More global warming

Six more inches of global warming headed for NYC. Boston's "shovel ready jobs program" has already dealt with nine feet this season and will get a few inches more. If it gets any hotter the planet is certain to erupt in flames by summer.

Six more inches of global warming headed for NYC. Boston's "shovel ready jobs program" has already dealt with nine feet this season and will get a few inches more. If it gets any hotter the planet is certain to erupt in flames by summer. Originally Posted by rioseco

Get ready for... "It's Bushes fault"... fucking Ozombies

Again, you're confusing weather and climate. They aren't the same thing. But please, continue on in ignorance, if that is what you choose to do.

here, let a black man school you, if you can stomach it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

Six more inches of global warming headed for NYC. Boston's "shovel ready jobs program" has already dealt with nine feet this season and will get a few inches more. If it gets any hotter the planet is certain to erupt in flames by summer. Originally Posted by rioseco

West coast will agree with climate change. they would welcome six more inches of snow. The only "shovel ready" jobs are removing the shit you spread.

Again, you're confusing weather and climate. They aren't the same thing. But please, continue on in ignorance, if that is what you choose to do.

here, let a black man school you, if you can stomach it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Considering that we are 500 feet above sea level here in Dallas, who cares if the sea level rises 10 feet? (I don't have a house in Galveston, either) Those people who live at the coast need to put their homes up on stilts or leave. It isn't my problem.

Considering that we are 500 feet above sea level here in Dallas, who cares if the sea level rises 10 feet? (I don't have a house in Galveston, either) Those people who live at the coast need to put their homes up on stilts or leave. It isn't my problem. Originally Posted by DSK

You breathe air, I assume? It isn't your problem? That's an enlightened view on things. ON the coast, not AT, bee tee dubs.

You breathe air, I assume? It isn't your problem? That's an enlightened view on things. ON the coast, not AT, bee tee dubs. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You sure about "on" and not "at"?

You sure about "on" and not "at"? Originally Posted by DSK

I'm sure. They live IN a house ON the coast. Or, they're staying AT a hotel ON the coast. I guess you could say AT, but that would indicate they live directly on the spot that divides the land and water since it indicates a position. Sorry, not busting your balls, just been an editor and writer for way too long. And that turns you into a grammar whore.

Trust me, UC, he isn't who he wants you to believe him to be.

Trust me, UC, he isn't who he wants you to believe him to be. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I know who he is...

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the climate is changing. Guess what? It's NORMAL! Climate has been in a state of constant change since the Earth was formed. We need to focus on adaptation, not assigning blame, or thinking that more government control will change things. This whole hysteria is not based on climate, it is over the government trying to assume even more control over us using "climate change" for their cover story. The government doesn't need more control.

Lets ask a climate skeptic, a co-founder of Green Peace, a real live climate scientist what he thinks;

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...change-skeptic

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

March 20, 2015





<A href="http://news.heartland.org/patrick-moore">
Patrick Moore

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a... (read full bio)

• Print
• Email

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.

Lets ask a climate skeptic, a co-founder of Green Peace, a real live climate scientist what he thinks;

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...change-skeptic

Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

March 20, 2015





<A href=&quot;http://news.heartland.org/patrick-moore&quot;>
Patrick Moore

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a... (read full bio)

• Print
• Email

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.
I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”
My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.
In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.
The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.
Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.
IPCC Conflict of Interest
By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.
The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.
Political Powerhouse
Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.
Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.
So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.
Human Emissions Saved Planet
Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.
At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.
We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?
Celebrate Carbon Dioxide
The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.
Patrick Moore (pmoore@allowgoldenricenow.org) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Excellent article and citation.

Trust me, UC, he isn't who he wants you to believe him to be. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Perhaps you should share the source of your superior knowledge. 24601

I'm sure. They live IN a house ON the coast. Or, they're staying AT a hotel ON the coast. I guess you could say AT, but that would indicate they live directly on the spot that divides the land and water since it indicates a position. Sorry, not busting your balls, just been an editor and writer for way too long. And that turns you into a grammar whore. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

No problem, I appreciate the response. I would use your same argument to correct someone who says they live "on" the river. It wouldn't be correct unless they lived in a houseboat.

Hemingway framed the problem perfectly when he stated he wanted to write "one true sentence".