“Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.”― Kurt Vonnegut
Decades of observations, reports, books, and published proofs, even though “details” are argued, if nothing is done, the goose is indeed cooked. The real problem IS that the most drastic effects aren’t immediate to the “short attention span theater crowd”. “What has posterity done for me” is indeed what Kurt was saying of our generations, yes, it has taken several to be totally stupid.
ahab said, about 1 hour agoOur children and grand children are expecting reasonable, pragmatic,serious,and immediate action on this problem.-immediate action? what, exactly? fund research on inventing a dimmer switch for the sun?-we all can read our thermometers. the part some of us reject is the imagined causes of episodic heat rises on parts of the earth, and the henny penny demands to stop using fossil fuels which are not the real cause——-it is cycles of the sun in relation to earth and weather patterns. earth has endured cold cycles and warm cycles in its history.
Back in the 1970s we were going into another ice age due to global cooling and growing ice caps. The same reasons were given from the same kinds of people. Climate change is real but our contribution is overrated and arrogant. We should find new energy sources and take care of our planet but we don’t need scare tactics from control freaks.
Climate science is highly technical and complex. I don’t pretend to be remotely knowledgeable on the subject. But I don’t think we should be rolling the dice on the health of the environment and the well-being of future generations. Therefore, I’ll go along with the vast majority of climate scientists who think anthropogenic global warming is real.
Or try this one:
Or this one:
“……Proven by false data and outright lies. Anything to get more GW money….”.Your statement that there were 300 feet of glaciers over North America is not even close. The Wisconsin glacier (the last one) would have been around 12-13,000 feet thick at it’s epicenter, according to the people who study such things – it had to be to flow thousands of miles and to move hills, gouge lakes, and pile up small mountains of debris. But I’m not playing gotcha here, I’m making a point. If you can’t get one small item of science right, why do you think you qualify to speak credibly on climate change?.This is but one example of the garbage we get from the climate change deniers. They take one small observation from the vast body of information available, which they think supports their position, and they use it to draw sweeping conclusions about a very complex subject. One point does not make an expert. The deniers are exclusively talking point parrots trying to support an ideology. But they are not just stupid, they are dangerous. They are playing with the health and welfare of the planet and future generations. .As I said earlier, I’ll listen to the climate scientists who before drawing critical conclusions, will study the vast array of observed phenomenon, consider the history and rate of change of global climate, and will consult with and study the works of thousands of other climate scientists..This is too important to leave to the ignorant.
Off your meds again, Ima?
http://pjmedia.com/blog/climate-catastrophe-or-media-hype/(prints 5 pages)Check the Record Books.1930’s dust bowl in USA and Canada, so terrible that it caused mass immigration…remember the “Okies” treks to California?check this source= http:/www.nipccreport.com
ahab said, about 17 hours ago@disgustedtaxpayer That lie was debunked,on this site,multiple times. I won’t waste time with that bs again.-that is extremely SILLY.in science, there is never 100% proof of any theory……..there are always conflicting ideas and opinions, and sometimes a group of likeminded scientists may claim “consensus” but never can anyone claim to “debunk” claims which have data and records; it is a process of considering the claims and deciding for yourself which is the most believable for the time being….we don’t know what will be discovered tomorrow or next year. And the publishing of data has been controlled by biased editors, omitting to tell the public of findings that point to the opposing PC viewpoint.
The science of many things is complex, biology, climatology, oceanography, but the “deniers” are confused by the complexity of interpreting a stop sign. They are easily led by those who will run all the stop signs, or “yield” signs, if it means a nickel in additional profit, in the short term. The occasional collision and fatality, doesn’t concern them.
J.Short, the timbernard.org site also has questionable references and seems to be a ?religious site, or someon summarizing articles. I’d rather stick to science journals with some credibility established,ie,Science,Nature, or and established source like those listed.(ahab posted the above comment)-so, ahab, a ""religious site" cannot be credible?you select only the current PC liberal/left controlled “journals”?that is putting the blinders on yourself….there have been “religious” scholars in science for millennia…in the USA for decades….credible and recognized scientists…whose data is as or more reliable and provable by records and tests as that of popular published, “established” sources.
I don’t buy Algore’s lie.
ahab, for every scientist you can get claiming climate change, I can get saying it doesnt exist…including the bulk of the meteorolgists