There……..fixed it for you. You inadvertently posted the wrong picture.
Climatard:
[img[/img]
EL Coyote
March 31, 2016 10:10 pm
I resemble part of that definition. However, nobody can fight typhoons, tornadoes or tsunamis.
Tilting at windmills is so much fun, let’s fight global warming.
Gator
March 31, 2016 10:21 pm
I agree with IS. the hippy in the picture is just a useful idiot, Al Gore and his ilk are the real enemy. That dumb hippy, like most on the left, has no idea what he is doing.
jamesthewanderer
March 31, 2016 10:34 pm
Seems like a fairly accurate, useful definition.
AC
March 31, 2016 10:44 pm
Don’t forget about the ‘scientists’ pushing this crap. That data didn’t falsify itself.
Westcoaster
March 31, 2016 11:18 pm
Guys, as much as you morons might wish it to work, 3rd grade name calling isn’t going to help when you’re hip deep in ocean water at the door of your 1st floor beach condo. Ask those in Miami Beach.
Is there any climate change policy being debated or voted on now? No.
Is climate change an election issue? No.
Is the climate change at the forefront of public consciousness? No.
So why post a gratuitously silly picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist (when they usually look like middle class academics)?
Regardless of an individual’s opinion re. climate change most would agree that the climate change proponents have already lost the battle; the public is not interested in any suggestions that they change their behaviour, and politicians know it, so it’s a non-issue. So again I ask: why set up climate change proponents for a bashing today?
(If I didn’t know that your integrity was unimpeachable I might be tempted to postulate that the Koch brothers had given you a call and offered a fat cheque for your fundraising drive. )
EL Coyote
March 31, 2016 11:37 pm
Cdubbya says: why post a picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist?
Why did he post a doctored pic of Kanye coming out of a food bank? A pic of women in a clinic using their shoes to keep their place in line, and called it a welfare office? (Now I’m beginning to suspect that pic of an Amazon Fresh truck in the 30 blocks of horror)
Admin will use pics freely to illustrate his point. Call it poetic license or abuse, whatever, it made you think.
Ed
March 31, 2016 11:38 pm
“So why post a gratuitously silly picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist”
It was probably to get some asshole like you to go into a rage and roll around on the floor, biting his own ass. If so, it appears to be working.
Cdubbya
April 1, 2016 12:04 am
Coyote, read again. You missed the point of my comment.
No Ed, I’m not in a rage, just curious.
You also missed the point of the comment. Instead of being a default TBP twat why dont you use your prodigious intellect and try answering the question?
Tucci78
April 1, 2016 12:21 am
The “no formal education or training [or experience] in science” seems to be the definitive trait of most anthropogenic climate change alarmists, as had been observed by retired rocket scientist Jeff Glassman almost nine years ago (BEFORE the “Climategate” archive hit the ‘Net), when he wrote:
“Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.
“AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying ‘most scientists believe…,’ it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.
“AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.
“And there’s much, much more.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.
The qualities of scientific method are utterly alien to the authoritarian leftard assholes presently seeking to exploit the RICO statutes to prosecute private citizens for expressing criticism of the Cargo Cult “science” perpetrated by the rent-seeking charlatans making up the “consensus.”
ZombieDawg
April 1, 2016 6:09 am
Somewhat simplistic stereotyping as is typical..
Don’t forget that the all too many so-called “educated” people have also been “brainwashed” into believing nonsense like anthropomorphic global warming.
An education is not a guarantee of the ability to think and reason…
One tends to believe what one WANTS to believe. ie religion.
You know… the biggest problem is the INability of people to see the world (and the universe for that matter) in ALL of its dimensions.
People are typically “graph extrapolaters” as I call them.
They see everything in a linear plane, isolated of all possible interactions and interference.
“We caused climate change” type BS ignores the compensatory characteristics of an evolved adaptive ecosystem. The living planet permits transient aberrations but equally as quickly shuts them down to return to equilibrium.
