Has the United States surrendered to anthropogenic climate change?

And what would you mitigate.

Asking for a friend.
If indeed the climate is getting hotter -- there would have to be some agreement with the tribes -- we'd look at mitigating the damage of heat, drought, flooding/drainage, crops, etc. That doesn't require agreement over WHY it's getting hotter, and since the tribes will never agree on that, we should be looking at the back end.

Now, virtually all of your posts to me include personal insults and namecalling. If that's the best you can do, I've answered your question, and you're welcome.
 
AccordB4After.webp
 
Was 58 this morning, now 71F!

Unprecedented warming in 3 hours!

At this rate it will be 320F on July 4th!!

Science!
 
If indeed the climate is getting hotter -- there would have to be some agreement with the tribes -- we'd look at mitigating the damage of heat, drought, flooding/drainage, crops, etc. That doesn't require agreement over WHY it's getting hotter, and since the tribes will never agree on that, we should be looking at the back end.

Now, virtually all of your posts to me include personal insults and namecalling. If that's the best you can do, I've answered your question, and you're welcome.

China CO2 = (USA *2) + India

I know you guys clam to be all about the "Science"

Maybe focus on China?
 
China and India seem to be not so worried.

It's almost as if China was behind the entire "Climate Change" scam as a way to make gullible and hateful people hurt their own economies while they continue as the worlds leading emitter of CO2
 
Now, virtually all of your posts to me include personal insults and namecalling.
First, lest you are ignorant, all of your posts about most of anything degrade those you don't agree with.
If indeed the climate is getting hotter -- there would have to be some agreement with the tribes -- we'd look at mitigating the damage of heat, drought, flooding/drainage, crops, etc.
O.K. I guess I wasn't clear. I understand this much. What specifics might people be talking about ?
That doesn't require agreement over WHY it's getting hotter, and since the tribes will never agree on that, we should be looking at the back end.
Again.....I was not clear. You've posted this before and we had part of this discussion a while back.

And I totally agree. We should be looking at how things will work in the future.

In many ways, they didn't work before (unless you call s-holes like Chicago a success). Who's doing the re-engineering.
 
Dirty fuel profiteers obviously have a powerful economic incentive to deny the scientific reality.

A climatologist who could compile data showing that spewing millions of tonnes of industrial waste gases into the atmosphere does not impact the atmosphere would be paid a fortune.
As the climate alarmists fly their private jets to their oceanfront properties on Martha's Vineyard. :rolleyes-41:


1000004566.webp

Obama's Martha's Vineyard home is THREE FEET above see level.

1000004567.webp
 
If indeed the climate is getting hotter -- there would have to be some agreement with the tribes -- we'd look at mitigating the damage of heat, drought, flooding/drainage, crops, etc. That doesn't require agreement over WHY it's getting hotter, and since the tribes will never agree on that, we should be looking at the back end.

Now, virtually all of your posts to me include personal insults and namecalling. If that's the best you can do, I've answered your question, and you're welcome.
 
As noted, the hardcore ideologues (who are obviously not climatologists) are incapable of accepting the objective, data-based concurrence of actual climatologists regarding climatology.

They are the unwitting lackeys of the dirty fuel cartel, and no amount of empirical data can impact their dogma.


 
15th post
Yes, for all intensive purpose, the United States has surrendered to anthropogenic climate change, rejecting scientific expertise and embracing the ideological dogma of the deniers' media entertainers and politicians with no expertise in climatology.

Holy ****
This **** is illiterate.
 
Expert consensus in all disciplines of science is not political.


Your ideological perversions do not apply to any of them.
Political. Not science. There is zero empirical evidence to support AGW. It is ALL derived from computer models.

And those models are so poorly written that no matter what numbers are plugged in the results are always the same.

Your ideological perversions don't apply to the real world. Only the world of computer derived fiction.
 
Its not panic, but simply switching to more sustainable methods we should have considered long ago.
I agree with your point, but the other side is that "climate change" has been the false flag to restrict liberty. The fact is that climate has ALWAYS changed, with or without man. The record for that is clear.
 
The old farts who can't handle the science strain to make it an ideological matter because they are ideologues but, obviously, it is a scientific one, and younger, better-educated conservatives get it.


I'm older than you, AND I'm a scientist. And I can recognize a pseudo science when I see one.
 
Back
Top Bottom