Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From June 1595 through June 1604 there was a major drought in the Southeast US. That drought was responsible for the collapse of all 3 of the Roanoke (Virginia) Colonies.
Man-made Global Warming? Wrong answer.
From May 1679 through May 1688 a mini Ice-Age resulted in near famine conditions in the New England Colonies and Atlantic Coast Colonies. The ground was frozen solid from about August through June, leaving only 6 weeks to till the soil, plant crops and harvest them. Below what would now be Interstate 80, the growing season was a little longer, about 10 weeks.
Man-made Global Warming? Man-made Global Cooling? Wrong answer.
From April 1763 through April 1772 a drought in the Atlantic Coast Colonies resulted in near-famine conditions. The drought, in combination with rolling recessions in many European kingdoms precipitated by the collapse of the British East India Trading Company brought trade to a virtual halt between Britain and its American Colonies. The recession and lack of trade led Britain to enact various tax acts, including the Stamp Tax Act (leading to the creation of the Stamp Tax Congress), the Tea Tax (leading to the Boston Tea Party) and other acts. That in turn led to the War of Colonial Independence. Cash-strapped farmers nearing bankruptcy during the drought were all too glad to sell their crops to the Continental Congress on credit. The Congress promptly defaulted on debts leaving the farmers high and dry. The new government under the Articles of Confederation levied taxes on the farmers leading to the Whiskey Rebellion, Shay's Rebellion and many other rebellions most of you never heard of in your life. That in turn led to the creation of the Constitutional government.
Man-made Global Warming? Wrong answer.
From March 1847 through June 1855 a drought in the Southeastern US resulted in economic distress for the Southern States. The Northern States all too gladly price-gouged the South on food-crops. When the South negotiated a deal with Britain to trade cotton for food, the Northern States promptly enacted a tariff to force the South to continue to buy price-gouged food-crops. That, in part, influenced many southern States later to secede from the Union. In response, Lincoln created the Department of Agriculture in 1862 to help alleviate problems caused by food shortages due to droughts.
Man-made Global Warming? Wrong answer.
From June 1930 through June 1939, a major drought affected the Central Plain States from Montana/the Dakotas south to Texas. It's commonly referred to as the Dust Bowl. More than 2.5 Million people were forced to permanently flee their homes due to advancing dust which destroyed towns. There was a medical condition called "dust pneumonia" which killed thousands of people. Dust storms were large and wide-spread, causing people in Chicago, Cincinnati and Washington, DC to drive with their head-lights on during the day so that they could see. In Texas and Oklahoma, dust storms engulfed whole towns for hours turning day into night and causing massive damage.
Man-made Global Warming? Wrong answer.
You might want to actually get with the program.
You just reminded me of what nap taking for children was like in the 1930s. I well remember the summers of 1936 - 1938 taking a nap with all windows in the house open with wet towels hanging in them to keep down the moving dust in the house. I didn't know at the time why that was but later my mother told me. We didn't know what AC was back then but can't do without it now, can we?
Also, you brought back the days of all those rebellions of the early Constitutional period. Those were some good ones but it seems the government won all of them. I wonder if they will manage that the next time around. I hope we manage to miss that time but don't know, for sure, that we will.
Oh gosh, we had the snowiest winter in history in the north east, I guess that means global warming is a hoax? Don't the alarmists tell us weather isn't climate?
When they found out that warming just wasn't taking place they shifted to climate change to keep the argument going. It gets funnier and funnier as time goes by.
Haven't we been burning fossil fuels during all of those times as well?
I guess that you don't know what the pioneers burned in the Great Plains when they moved out here. It wasn't fossil fuel or wood. For some reason, mainly the great buffalo herds that ate the shoots of trees along the rivers and creeks and it was just too dry anywhere else for trees to get started. Oh, I forgot, what they burned was also from the buffalo herds.
I might add to this to tell you about the area of Kansas that grows long stemmed grassed and the ranchers burn them off every spring so the new grass can get above the old for their cattle to eat. The treehuggers of the 60s and 70s worked very hard to get this burning stopped. They just couldn't understand that those buffalo herds ate all the grass down to the ground and when they didn't come through an area something caused fires that there were no white men around to put out and the Indians just ran to new ground. You wouldn't believe how many "accidental" fires occurred back then. For some reason nobody ever tried to put those fires out.
This summer we have had many pasture fires caused by lightning but for some reason they always tried to put them out. I think that you could look at what happened in Texas and Oklahoma this summer to see why. My son is a volunteer fireman and loves to go to those pasture fires to be heroic in stopping them from burning buildings. He doesn't like structure fires very well so joins in trying to put out those grass fires.