If mankind creates excess CO2, then flora absorbs that excess CO2 and releases corresponding higher levels of O2 to compensate. Equilibrium is restored.
Research has shown this and common sense suggests it.
Man has been playing with the global climate since Tesla’s first atmospheric experiments and consequent catastrophic attempts at copying his work in the early 1900’s.
Such is evolution – the need and desire to evolve and understand via experimentation.
But remember… 100 years ago we believed in witches and sawed people end to end as punishment.
We are a LONG way from genuinely earning the title of being an advanced species.
Nature will decide if we survive – we won’t, as we don;t have the POWER to do it.
Tucci78
April 1, 2016 6:17 am
ZombieDawg commences with: “Somewhat simplistic stereotyping as is typical..
“Don’t forget that the all too many so-called ‘educated’ people have also been ‘brainwashed’ into believing nonsense like anthropomorphic global warming.”
And how many un-ironically substitute “anthropomorphic” (more or less “man-shaped”) for “anthropogenic” (“man-CAUSED”)?
In a *Princess Bride* moment, let me observe that the word “evolution” (“the need and desire to evolve”) does not mean what you think it does, and H. sapiens holds pride of place as “an advanced species” until a species more capable of reasoned thought and action presents itself.
We’re what there is. Might as well deal with that.
hardscrabble farmer
April 1, 2016 7:45 am
Tucci, great response @ 12:21
Three points-
1) Does climate change or is it static? The very basis of the argument seems to be something that occurs naturally is a problem to solve, i.e. “it gets dark at night and it’s the fault of mankind. A majority of scientists agree that when the Sun goes down it gets darker and we must do something about it now.”
2) Is the change a bad thing or a good thing? I have repeatedly pointed out that that during the last Ice Age Manhattan was buried beneath an ice shelf half a mile in depth. Absent the global warming since then- quite obviously natural rather than man made- most of North America and Europe would be uninhabitable. Would that be a benefit or a detriment to mankind presently? Suppose Cro Magnon man had been able to launch a similar campaign to stop global warming back then, would we support that effort or resist? I doubt seriously that anything mankind can do at present will be able to significantly alter the patterns of climate on a planet even in the short term, much less on epochal levels.
3) Even if everyone agreed that it was 100% human caused and unavoidable at present, what is the best plan of action? Taxation? Eliminating the use of electricity or the use of hydrocarbons and going back to a pre-industrial agrarian society? As much as someone like myself might enjoy that, I think that the vast majority of people, particularly those most invested in AGW, would not. So what would prudent people do?
Westcoaster mentions Miami Beach, as an example.
During my years on the road I spent a great deal of time and effort seeking out the place that I thought would be best to raise a family and put down roots. I took numerous things into account; proximity to family, annual climate, availability of water, etc. I kept a list of places to avoid based on events I encountered, such as “never buy a house located in a flood plain” “Do not live on the edge of a cliff or on a fault line”, “anything referred to as ‘tornado alley’ is to be avoided, etc. If you choose to live or build on a beach it is safe to assume that you will experience problems with sea water. Ditto living on the edge of a caldera, etc. Forcing prudent people who’ve selected homes on hilltops inland to subsidize the losses of people who build on the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean is not only counter-intuitive, it reinforces deliberately ignorant behavior. One year I was working in the Moline area during a very bad flood and I went down to the river and helped fill sand bags. The man next to me was very upset and kept saying “I can’t believe this is happening again”. He had lost THREE houses to flooding and each time rebuilt on the same spot. I couldn’t believe that he couldn’t believe it.
I gave up arguing or trying to convince anyone who disagrees with me on subjects that are this political in nature because you aren’t going to change their minds and it only frustrates you at the same time. Far better for people to either figure it out on their own or languish in their willful stupidity.
I leave you with this image-
[img[/img]
Billions upon billions of dollars invested in real estate that is perched on the edge of a volcanic caldera, on a cliff at the edge of an ocean. How can you argue with anyone that set on ignoring reality?
