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.
2014 was the warmest year in global recorded history, until 2015. Yet 2016 is smashing all heat records.
And still the scientifically illiterate denialists will ignore this evidence and shriek "It's all a scam!"
How do people convince themselves their eyes are lying?
1) Be scientifically illiterate
2) Listen endlessly to propagandists who deny climate change (yet have no scientific background)
3) Believe people who lie for profit
Of course, most of the denialists these days are also fevered conspiracists as well, which explains why they say scientists are doing it all for financial gain, even though these people are nowhere near wealthy, unlike Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and all the other fossil fuel corporations responsible for climate change.
And still the scientifically illiterate denialists will ignore this evidence and shriek "It's all a scam!"
How do people convince themselves their eyes are lying?
1) Be scientifically illiterate
2) Listen endlessly to propagandists who deny climate change (yet have no scientific background)
3) Believe people who lie for profit
Of course, most of the denialists these days are also fevered conspiracists as well, which explains why they say scientists are doing it all for financial gain, even though these people are nowhere near wealthy, unlike Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and all the other fossil fuel corporations responsible for climate change.
And the answer to AGW is posting on the interwebs.
If currently popular scientific theories and hypotheses about the Earth's climate at different times over the course of its existence are correct (and they very well may not be), then:
1. From the time the Earth was formed (when it was purportedly covered with molten lava) until now, the Earth has cooled.
2. Around 650 million years ago, during the "Snowball Earth" period, the Earth was believed to have been covered in ice from pole to pole. Since that time, the Earth has warmed.
3. During the time of the dinosaurs, which spanned around 180 million years until about 65 million years ago, temperatures were largely warmer. So, since that time, the Earth has cooled.
4. Since the last ice age (around 12-20 thousand years ago), the Earth has warmed.
5. Since the Medieval Warming Period (around 800–1300 AD), when the Vikings were the terror of Europe and Greenland was actually green, the Earth has cooled.
6. Since the mini-ice age (around 1350-1850 AD), when the glaciers advanced, crop failures increased, deaths from epidemics and plague were common and Washington crossed an ice-choked Delaware river, the Earth has warmed.
7. Since around 1995, the Earth climate has stayed pretty flat, contrary to the predictions of the AGW alarmism cabal.
Of course there are many other instances of cyclical climatic periods such as the ones above that could be added to this list. But the point is that the Earth's climate has always been in a state of change. It always has, and it always will. So no one should be surprised to discover that the Earth's climate continues to change at the present time.
Clearly, climate change is normal and natural on the planet Earth.
As well be true..but all of that does not change the situation that we have to deal with--even if it's "natural".
I doubt that the cause is really going to matter to those who will be impacted.
I doubt that the cause is really going to matter to those who will be impacted.
Nor will the internet posts by those looking for a cause.
"Displaced people, you have no need to fear, for I, environmental poster, have filled the web with posts about my outrage. Take comfort in knowing I have started many threads."
Nor will the internet posts by those looking for a cause.
"Displaced people, you have no need to fear, for I, environmental poster, have filled the web with posts about my outrage. Take comfort in knowing I have started many threads."
Nah..like most smart people..when I think a flood is coming..I find high ground.
You do have a point though---all that is written here--is just transient bit & bytes--and intrinsically meaningless--unless..somewhere--somehow--a spark finds tinder--and inspiration is born...but we'll never know
Reading about the costs of dealing with climate change make me wonder how even the U.S. will afford the consequences of ignoring the mounting threat to humanity.
We already have "climate change refugees" in the U.S., and the costs are only beginning to mount.
<<
In the unofficial results of an election on Tuesday in the village, Shishmaref, residents voted 89 to 78 to leave. The plan would move the village, which is 120 miles north of Nome, to one of two sites on the mainland about five miles away, officials said. But the village needs an estimated $180 million from a patchwork of sources to complete the move, according to a 2004 estimate.
Shishmaref is an Inupiat community of about 600 people on Sarichef, an island north of the Bering Strait that is about one-quarter mile wide and two and a half miles long....
In January, the federal government allocated $48 million to relocate Isle de Jean Charles, La., an island that is sinking into the sea. The effort earned the residents the title of the United States’ first “climate refugees.”
