Al Gore's "Global Warming Winter". Looks Like "Earlier Than Usual Snow" In The East.

[TheSeventhTiger]

well, lets assume we are experiencing Global Warming, then wouldn't it be around 65 degrees in New York/New England, and 45/50 at night?

 

[thereisnospoon]

We can only hope, since the last two winters we haven't had one.

What part of the country are you in...We had the third coldest winter here in NC in 2012-2013
We had only two snowfalls, but the avg temp was below normal on 60% of the winter days.

Well I'm in North Carolina too so I know that's not at all true about the winters. We haven't had a real winter here in WNC since 2010-11, and I'm going by a combination of low temps and snowfall, the latter of which we haven't had for going on three years. That makes, for one thing, the tick population thrive, since they don't get killed off as usual in the winter (ticks are a major concern here in the woods of Appalachia). I don't think it ever even hit single digits temps last winter-- the lowest I got was about 15. Perhaps you're in Piedmont or some other part of the state but that's the way it was here.




That I agree with. Cold and rainy. Where I am it never hit 90, but then it has never hit 90 in the seven years I've been here. It didn't even hit 80 very much.



"Look", I'm just reporting what the last two non-winters were like. I'm not jumping to conclusions about climate, because unlike you I don't know everything.

The Earth's climate is cyclical. If you do not believe that, then you are a victim of your own side's political hackery.

Once again, to get that out of "we missed two winters" you have to make a lot of stuff up because you have a political agenda. There is no political agenda in remarking that we missed two winters.

At the end of the day, the left's entire climate narrative involves taking something from us.
That taking is in proposals for carbon taxes, this Cap and Trade idea, more taxes on fuel and the latest lefty craze, "mileage taxes'....Yeah I really love that one. A state government wanting to attach a tracking device to every car so the government can tax the movements of the citizens. And of course, those who use public transit which burns plenty of fuel pay nothing. In fact they pay LESS than nothing because instead of paying the full cost of their trip, their fares are subsidized by others. meanwhile there is not a single mass transit system in this country that breaks even.
All in the name of WHAT?

yammeryammer yammer yammer yammeryammeryammer the left yammeryammer all this out of a question of "how's the weather"? Really?

We're completely off the topic by now, but I actually know about that black box mileage bullshit. It's a Republican idea in fact. Came out of the Republican congress in 2002. They funded a study by the University of Iowa that tried this out in several states and areas-- I remember Florida, Oregon, Maine and I think some places here in NC. Matter of fact Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (another Republican) brought this up for consideration at the beginning of the first O'bama administration, and O'bama nixed it and declared it would never happen. That was in his first month in office. Even Fox Noise reported it.

And I agree with that; the idea is insane. For one thing, we have 250 million vehicles on the road, which would have to be retrofitted with black boxes, which then double as tracking devices, not to mention the maintenance of doing all that tracking. Somebody like me, I drive 40,000 to 50,000 miles a year, and most of it is outside my own state, so every time I fill up in Alabama or New Jersey or Louisiana, I'm already paying the fuel taxes for those states, directly for those roads I'm using. That's a system that ain't broke; if it's falling short all you do is increase the road tax to fit the needs.

This idea that we're being taken over by electric cars is just not based in reality. EVs are, always were, and always will be a local transportation method, not long distance. That does make up 70 to 80 percent of our driving, so such a conversion would indeed save a lot of fossil fuel, but that taxation can be done separately when and if this black box idea ever gets legs.

So I'm with you, the black box idea is a load of crap. But as far as political agendas, which seems to be your main point, it's no more from the left than Adolf Hitler was.

Of course not every year is the same. The reason being the natural climate cycles of the Earth. Of course La Nina and El Nino have a great influence on weather. These phenomenon are climate anomalies. So what.
Of course the anti fossil fuel libs and the dirt eating tree hugging eviro wackos would turn the economy upside down because it got unusually warm for one season.
"A GOP idea"? Ok...
I neither stated nor implied we "were being taken over by electric cars"....
The fact that I object to their presence has nothing to do with a political agenda. it is about practicality.

 

[Pogo]

What part of the country are you in...We had the third coldest winter here in NC in 2012-2013
We had only two snowfalls, but the avg temp was below normal on 60% of the winter days.

