lab with great precision. The spectra of downwelling IR radiation from the clear night sky has been recorded. It is a known FACT that CO2 absorbs and retransmits certain bands of light. The effect of that action is to slow the rate at which IR energy escapes the planet's atmosphere. Thus an increasing level of CO2 will invariably lead to an increasing equilibrium temperature.

How does your historical idea, thus far supported only by your unsubstantiated assertions, refute ANY of what I've just said? Whether you think the empirical evidence supports the idea or no, show us why CO2 would NOT warm the planet.
Whether you think the empirical evidence supports the idea or no, show us why CO2 would NOT warm the planet

I'll jump in here for this one, dude, that has to be one of the stupidest posts of the day in here. yeahhhhhhhhh, you win. You can't prove it does, so instead you want proof it doesn't. that's spectacular my friend.
 
your contention that at some point in history Greenland was covered with ice while North America was not.


Actually, that's now, crick. One million years ago, North America looked like this...




while Greenland was GREEN... all GREEN...

Ancient Greenland Was Actually Green


"The oldest ever recovered DNA samples have been collected from under more than a mile of Greenland ice, and their analysis suggests the islandwas much warmer during the last Ice Age than previously thought.

The DNA is proof that sometime between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, much of Greenland was especially green and covered in a boreal forestthat was home to alder, spruce and pine trees, as well as insects such as butterflies and beetles"
 
Greenland is visible in your image you fooking nitwit. It is shown covered with a solid ice cap.
 
That the diagram shows it covered in ice means what??

LOL!!!

The DATA from Greenland proves it was not covered, that the whole concept of an "ice age" is wrong. "ICE AGE" is a continent specific term, and Greenland/NA proves that and the truth that CO2 has nothing to do with climate change.
 
You just said it was green. Looks more... well... whitish, to me.

And, you know, YOU didn't invent the term "ice age". In fact, it was invented in 1724 by Pierre Martel. Can you show us a single scientist since that time who agrees with you about this continent-specific idea of yours? Can you find one that says ice ages are controlled solely by plate tectonics and not, say, Malenkovitch Cycles? Can you? Eh?

Or are you - with no applicable education whatsoever - claiming to be smarter than almost 200 years worth of real scientists working on this topic?
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top