Mudslides are now confirmation for global warming?
Yep, gramps. In order to spread their propaganda they have to ratchet up the bs.
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.
Mudslides are now confirmation for global warming?
That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.
If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.
I've always been honest but I never said I had a lack of will or we shouldn't continue to improve on pollutants and alternative energies. I'd love to drive an all electric car and charge it at home. Taxing the bejesus out of citizens and dumping the cash into programs that aren't fruitful but scores big political points or paybacks isn't going to help.That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.
If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.
So you confirm that your lack of will is NOT because the science refutes the premise, but because you think corrective action in the U.S. would be too expensive and of little consequences since China will continue unabated.
Good - that is at least honest. I can appreciate that.
I am very close to agreeing with you. I don't want to see the average person - who is already spending way too much of his or her income on energy - get hit even harder.
I've always been honest but I never said I had a lack of will or we shouldn't continue to improve on pollutants and alternative energies. I'd love to drive an all electric car and charge it at home. Taxing the bejesus out of citizens and dumping the cash into programs that aren't fruitful but scores big political points or paybacks isn't going to help.That's odd since we have been decreasing pollutants as technology increases. Where do you see a lack of will? We could cut US emissions to zero and it would have little effect on global CO2s since China is still going full bore without the concern. There's a little honesty for you.
So you confirm that your lack of will is NOT because the science refutes the premise, but because you think corrective action in the U.S. would be too expensive and of little consequences since China will continue unabated.
Good - that is at least honest. I can appreciate that.
I am very close to agreeing with you. I don't want to see the average person - who is already spending way too much of his or her income on energy - get hit even harder.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.
Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.
Geological cycles. Nothing more, nothing less. That we're this arrogant to think that we're anything greater than a pinprick is startling. I suggest reading john mcphee.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.
Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.
These landowners knew the dangers of living on a hill that is constantly saturated.....or they should have. Landslides have been happening for millions of years. This isn't new phenomena. If I make the decision to live at the base of an active volcano and it erupts there is no one to blame. I made that decision.
Here in the Pacific Northwest, we have just seen a tragedy concerning a landslide, predicted by scientists, and ignored by all that could have done something to lessen the toll. Politically not expediant to make people uncomfortable. Until they start dieing from that sick set of mind.
Now we have the vast majority of scientists from all over the world stating that global warming is a clear and present danger, one that is already creating problems. And they will be damned by the very same kind of people that let others die for political expediancy.
I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.
If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.
I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.
If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.
Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.
So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?
Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.
Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.
What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.
I would find it very refreshing to hear some honesty in the Climate Change debate.
If the naysayers would stop the ignorant denials and just admit that they just don't have the will to change anything in response, I could respect that.
Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.
So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?
Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.
Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.
What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.
Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.
Here is some honestly for you. The consensus of scientists that you loons rely on has a major qualifier, and that qualifier is the word "likely". Likely is not a scientific term, and it simply means that the scientists don't really know if climate change is real, but they suspect that it might be real.
So, if you want honesty in debate, start with your own assertion that climate change is settled science. Settled science does not include maybes?
Then, lets include some other "maybes". Scientists do not know whether climate change will be good for the population of the world, or bad for them. Nor, do they know whether, or not, we can do a damn thing to reverse the process.
Consequently, you have to pardon me for not desiring to throw our economy into the dumps in a futile effort to reverse something that we do not know is good or bad, and is only likely to occur.
What we do know, is that the earth has been generally warming since the apex of the last ice age, and will continue to warm until it decides to start the cooling process back toward the next ice age. We are going to get warmer, and the only question is, how fast will that warming take place.
Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.
Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.
Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.
Yeah, who needs that pointy-haided book larnin' anyway
As the number of weather extemes increases, and the toll becomes greater, what are the political repercussions going to be for those that have been telling people that nothing is happening? My prediction is that people like Senator Inhofe will make a speech in which he will damn the scientists whom he presently castigaters for perpetuating a hoax, for not giving any warning. These "Conservatives" are quite allergic to accountability.
Read my post above - it will outline the leaps and assumptions you incorrectly made about my position.
Read my post and you will see that I responded to your demand for honesty in debate. The science is not settled, and the deniers are not anti-science. They are practical.
Otherwise, I have no disagreement with your argument.
Ok, then show me my post where I said Climate Change is "settled science" as you claimed.
Ya know, just for HONESTY'S sake ...
As the number of weather extemes increases, and the toll becomes greater, what are the political repercussions going to be for those that have been telling people that nothing is happening? My prediction is that people like Senator Inhofe will make a speech in which he will damn the scientists whom he presently castigaters for perpetuating a hoax, for not giving any warning. These "Conservatives" are quite allergic to accountability.
Would the current tornado drought the US is experiencing be part of those "weather extremes"? The slide that happened in WA was a combination of weather and geology, nothing magical, in nature shit happens, more people are affected because the population is spreading into areas where few once lived.