Well I'm in North Carolina too so I know that's not at all true about the winters. We haven't had a real winter here in WNC since 2010-11, and I'm going by a combination of low temps and snowfall, the latter of which we haven't had for going on three years. That makes, for one thing, the tick population thrive, since they don't get killed off as usual in the winter (ticks are a major concern here in the woods of Appalachia). I don't think it ever even hit single digits temps last winter-- the lowest I got was about 15. Perhaps you're in Piedmont or some other part of the state but that's the way it was here.




That I agree with. Cold and rainy. Where I am it never hit 90, but then it has never hit 90 in the seven years I've been here. It didn't even hit 80 very much.



"Look", I'm just reporting what the last two non-winters were like. I'm not jumping to conclusions about climate, because unlike you I don't know everything.



Once again, to get that out of "we missed two winters" you have to make a lot of stuff up because you have a political agenda. There is no political agenda in remarking that we missed two winters.

At the end of the day, the left's entire climate narrative involves taking something from us.
That taking is in proposals for carbon taxes, this Cap and Trade idea, more taxes on fuel and the latest lefty craze, "mileage taxes'....Yeah I really love that one. A state government wanting to attach a tracking device to every car so the government can tax the movements of the citizens. And of course, those who use public transit which burns plenty of fuel pay nothing. In fact they pay LESS than nothing because instead of paying the full cost of their trip, their fares are subsidized by others. meanwhile there is not a single mass transit system in this country that breaks even.
All in the name of WHAT?

yammeryammer yammer yammer yammeryammeryammer the left yammeryammer all this out of a question of "how's the weather"? Really?

We're completely off the topic by now, but I actually know about that black box mileage bullshit. It's a Republican idea in fact. Came out of the Republican congress in 2002. They funded a study by the University of Iowa that tried this out in several states and areas-- I remember Florida, Oregon, Maine and I think some places here in NC. Matter of fact Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (another Republican) brought this up for consideration at the beginning of the first O'bama administration, and O'bama nixed it and declared it would never happen. That was in his first month in office. Even Fox Noise reported it.

And I agree with that; the idea is insane. For one thing, we have 250 million vehicles on the road, which would have to be retrofitted with black boxes, which then double as tracking devices, not to mention the maintenance of doing all that tracking. Somebody like me, I drive 40,000 to 50,000 miles a year, and most of it is outside my own state, so every time I fill up in Alabama or New Jersey or Louisiana, I'm already paying the fuel taxes for those states, directly for those roads I'm using. That's a system that ain't broke; if it's falling short all you do is increase the road tax to fit the needs.

This idea that we're being taken over by electric cars is just not based in reality. EVs are, always were, and always will be a local transportation method, not long distance. That does make up 70 to 80 percent of our driving, so such a conversion would indeed save a lot of fossil fuel, but that taxation can be done separately when and if this black box idea ever gets legs.

So I'm with you, the black box idea is a load of crap. But as far as political agendas, which seems to be your main point, it's no more from the left than Adolf Hitler was.

Of course not every year is the same. The reason being the natural climate cycles of the Earth. Of course La Nina and El Nino have a great influence on weather. These phenomenon are climate anomalies. So what.
Of course the anti fossil fuel libs and the dirt eating tree hugging eviro wackos would turn the economy upside down because it got unusually warm for one season.
"A GOP idea"? Ok...
I neither stated nor implied we "were being taken over by electric cars"....
The fact that I object to their presence has nothing to do with a political agenda. it is about practicality.

I was extending a bit. Electric cars were the rationale given for this wacko black box idea. The fearmonger dropping was "electric cars are taking over, they don't use fossil fuel so therefore the roads won't be paid for" which is bullshit.

La Niña/El Niño is a point well taken; there are many factors influencing long term climate change that make a very long term necessary to reach a conclusion. That's exactly why you can't just say one theory is bullshit or a "hoax". You don't know that, because you can't know that.

 

[JoeB131]

well, lets assume we are experiencing Global Warming, then wouldn't it be around 65 degrees in New York/New England, and 45/50 at night?

Here's the thing.

It was 60 degrees in chicago yesterday, and today it's going to get up to 68.