<<According to the Miami Herald, a whopping $152 billion worth of property will be under threat of flooding statewide by 2050, ranking first in a 2015 national survey.>>
In coming decades, the demands for federal resources to protect coastal cities and developments could reach the hundreds of billions, if not trillions, and it's unlikely that substantial resources will be available to deal with this problem.
Wouldn't it be smarter to become proactive in dealing with the causes of climate change, and also to limit vulnerable coastal development?
<<
Under the worst-case scenario investigated, if pollution continues unabated, and if seas respond to ongoing warming by rising at the fastest rates considered likely, sea levels could rise more than 4 feet this century alone, wiping out coastal infrastructure and driving communities inland.
The problem would be made far worse if the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets collapse — something that’s difficult to forecast.>>
You don't actually believe any of this happened because we "ignored the mounting threat to humanity" do you? You think if we raised taxes 5 years ago, any of this would be different today? The consensus of scientists say that if we all went back to the stone age tomorrow, no more light, no more engines, no more anything....that we could never reverse climate change and that it could (because they have no clue) take hundreds of years to even slow the change of the climate. The climate changes, it always has. Anyone living on a tiny little island, 3 feet below sea level, etc, MOVE!
As well be true..but all of that does not change the situation that we have to deal with--even if it's "natural".
I doubt that the cause is really going to matter to those who will be impacted.
And still the scientifically illiterate denialists will ignore this evidence and shriek "It's all a scam!"
How do people convince themselves their eyes are lying?
1) Be scientifically illiterate
2) Listen endlessly to propagandists who deny climate change (yet have no scientific background)
3) Believe people who lie for profit
Of course, most of the denialists these days are also fevered conspiracists as well, which explains why they say scientists are doing it all for financial gain, even though these people are nowhere near wealthy, unlike Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell, and all the other fossil fuel corporations responsible for climate change.
Your ignorance is fascinating. The conspiracy theorist is you, but you're not self aware enough to recognize it. Over and over the climate has failed to meet the scientists doomsday, tinfoil hat predictions and models. At some point an educated, self aware person would look at the continued failures and conclude they're most often, if not always failed and inaccurate and take a more moderate tone.
The scientists, many of whom have no real background in climate change are paid to produce certain models. Period. Dissenting is a career-ender. That's who the new science works. They receive the desired result and then create the evidence, bypassing the scientific debate part completely. It's indisputable that the money from tax-free, globalist think tanks, endowments and foundations are funding only scientists that produce the desired predictions.
There's no credible evidence that ExxonMobil, BP, Shell and others are responsible for climate change. None. That's just another one of your conspiracy theories. Furthermore, all those companies & the money behind them, all fund research showing man-made climate change is real. Those companies are all tightly intertwined with the governance of our country and stand to gain the most by a shift to new fuels. You don't actually think some Mom & Pop start up solar company will compete with them do you? No, their puppet Barack Obama, who opened up the Atlantic Seaboard for them for offshore drilling, who opened up Alaska for their drilling, who green lighted fracking for them, he, or Hillary, or the Republicans (because they own them all) will suggest the legislation, the write the legislation, then get it passed, that allows them to operate in a way that will crush any free market competition that might come along. This is the corporate crony way.
Nah..like most smart people..when I think a flood is coming..I find high ground.
You do have a point though---all that is written here--is just transient bit & bytes--and intrinsically meaningless--unless..somewhere--somehow--a spark finds tinder--and inspiration is born...but we'll never know
It won't. The AGW crowd refuses to even acknowledge the hypocrisy of the high profile AGW people.
In earlier posts in this thread, I repeatedly posted peer-reviewed, empirical observations that well documents man-made climate change.
Sorry that you apparently can't read.
Yeah, none of that really matters because we already know the short-term relationship between CO2 and surface temperature is one in which temperature determines the amount of CO2 released or collected by the oceans.
CO2 in concentrations that have been as high as twenty times the present have never resulted in a sustained greenhouse effect.
In fact, during the Percambrian period, CO2 levels were the highest in Earth's history and surface temperatures were the lowest in Earth's history.
What follows is a relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration that is as random as any relationship can be; that is to say, non-existent.
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.
