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.
Why? "It's happening because Al Gore says so" is not an actual argument anyone makes. You're just mad because I pointed out how stupid and dishonest a Republican is. Sorry if the fact Inhofe's a dolt upset you.
Why has Al Gore hired the advertising company ARN world wide to track down climate change deniers online where ever they are? If the people behind it are so honest, they need to let skeptics come around on there own, instead of bullying them with their climate change religion, and insults, where ever they are.
Well, that's the only CHANGE that is going to happen. If President Obama uses a small armada of aircraft to sit on a beach and the left's response is "You don't think he should be able to take a vacation", do you really think anyone else will change their lives?
Your whining about Obama doesn't affect my way of life in any way, shape, or form. How you feel about your president doesn't particularly concern me or my opinion of environmental matters. Your whining about Obama is not important or relevant.
Right wingers declare it fraudulent because it contradicts the talking points of Republican scum. When challenged to provide evidence of this fraud, they either run like curs or whine and cry about liberals. No facts anywhere support the right's claims of fraud. That's why Republican liars such as James Inhofe have to lie and pretend creationist cue-card readers are climatologists; right-wing claims are not supported by facts.
What facts?
You still use that word and global warming science in the same sentence.
They are mutually exclusive since global warming science is not supported by fact but by theory. You have been educated ad nauseum yet you learn nothing.
I'm not going to disagree with you on this point-of-view. As I say repeatedly in my opinions on global-warming, the issue really is sea-level rise. Or really, any change in sea-levels whatsoever would create chaos. Even a fall in sea-levels could completely disrupt world trade. The sea-levels in ports could fall and require heavy dredging, or even relocation altogether.
Thus the issue, as you've stated, is a matter of trying to "lock the sea-level in at its current level forever".
First, we need to keep in mind; If Humans weren't on this Earth at all, the Earth would probably fall into an ice age at some point in the next ~5,000 years. It could happen in 100 years, or 1,000 years, or 5,000 years. But it should happen.
If an ice age did occur, it would actually be the most devastating thing to ever happen to humanity. Global-warming means you need to build sea-walls or relocate some people. An ice wage would make most of the world completely uninhabitable. Britain for instance would be completely covered in ice. Canada would be completely covered in ice. What isn't covered in ice would be tundra.
In my opinion, if humans want to continue to live on this ball of rock without the major climate-driven interruptions that you are worried about; We need to learn how to either geo-engineer the climate. Or we need to learn how to geo-engineer the geology itself.
If we haven't figured it out by the next milankovitch cycle, or if we are too timid to use what we know. Then we are going to be screwed by a changing climate anyway.
I figure, the warming will help stave off the next ice age. The CO2 should help crop yields. All we need to do is focus on how to address sea-level rise. I personally am a huge fan of land-reclamation.
I want land reclamation on a massive scale. And when you "scoop out" the seas and place that material above sea-level. You would be lowering the sea-level.
Doesn't it sound awesome?
If you buy into the reality of AGW, we're already geoengineering the climate unintentionally.
An ice age would reduce food production capacity by at least 2/3rds.
Over exaggeration. The ice sheets would not occur instantly, for one thing.
While much current agriculture areas would gradually fall out of production, places that are now non agricultural would come into production. Even the Sahara Desert would prove fertile. Maybe even the lakes of Death Valley would return.
In nature, when something is lost, something is also gained.
If you like, but I prefer scientific facts over the ramblings of the ill-informed.
In other words, you are incapable of refuting my timeline. 12,000 years of warming. Little Ice Age. 150 years of warming, putting us back on track with the long term trend.
Prove this. Show me that climatologists have been found to be tailoring their results for money. Because as far as I can see your claim is just something right-wing denialists tell themselves so they can pretend Republican claims have merit.
You've never heard of the Climategate scandal a few years ago?
Of course. Would you like a list of all the bodies that examined the matter and found the right's claims had no merit? I have such a list.
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.