 

[skookerasbil]

Again... climate/weather - global/regional - know the difference.

Did you know the earth is round? Or is it too soon?

Doesn't matter s0n.

The graph says it doesn't matter.......which means the science doesn't matter.

Fuck your graph. It does matter because the poster's conflating weather with climate.

Try to read the actual post and not get distracted by shiny objects.
Especially that big mouth thing. Looks really really stupid.

fAiL s0n.....you dont get it. "Climate science" is essentially nothing more than a hobby if it is having no impact on how governments generate energy.....sit around a bonfire and debate it. Perhaps some fun stuff......but all the consensus crap......25 years of bomb throwing by the alarmist k00ks hasnt resulted in dick. Fossil fuels still dominate and every single projection decades out ( including Obama's own EIA ) shows renewables as a sliver on any graph.


Climate weather.......weather climate. Nobody cares. Why? Because shit costs money, something the alarmist k00ks havent quite connected the dots on yet.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Well I'm in North Carolina too so I know that's not at all true about the winters. We haven't had a real winter here in WNC since 2010-11, and I'm going by a combination of low temps and snowfall, the latter of which we haven't had for going on three years. That makes, for one thing, the tick population thrive, since they don't get killed off as usual in the winter (ticks are a major concern here in the woods of Appalachia). I don't think it ever even hit single digits temps last winter-- the lowest I got was about 15. Perhaps you're in Piedmont or some other part of the state but that's the way it was here.




That I agree with. Cold and rainy. Where I am it never hit 90, but then it has never hit 90 in the seven years I've been here. It didn't even hit 80 very much.



"Look", I'm just reporting what the last two non-winters were like. I'm not jumping to conclusions about climate, because unlike you I don't know everything.



Once again, to get that out of "we missed two winters" you have to make a lot of stuff up because you have a political agenda. There is no political agenda in remarking that we missed two winters.



yammeryammer yammer yammer yammeryammeryammer the left yammeryammer all this out of a question of "how's the weather"? Really?

We're completely off the topic by now, but I actually know about that black box mileage bullshit. It's a Republican idea in fact. Came out of the Republican congress in 2002. They funded a study by the University of Iowa that tried this out in several states and areas-- I remember Florida, Oregon, Maine and I think some places here in NC. Matter of fact Obama's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (another Republican) brought this up for consideration at the beginning of the first O'bama administration, and O'bama nixed it and declared it would never happen. That was in his first month in office. Even Fox Noise reported it.

And I agree with that; the idea is insane. For one thing, we have 250 million vehicles on the road, which would have to be retrofitted with black boxes, which then double as tracking devices, not to mention the maintenance of doing all that tracking. Somebody like me, I drive 40,000 to 50,000 miles a year, and most of it is outside my own state, so every time I fill up in Alabama or New Jersey or Louisiana, I'm already paying the fuel taxes for those states, directly for those roads I'm using. That's a system that ain't broke; if it's falling short all you do is increase the road tax to fit the needs.

This idea that we're being taken over by electric cars is just not based in reality. EVs are, always were, and always will be a local transportation method, not long distance. That does make up 70 to 80 percent of our driving, so such a conversion would indeed save a lot of fossil fuel, but that taxation can be done separately when and if this black box idea ever gets legs.

So I'm with you, the black box idea is a load of crap. But as far as political agendas, which seems to be your main point, it's no more from the left than Adolf Hitler was.

Of course not every year is the same. The reason being the natural climate cycles of the Earth. Of course La Nina and El Nino have a great influence on weather. These phenomenon are climate anomalies. So what.
Of course the anti fossil fuel libs and the dirt eating tree hugging eviro wackos would turn the economy upside down because it got unusually warm for one season.
"A GOP idea"? Ok...
I neither stated nor implied we "were being taken over by electric cars"....
The fact that I object to their presence has nothing to do with a political agenda. it is about practicality.

I was extending a bit. Electric cars were the rationale given for this wacko black box idea. The fearmonger dropping was "electric cars are taking over, they don't use fossil fuel so therefore the roads won't be paid for" which is bullshit.

La Niña/El Niño is a point well taken; there are many factors influencing long term climate change that make a very long term necessary to reach a conclusion. That's exactly why you can't just say one theory is bullshit or a "hoax". You don't know that, because you can't know that.