Tucci78
April 1, 2016 8:45 am
Dr. Glassman has been a regular commentor on climatologist Judith Curry’s Web log and had been posting also on meteorologist Anthony Watts’ aggregating site “Watts Up With That?” It was his posts which gave me to look for the other materials he’d written on the subject of “climate change” (notably on his own Web site, “The Rocket Scientist’s Journal” at http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ ). The essay upon which I’d drawn provides one of the best explanations of how to properly use the terms “hypothesis” and “theory,” words which are commonly confused even by people who are supposed to be educated in the sciences, and his remarks on the “man-made global warming” bogosity are eloquent as well as scientifically unimpeachable. Unfortunately, I’ve not read anything of his dated later than about March 2015, and given the increasing incidence of Black Camel visits among my age-peers and elders as I progress closer to the end of my seventh decade of life, I worry that Dr. Glassman isn’t up and punching anymore.
HSF writes: “Forcing prudent people who’ve selected homes on hilltops inland to subsidize the losses of people who build on the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean is not only counter-intuitive, it reinforces deliberately ignorant behavior.”
An intellectually honest economist (therefore an Austrian School guy and decidedly NOT a Keynesian) would observe that such subsidization of high-risk behaviors is actively pernicious in that – like bailing out financial institutions allegedly “too big to fail” – it fosters malinvestment. People build on barrier islands – “the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean” – not only because their lots offer pleasant vistas and easy access to surfside recreation but because these properties reliably increase in dollar-denominated value. With flood insurance shifting the costs associated with coastal living to the majority who reside in cities and flyover country inland, those beach front properties become investment assets which can be “securitized” on the financial markets by those “too big to fail” bankers, and the Worm Ouroboros eats its own tail ad infinitum….
Bostonbob
April 1, 2016 8:56 am
HSF nails it. There is a little thing called erosion that frequents many coastlines that is especially prevalent on parts of Cape Cod. When super storm Sandy occurred I could only laugh at all the dopes who built on barrier dunes down in New Jersey living under the false impression that they could hold back the sea when the time came. Why should I subsidize their flood insurance and rebuild their infrastructure so they can have a lovely view and a short stroll to the beach. I love the ocean as much as anyone, but if you are going to build on or near the beach you had better build for the one big storm that you thought might never come.
Bob.
rhs jr
April 1, 2016 9:43 am
Satellite data shows an oceans rise of 3.2 mm/yr (or 320mm/100 years or about one foot per 100 years) if we don’t enter a mini or full Ice age first. As for South Florida and South Louisiana flooding, the land there is going down.
Suzanna
April 1, 2016 10:25 am
Global Warming and Climate Change are a ruse to separate the
peoples of “developed” nations from their money. Said money
will go to “underdeveloped” nations (which will be allowed to
industrialize/pollute) so they may “catch up.”
Pollution used to be an issue of real import. I don’t know if
the pollution can influence the climate, (very unlikely) but it
sure can destroy the quality of air, land and water. We have
countless examples of this, really too many to list.
The oceans are garbage cans for the shipping industry. That
should be an issue of concern, but it may be too late for the
Pacific ocean/Fukushima radiation seems to be destroying sea
life.
Anyone that believes carbon dioxide is a pollutant is nuts. Stupid.
Maybe people are confusing it with carbon monoxide? Unchecked
“industrialization” and the absence of control of toxins into the soils
and water are the problem. Isn’t this one reason given for industry
moving to China eg? No pesky environmental rules/laws?
We, as a people would be better advised to question what is being
sprayed on us in the skies, (halting the sun from coming through)
than global warming. As unusual, the “truth” is the opposite of what
is being pushed. Global Warming taxes will serve to give us more
polluted environments. Think it through!
BUCKHED
April 1, 2016 12:24 pm
We have issues with beach erosion here in South Carolina . The gooberment wants the taxpayers to aid in “Beach Re-Nourishment ” projects which in reality are subsides for the beach front owners.
I guess the gooberment has never understood the phrase ” Water Always Wins ” .
If you want to see a climate change lovers head explode ask, “Did we have an ice age ” ? How did it end ? Oh it got warmer…what was mans effects on global warming at that time ?
