Latest Data On Climate Change: Warm and Conservative Texas is Screwed

[daveman]

Hyper-emotional fear mongering? That is the environmentalist left with an agenda. An honorable agenda, but an admittedly alarmist one at times. and they often have science on their side

remember acid rain, smog from autos/trucks, cigarettes not causing cancer?

The wingnut agenda has forever been using junk science to create doubt. Why? They are reactionaries. They would burn down the house to kill a spider if they were told spiders are leftists.

I'm sure it comforts your scared and feeble mind to believe that, but no.

The left wants to burn down the economies of the Western world to "save it" from AGW. Not only can they not prove their claims about CO2, but they have no idea what impact their meddling with the biosphere would do.

But it's okay, since they mean well.

Evidently a consensus in science on man's contribution to global warming/climate change is different from the political one.

I had no idea the Scientific community world wide and the Academies of Science wanted to burn down the economies of the Western world.

Does FOX News know about this?

Science isn't done by consensus. Politics is.

IPCC Official:

IPCC OFFICIAL: “CLIMATE POLICY IS REDISTRIBUTING THE WORLD’S WEALTH”

Date: 18/11/10
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

--

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.


That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.


That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.


Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.


De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.


First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.​

 

[SSDD]

There is not a single Scientific Society, not a single Academy of Science, and not a single University in the world that states that AGW is a fraud. In fact, virtually all state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger.

Are you so naive that you belive that the political front offices of scientific bodies are immune to the corruption that can be brought on by money? By the way, the bodies of those scientific societies that you incessantly harp on are of a different opinion than that expressed by the front office.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The hottest year on record for one country? Why is that significant on a global scale?

Why was it significant enough to be constantly mentioned by you deniars prior to that record of 1934 being eclipsed?

Why was it hot 1934? AGW?

 

[Dubya]

Only idiots would listen to Al Gore. You retards don't even know how to listen. Al Gore isn't a scientist, he's a politician, fool! What until next summer, because your time is up!

That is one of the first intelligent things I have heard you say. Now follow that thought for a little while. Exactly who are the present day scientific superstars beholden to if they want to maintain the sort of lifestyle that 10 billion plus dollars in grant money per year can provide?

Climate science doesn't get much money.

Yes, there is satellite data, but where does it come from? It comes from our Navy, because we had and have nuclear submarines under the sea ice. Our first submarines had to use active sonar to measure the thickness of the sea ice. Active sonar gives away your position, so we put satellites in space. Submarines need stealth.

All that climate data in the US comes from DOD and Commerce Department sources. If you think for one minute that environmentalist got the government to do something, you are sadly mistaken. The Brits put submarines under that sea ice, too, and that's not the total story. Russia has subs, put they suck!

I've followed that data for years, so show me when or where the environmentalists produced it! It's all military and commerce.