Are you tree hugger enough to be against burning off grass by those ranchers? I can describe to you what those things look like about 10 years after they aren't burnt off.
Oh... pulleeze. My experience is that neither the right nor left has a monopoly on stressing the science that best supports their agenda. But the global warming debate is unique in all of American political history. There is no obvious precedent where a political wing has so tendentiously fought the consensus of the scientific community... with the non-American exception of Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union. And in that analogy, the conservatives are embarrassingly in the role of the Soviet Politburo.
Ignoring that you probably meant "conception", under no stretch of the imagination is that a fact... Unless of course you contend that ova and sperm are dead.
Nobody is certain, actually... but that's quite irrelevant. The waxing and waning of ice ages is a phenomenon measured in thousands of years, not decades. There is no rational way to analogize any natural cycle of climate change with that of human caused global warming or to consider them an any way comparable in effect or capacity for harm.
This claim is palpable nonsense. The human capacity for technology is what has accounted for our ability to thrive in multiple environments... not the end of the ice age. Need I point out that, due to technology, modern humans have had no problem settling above the Arctic Circle as least as far back as the pre-Inuit Dorset culture more than 2500 years ago. Our species does not depend on the weather to thrive. Specific cultures, nations and individuals however? That's a whole 'nother thing.
It is significant that you note the hardship caused by "mini-ice ages." Of course... such a position is profoundly Eurocentric... the Little Ice Age was not such an awful thing to parts of Africa and the Middle East. But it is fascinating that you did not gather any relevant lessons from them. The Little Ice Age did not cause hardship because it introduced some sort of new or unique environment, but because it occurred faster than the impacted human populations could respond materially. As a result... there were winners and losers, but more of the latter than former.
I am always amazed at the naivete with which the contra-consensus group tries to use this assertion. Crops grow best where they are best suited to grow, period. All other things being equal, crops will grow better in a high CO2 atmosphere... but that will not be helpful if there is no place for them.
Global warming does not mean that existing farms will be more productive. It means that existing farms will cease to be productive at all, while whole new agricultural industries will need to be created... in just a handful of generations.
All our most important food crops are temperate zone crops. As the globe warms, the temperate zone moves north (in our hemisphere) and south in the southern. Look at any good map of the earth. The southern hemisphere will starve as net arable land is lost. In the northern hemisphere, the agricultural losers are Europe and the United States... the winners are Canada and Asian Russia.
Think about that for a moment and ponder on the implications to geopolitical power.
These are the problems with global warming. Not because it's bad for animals. Not because it's bad for the earth. But because it is bad for us. The short term desire to take advantage of still inexpensive fossil fuels will prove to have been penny wise and pound foolish when major global cities have to be relocated inland, or massive d*ke systems need to be built. Sure... it's most problematic for Asia (think Shanghai) or India... but say goodby forever to big chunks of Miami, New Orleans, Tampa and Virginia Beach. That's expensive. And disruptive.
If you think quality of human life has fallen during the recession, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Do you really think you will still be around to see those cities covered by water from the sea? I know I won't and don't think you will either no matter what Algore says.
The most intelligent words I have seen on this forum were written last week by a woman who said we will see what has happened about 2000 years from now. Either the warmers are right or they are wrong and that should be enough time for us to know about that.
I'm just curious how the Looney Left are so easily led astray? It's a serious question. How does one allow him/herself to be a pawn to the Group Think movement that infests liberal ideology? Why is it that you pin your hopes on science as the answer to the world's problems? Why do you allow politicians (Al Gore) to get involved in your analytics?
It must be quite painful to be a Liberal. I can think of no circumstance in which you folks make any sense whatsoever. Once again Sanrene has busted your balls and yet you still bring forth more idiocy. It's embarrassing.
Anyway, getting back on topic. The Left also likes to fearmonger and tell everyone that a, b, and c MUST be done at all costs, or we MIGHT have a problem in the FUTURE. This is emotion driven logic, and usually poorly thought out. AGW is one of those things, but peel back the onion layers, and we find out it has zero to do with clean air, but everything to do with population control, control of money, and centralization of government under one international body
Population control? That has a very Agenda 21 sound to it. I didn't know you agreed with that kind of thinking. Of course, it is very true but how many agreed with the Chinese method instituted years ago? That has been very Draconian but pretty successful, I think.
Now those Chinks, (damned hypocritical racist) are throwing all that CO2 into the air and being allowed to do it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