Westcoaster
April 1, 2016 7:29 pm
@RHSjr: The oil companies have done a number on Louisiana and that’s the biggest problem right now offshore, but in Miami Beach the land isn’t sinking, the sealevel is RISING!
EPA: Environmental Piece A (your choice)
There……..fixed it for you. You inadvertently posted the wrong picture.
Climatard:
[img
[/img]
I resemble part of that definition. However, nobody can fight typhoons, tornadoes or tsunamis.
Tilting at windmills is so much fun, let’s fight global warming.
I agree with IS. the hippy in the picture is just a useful idiot, Al Gore and his ilk are the real enemy. That dumb hippy, like most on the left, has no idea what he is doing.
Seems like a fairly accurate, useful definition.
Don’t forget about the ‘scientists’ pushing this crap. That data didn’t falsify itself.
Guys, as much as you morons might wish it to work, 3rd grade name calling isn’t going to help when you’re hip deep in ocean water at the door of your 1st floor beach condo. Ask those in Miami Beach.
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2015/10/09/miami-beach-residents-say-theyre-tired-of-continued-high-tide-flooding/
I dont get it Admin.
Is there any climate change policy being debated or voted on now? No.
Is climate change an election issue? No.
Is the climate change at the forefront of public consciousness? No.
So why post a gratuitously silly picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist (when they usually look like middle class academics)?
Regardless of an individual’s opinion re. climate change most would agree that the climate change proponents have already lost the battle; the public is not interested in any suggestions that they change their behaviour, and politicians know it, so it’s a non-issue. So again I ask: why set up climate change proponents for a bashing today?
(If I didn’t know that your integrity was unimpeachable I might be tempted to postulate that the Koch brothers had given you a call and offered a fat cheque for your fundraising drive. )
Cdubbya says: why post a picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist?
Why did he post a doctored pic of Kanye coming out of a food bank? A pic of women in a clinic using their shoes to keep their place in line, and called it a welfare office? (Now I’m beginning to suspect that pic of an Amazon Fresh truck in the 30 blocks of horror)
Admin will use pics freely to illustrate his point. Call it poetic license or abuse, whatever, it made you think.
“So why post a gratuitously silly picture of ‘a hippy’ as a typical climate change activist”
It was probably to get some asshole like you to go into a rage and roll around on the floor, biting his own ass. If so, it appears to be working.
Coyote, read again. You missed the point of my comment.
No Ed, I’m not in a rage, just curious.
You also missed the point of the comment. Instead of being a default TBP twat why dont you use your prodigious intellect and try answering the question?
The “no formal education or training [or experience] in science” seems to be the definitive trait of most anthropogenic climate change alarmists, as had been observed by retired rocket scientist Jeff Glassman almost nine years ago (BEFORE the “Climategate” archive hit the ‘Net), when he wrote:
“Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.
“AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying ‘most scientists believe…,’ it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.
“AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.
“And there’s much, much more.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.
— See “Conjecture, Hypothesis, Theory, Law: The Basis of Rational Argument” (December 2007) at http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf
The qualities of scientific method are utterly alien to the authoritarian leftard assholes presently seeking to exploit the RICO statutes to prosecute private citizens for expressing criticism of the Cargo Cult “science” perpetrated by the rent-seeking charlatans making up the “consensus.”
Somewhat simplistic stereotyping as is typical..
Don’t forget that the all too many so-called “educated” people have also been “brainwashed” into believing nonsense like anthropomorphic global warming.
An education is not a guarantee of the ability to think and reason…
One tends to believe what one WANTS to believe. ie religion.
You know… the biggest problem is the INability of people to see the world (and the universe for that matter) in ALL of its dimensions.
People are typically “graph extrapolaters” as I call them.
They see everything in a linear plane, isolated of all possible interactions and interference.
“We caused climate change” type BS ignores the compensatory characteristics of an evolved adaptive ecosystem. The living planet permits transient aberrations but equally as quickly shuts them down to return to equilibrium.
