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.
America needs to be led off in a straightjacket and locked in a rubber room for the good of the planet. I think the world could deal with America saying: we don't give a rat's patootie about the consequences, we're going to keep the pedal to the metal until the juice flies. They could understand that. China could. That's what they will do if we keep doing what we are doing. The U.S. put the environment on life support all by itself. With China onboard with their own climb up the economic ladder the planet is toast. Billions of years... ... really? Humanity has less than 100 years of good life left in it. After that it will be increasingly fraught. So sad.
I'm curious though... what exactly informs the intuition that the United States, in particular is in a "pause" or is in fact cooling? I mean... monsoon in AZ? The hottest winter ever in OR? Mudslides, wildfires... ... some of these phenomena have never been seen before in some regions. There is an unknown agent destroying honeybees. Monsanto isn't concerned but you should be. There is an unknown agent destroying all the starfish on the West Coast and isolated areas of the East Coast. You probably don't know about that. The last time you saw a starfish was when you took your 10 y.o. to the aquarium. He is now 42. So... the loss of a few billion starfish isn't something you can really get all excited about. But you should. You should be very concerned. An unknown virus or nerve agent is destroying dolphins off the East Coast of the Mid-Atlantic. Fracking solutions are some very toxic and unclassified chemicals and oil mining companies are pumping them into our groundwater by the 100 thousands of gallons.
Global Warming is only an extension of modern humanity's overall lack of concern for anything except profit for the 1%. Industrial Pollution is ultimately what will destroy us. Maybe it was thought that addressing Global Warming would by default also address IP. I don't know. More like the other way around to me. What do I know. I know this much. A child born in this decade is a dead man/woman walking. They won't live a standard life-span. Not going to happen. That would be the grand-child of the typical P&OC'er. Look at them next time they are over for a visit. Think about the fact that you are murdering them slowly every time you back the F-350 out the drive-way with only you at the wheel just to run down to the Flying J for more Mountain Dew and pork rinds. When you pour motor oil down the sewer instead of recycling it properly... when you don't retire ol Bessie, the Chevy 150 you've been nursing along... because you can. People say what they do doesn't matter. Wrong. What you do does matter. Enough people doing the right thing does matter. Not enough people are doing the right thing. So... it isn't going to end well. We aren't going to be here billions of years from now! You are smoking crack if you think that. There isn't that much denial in two planets full of denyers.
H
Completely and thoroughly full of fertilizer.
AGW is theory, not fact. I deal in facts.
Fact: It hasn't warmed in over 17 years.
And what is the right thing? Throwing money at an issue will not solve it. China will do nothing as will India, the 2 biggest polluters yet you condemn the US. What will Germany use for power since they are shuttering their nuke plants?
Fact is it was warmer in the medieval warming period and yet the warmers are wringing their hands and prophesizing death, doom and destruction and yet none of those predictions has ever come true and more than likely never will.
LOL....One year compared to 353.....Hilarious....Even funnier is the fact that you didn't even get your lie right....
Climate change deniers like to cherry pick 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.
The climate always changes, always has and always will. To lump climate change to AGW is altering your argument to fit your failed theories.
That man is causing it is nothing more than conjecture and theory.
pause (pôz) v.paused, paus·ing, paus·es v.intr.1. To cease or suspend an action temporarily. 2. To linger; tarry: paused for a while under the huge oak tree. 3. To hesitate: He paused before replying.
v.tr. To cease or suspend the action of temporarily; stop for an interim: "Once a movie [ordered on demand] begins, it can be paused but not rewound or fast-forwarded" (George Judson).
n.1. A temporary cessation. 2. A delay or suspended reaction, as from uncertainty; a hesitation: After a pause the audience broke into cheers. 3. A break, stop, or rest, often for a calculated purpose or effect: After a dramatic pause, the lawyer finished her summation. 4. a. Music A sign indicating that a note or rest is to be held. b. A break or rest in a line of poetry; a caesura.
LOL....One year compared to 353.....Hilarious....Even funnier is the fact that you didn't even get your lie right....
Climate change deniers like to cherry pick 1934 in the U.S. as proof that recent hot years are not unusual. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.
I don't know what temperature record we are talking about. Widespread temperature recording didn't really start until about 1850. From the time England started recording temperature till the time widespread recording began, the Earth was still in the midst of the "little ice age".
Is it really that surprising that the Earth is warmer now than it was during the little ice age? I mean, if we could go back in time to the end of the last glacial maximum. Wouldn't practically every new decade be the warmest decade on record?
If you think about it rationally, does it really make sense to stake your entire position on the simple fact that "this is the warmest decade in the last 150 years".
It doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient enough explanation for why you are so certain that the Earth will continue to warm. It might support a secondary argument, but it isn't an argument in and of itself.
As sad as it might make you, the opposite argument is an argument in and of itself. If there is no warming, there is no warming. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim.
Temporarily can mean resumption tomorrow or next century.
Ah, so it could resume tomorrow, therefore it hasn't stopped, which if it had stopped then it wouldn't be resuming at a future date.
Granted the idea that global warming has stopped is still just a myth created by bloggers from the Flat Earth Society and not from actual research from scientists.
That's complete nonsense. If you throw somebody down the stairs and the climb up, you wouldn't say that they haven't climbed the stairs just because they haven't surpassed their previous height. What your saying makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that you key in on 17 years as if 17 is a totally logical number to use is silly. If what you're saying is only true for the key value of 17, it doesn't demonstrate anything.
I don't know what temperature record we are talking about. Widespread temperature recording didn't really start until about 1850. From the time England started recording temperature till the time widespread recording began, the Earth was still in the midst of the "little ice age".
Is it really that surprising that the Earth is warmer now than it was during the little ice age? I mean, if we could go back in time to the end of the last glacial maximum. Wouldn't practically every new decade be the warmest decade on record?
If you think about it rationally, does it really make sense to stake your entire position on the simple fact that "this is the warmest decade in the last 150 years".
It doesn't seem to me to be a sufficient enough explanation for why you are so certain that the Earth will continue to warm. It might support a secondary argument, but it isn't an argument in and of itself.
As sad as it might make you, the opposite argument is an argument in and of itself. If there is no warming, there is no warming. The burden of proof is on the side making the claim.
And that claim has been proven...You just don't accept the proof.....I thought you said you had an open mind....I should have known better.
My post was intended to refute the "hasn't warmed in 17 years" myth, nothing more.
Ha ha. A right-wing blog. That's cute. Here's something that discusses the scientific facts of the matter. It contradicts the claims of right-wing denialists so it may upset some and make them whine about liberals and Al Gore.
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.
What a poor excuse to dismiss, and deflect the claims. Here check this out and download the report and read through it 