Sorry, but I cried wolf on climate change

What a pile of baloney you have there LOL. Nothing has been altered except those two idiot professors somewhere in darkest East Anglia. Just because Rush Limbaugh says that proves it is all a hoax does not mean a damn thing.... 16 of the top 20 hottest years ever have been since 2001 and we are having 500-year hurricanes every 3 years at most. Too bad you don't have any intellectual curiosity.....

 

Any word on the total number of scientists there are or are you still running away from the question?

 

That's a good one. There have been many studies by respected outfits that show that listen to the Fox news makes you less informed than not listening to any news at all.....

 

Wherever republicans were getting their news, they were better informed than democrats or independents. As far as I am concerned that is more important than where they get their news.

Don't you find it a bit contradictory that republicans are better informed, but who get their news primarily from Fox which is a bad source. Truly a conundrum.

 

https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...among-climate-scientists-about-global-warming

 

The AMS leadership is not the same as individual members. Individual members are not in close agreement.

Their opinion mirrors mine. They agree that man affects the climate and that primary effect is warming.

What they do not agree upon is how much we have affected it, how much we can change it and how well we can forecast it.

 

No, that is nothing but an absurd fabrication. At most you can claim that after altering the data, 16 of the 20 hottest years since the end of the coldest 500 years in the last 10,000 years have been since 2001. Sorry, a natural return to more normal Holocene temperatures is just not something I'm going to worry about. There is no credible empirical evidence that it is now hotter than it was during the Medieval Warm Period, and plenty of good empirical evidence that it is now cooler than it was during the Holocene Optimum 6Kya-9Kya.

False.

You're spewing nonsense, I'm informing you of facts. You do the math.

 

Warmer weather by itself does not create more intense hurricanes. They are an engine. They thrive on temperature differences, not on temperature extremes.

 

I'll go with the experts and NOAA thanks. You go with bought off high School grad ex Coke head DJs like rush and Sean on your pathetic GOP propaganda machine....

 

They thrive on warm oceans. So they are thriving.

 

Link to that garbage? I have links to mine. Rupert Murdoch media is the only media in the world that agrees with your crap and the Republican party bought by big oil big health bigpharma is the only party that denies global warming the pandemic, science in general. Relies on crap imaginary phony scandals about Democrats that never go anywhere in the real world but never retracted so you still believe them. Poor America

 

Okay if you say so LOL

 

Interesting read, though I do wish you would have provided a link to the full article

https://environmentalprogress.org/b...nmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare


I definitely think the author makes valid points regarding the severity of climate change, we often hear these exaggerated warnings of the damage that climate change will bring us, some even suggesting that it will mean the end of humankind as we know it. The discussion ought to be about the expenses of combating climate change vs the expenses of not combating it, and what actions going forward would be the most practical and effective, like whether it would be more efficient to build dikes to deal with rising ocean levels, or whether it would be better to pass policies which reduce our CO2 output to reverse the rate at which the ocean levels are rising.

One thing I will say though is that while I do believe that richer countries will be able to handle most of the negative effects of climate change, there are still poor countries in the pacific who are going to have a harder time preventing the displacement of their people due to the rising ocean levels, which in effect could lead to a massive refugee crisis. I would be curious to see the author's opinion on this issue (without having to buy their book)

 

Also flooding in Miami Tampa Florida in general coastlines in general. But we love pollution so much we have to keep it!

 

I can't give a link as the article is behind a pay wall. He isn't denying there's anthropocentric global
warming and it will effect these nations - anymore than he's denying many rich folk could lose their
beach front properties.

 

I wasn't suggesting he was denying it, so much as I was saying he had neglected to acknowledge it. I do think it is important to acknowledge the exaggerations of climate change, but it is also important to address the real impact of climate change. While climate change isn't realistically going to be anywhere near the catastrophe of ending mankind or civilization as we know it, the cost of containing rising ocean levels is going to come at a hefty cost for us, and some countries likely won't be able to handle it at all.

 

True. I am a "constitutional optimist." I believe that future generations will decide the level
of CO2 as a matter of international policy. If it's too high then funds will be set aside to bring
it down. This will come first through de-carbon program, soil and vegetation management etc
and then active carbon removal from the atmosphere.

 

Of course you can give a lynk. We'll decide whether to pay or see if we have to.

 

You are making the common mistake, when would you make on a regular basis involving climate change, of confusing weather with climate. Phoenix is in a desert it's always going to be hot there, we are talking about the overall global temperature.

The world over all has gotten hotter and hotter over the last 40 years. The glaciers are melting which add sea water which causes more storms just means in clone colder areas snow storms will be much worse and in warmer areas will be stronger and stronger hurricanes. The mistake was calling the phenomenon of global warming global warming is only one part of it. and it confuses people who don't understand the science into thinking that it means the Earth will just get hotter and hotter until it catches on fire, 2 to the point where if they see one snowflake they assume climate change is a hoax.

 

You are forgetting that we are in an ice-age and that permanent ice is an anomaly, it's not the norm.

The earth is returning to it's normal condition.

 

The ice age isn't supposed to end yet. we are in what is known as an interglacial. A time when the glaciers recede back to the Arctic. It was supposed to last for 500,000 years. But human pollution has accelerated the process so that the current one will end in less than a thousand years, and it only started 10000 years ago.

We have literally accelerated a natural process by more about 50 times.

the higher sea levels also will cause the Everglades to flood with sea water which will mean that Florida Louisiana and Mississippi lose a very large portion of their drinking water, in New Orleans will probably be completely flooded uninhabitable.

then you have to take into account the extremely harsh Winters that will be caused by it as well as more powerful storms in the more tornadoes, hurricane, etc...

and it also means the next glacial. Which is the true ice age will return much sooner than usual. Once the glaciers melt and the sea levels reach their Apex, the temperature will begin to drop again which will cause an ice age. This is a cycle we've had multiple ice ages on this planet, and this cycle usually takes hundreds of thousands or if not millions of years, and yet we've accelerated so that it takes a fraction of that time.