If mankind creates excess CO2, then flora absorbs that excess CO2 and releases corresponding higher levels of O2 to compensate. Equilibrium is restored.
Research has shown this and common sense suggests it.
Man has been playing with the global climate since Tesla’s first atmospheric experiments and consequent catastrophic attempts at copying his work in the early 1900’s.
Such is evolution – the need and desire to evolve and understand via experimentation.
But remember… 100 years ago we believed in witches and sawed people end to end as punishment.
We are a LONG way from genuinely earning the title of being an advanced species.
Nature will decide if we survive – we won’t, as we don;t have the POWER to do it.
ZombieDawg commences with: “Somewhat simplistic stereotyping as is typical..
“Don’t forget that the all too many so-called ‘educated’ people have also been ‘brainwashed’ into believing nonsense like anthropomorphic global warming.”
And how many un-ironically substitute “anthropomorphic” (more or less “man-shaped”) for “anthropogenic” (“man-CAUSED”)?
In a *Princess Bride* moment, let me observe that the word “evolution” (“the need and desire to evolve”) does not mean what you think it does, and H. sapiens holds pride of place as “an advanced species” until a species more capable of reasoned thought and action presents itself.
We’re what there is. Might as well deal with that.
Tucci, great response @ 12:21
Three points-
1) Does climate change or is it static? The very basis of the argument seems to be something that occurs naturally is a problem to solve, i.e. “it gets dark at night and it’s the fault of mankind. A majority of scientists agree that when the Sun goes down it gets darker and we must do something about it now.”
2) Is the change a bad thing or a good thing? I have repeatedly pointed out that that during the last Ice Age Manhattan was buried beneath an ice shelf half a mile in depth. Absent the global warming since then- quite obviously natural rather than man made- most of North America and Europe would be uninhabitable. Would that be a benefit or a detriment to mankind presently? Suppose Cro Magnon man had been able to launch a similar campaign to stop global warming back then, would we support that effort or resist? I doubt seriously that anything mankind can do at present will be able to significantly alter the patterns of climate on a planet even in the short term, much less on epochal levels.
3) Even if everyone agreed that it was 100% human caused and unavoidable at present, what is the best plan of action? Taxation? Eliminating the use of electricity or the use of hydrocarbons and going back to a pre-industrial agrarian society? As much as someone like myself might enjoy that, I think that the vast majority of people, particularly those most invested in AGW, would not. So what would prudent people do?
Westcoaster mentions Miami Beach, as an example.
During my years on the road I spent a great deal of time and effort seeking out the place that I thought would be best to raise a family and put down roots. I took numerous things into account; proximity to family, annual climate, availability of water, etc. I kept a list of places to avoid based on events I encountered, such as “never buy a house located in a flood plain” “Do not live on the edge of a cliff or on a fault line”, “anything referred to as ‘tornado alley’ is to be avoided, etc. If you choose to live or build on a beach it is safe to assume that you will experience problems with sea water. Ditto living on the edge of a caldera, etc. Forcing prudent people who’ve selected homes on hilltops inland to subsidize the losses of people who build on the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean is not only counter-intuitive, it reinforces deliberately ignorant behavior. One year I was working in the Moline area during a very bad flood and I went down to the river and helped fill sand bags. The man next to me was very upset and kept saying “I can’t believe this is happening again”. He had lost THREE houses to flooding and each time rebuilt on the same spot. I couldn’t believe that he couldn’t believe it.
I gave up arguing or trying to convince anyone who disagrees with me on subjects that are this political in nature because you aren’t going to change their minds and it only frustrates you at the same time. Far better for people to either figure it out on their own or languish in their willful stupidity.
I leave you with this image-
[img
[/img]
Billions upon billions of dollars invested in real estate that is perched on the edge of a volcanic caldera, on a cliff at the edge of an ocean. How can you argue with anyone that set on ignoring reality?
Dr. Glassman has been a regular commentor on climatologist Judith Curry’s Web log and had been posting also on meteorologist Anthony Watts’ aggregating site “Watts Up With That?” It was his posts which gave me to look for the other materials he’d written on the subject of “climate change” (notably on his own Web site, “The Rocket Scientist’s Journal” at http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/ ). The essay upon which I’d drawn provides one of the best explanations of how to properly use the terms “hypothesis” and “theory,” words which are commonly confused even by people who are supposed to be educated in the sciences, and his remarks on the “man-made global warming” bogosity are eloquent as well as scientifically unimpeachable. Unfortunately, I’ve not read anything of his dated later than about March 2015, and given the increasing incidence of Black Camel visits among my age-peers and elders as I progress closer to the end of my seventh decade of life, I worry that Dr. Glassman isn’t up and punching anymore.
HSF writes: “Forcing prudent people who’ve selected homes on hilltops inland to subsidize the losses of people who build on the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean is not only counter-intuitive, it reinforces deliberately ignorant behavior.”
An intellectually honest economist (therefore an Austrian School guy and decidedly NOT a Keynesian) would observe that such subsidization of high-risk behaviors is actively pernicious in that – like bailing out financial institutions allegedly “too big to fail” – it fosters malinvestment. People build on barrier islands – “the sand dunes of the Atlantic Ocean” – not only because their lots offer pleasant vistas and easy access to surfside recreation but because these properties reliably increase in dollar-denominated value. With flood insurance shifting the costs associated with coastal living to the majority who reside in cities and flyover country inland, those beach front properties become investment assets which can be “securitized” on the financial markets by those “too big to fail” bankers, and the Worm Ouroboros eats its own tail ad infinitum….
HSF nails it. There is a little thing called erosion that frequents many coastlines that is especially prevalent on parts of Cape Cod. When super storm Sandy occurred I could only laugh at all the dopes who built on barrier dunes down in New Jersey living under the false impression that they could hold back the sea when the time came. Why should I subsidize their flood insurance and rebuild their infrastructure so they can have a lovely view and a short stroll to the beach. I love the ocean as much as anyone, but if you are going to build on or near the beach you had better build for the one big storm that you thought might never come.
Bob.
Satellite data shows an oceans rise of 3.2 mm/yr (or 320mm/100 years or about one foot per 100 years) if we don’t enter a mini or full Ice age first. As for South Florida and South Louisiana flooding, the land there is going down.
Global Warming and Climate Change are a ruse to separate the
peoples of “developed” nations from their money. Said money
will go to “underdeveloped” nations (which will be allowed to
industrialize/pollute) so they may “catch up.”
Pollution used to be an issue of real import. I don’t know if
the pollution can influence the climate, (very unlikely) but it
sure can destroy the quality of air, land and water. We have
countless examples of this, really too many to list.
The oceans are garbage cans for the shipping industry. That
should be an issue of concern, but it may be too late for the
Pacific ocean/Fukushima radiation seems to be destroying sea
life.
Anyone that believes carbon dioxide is a pollutant is nuts. Stupid.
Maybe people are confusing it with carbon monoxide? Unchecked
“industrialization” and the absence of control of toxins into the soils
and water are the problem. Isn’t this one reason given for industry
moving to China eg? No pesky environmental rules/laws?
We, as a people would be better advised to question what is being
sprayed on us in the skies, (halting the sun from coming through)
than global warming. As unusual, the “truth” is the opposite of what
is being pushed. Global Warming taxes will serve to give us more
polluted environments. Think it through!
We have issues with beach erosion here in South Carolina . The gooberment wants the taxpayers to aid in “Beach Re-Nourishment ” projects which in reality are subsides for the beach front owners.
I guess the gooberment has never understood the phrase ” Water Always Wins ” .
If you want to see a climate change lovers head explode ask, “Did we have an ice age ” ? How did it end ? Oh it got warmer…what was mans effects on global warming at that time ?
@RHSjr: The oil companies have done a number on Louisiana and that’s the biggest problem right now offshore, but in Miami Beach the land isn’t sinking, the sealevel is RISING!
Even with proof like that, deniers deny.