Oh but all one has to do is look at climate data and other records to see climate anomalies over the centuries. One such glaring example is the 14th century where diaries from Europe indicated unusually warm winters lasting decades.
And electric cars DO use fossil fuels. Most of our electrical is generated with the use of fossil fuels. These same fuels are used in the production of the batteries. The battery recycling process also uses these same fuels.
The other issue is those who purchase electric vehicles are being subsidized by taxpayers.
In California, those charging stations are used free of charge by electric vehicle users. The state allows this by collecting fees from rate payers to subsidize the stations.
The electric car users pay NO fuel taxes which go to fund road and infrastructure projects.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

The Florida forecast for the next 7 days will have those in the Michigan are pretty upset! I think the average temperature is around 83/sunny. Now what happens when our warm weather collides with the cold a few states north? Snow?

oops! warm and cold are colliding as we speak! now we wait and see how long before the leftist bigots start accusing Global Warming and Republicans on the Chicago Tornadoes.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't matter s0n.

The graph says it doesn't matter.......which means the science doesn't matter.

Fuck your graph. It does matter because the poster's conflating weather with climate.

Try to read the actual post and not get distracted by shiny objects.
Especially that big mouth thing. Looks really really stupid.

fAiL s0n.....you dont get it. "Climate science" is essentially nothing more than a hobby if it is having no impact on how governments generate energy.....sit around a bonfire and debate it. Perhaps some fun stuff......but all the consensus crap......25 years of bomb throwing by the alarmist k00ks hasnt resulted in dick. Fossil fuels still dominate and every single projection decades out ( including Obama's own EIA ) shows renewables as a sliver on any graph.


Climate weather.......weather climate. Nobody cares. Why? Because shit costs money, something the alarmist k00ks havent quite connected the dots on yet.

And if your point is the positive can't be proven, then by the same token neither can the negative.

DUH.

 

[Pogo]

Of course not every year is the same. The reason being the natural climate cycles of the Earth. Of course La Nina and El Nino have a great influence on weather. These phenomenon are climate anomalies. So what.
Of course the anti fossil fuel libs and the dirt eating tree hugging eviro wackos would turn the economy upside down because it got unusually warm for one season.
"A GOP idea"? Ok...
I neither stated nor implied we "were being taken over by electric cars"....
The fact that I object to their presence has nothing to do with a political agenda. it is about practicality.

I was extending a bit. Electric cars were the rationale given for this wacko black box idea. The fearmonger dropping was "electric cars are taking over, they don't use fossil fuel so therefore the roads won't be paid for" which is bullshit.

La Niña/El Niño is a point well taken; there are many factors influencing long term climate change that make a very long term necessary to reach a conclusion. That's exactly why you can't just say one theory is bullshit or a "hoax". You don't know that, because you can't know that.

Oh but all one has to do is look at climate data and other records to see climate anomalies over the centuries. One such glaring example is the 14th century where diaries from Europe indicated unusually warm winters lasting decades.
And electric cars DO use fossil fuels. Most of our electrical is generated with the use of fossil fuels. These same fuels are used in the production of the batteries. The battery recycling process also uses these same fuels.
The other issue is those who purchase electric vehicles are being subsidized by taxpayers.
In California, those charging stations are used free of charge by electric vehicle users. The state allows this by collecting fees from rate payers to subsidize the stations.
The electric car users pay NO fuel taxes which go to fund road and infrastructure projects.

Of course there have been anomalies, and look up the Little Ice Age for another fascinating event. That's my point -- if we don't know that one theory is correct, then we also don't know another one is not.

EVs were not supposed to be the topic but why they were brought up is this -- in that wacko mileage tax idea, the rationale (and I already said this but I'll just keep typing until it starts to sink in) was given that "electric cars don't gas up, therefore they won't be paying taxes while still using the roads". That was their rationale for the tax idea. Has nothing to do with reality. So you're off on a tangent that goes nowhere.

 

[Pogo]

The Florida forecast for the next 7 days will have those in the Michigan are pretty upset! I think the average temperature is around 83/sunny. Now what happens when our warm weather collides with the cold a few states north? Snow?

oops! warm and cold are colliding as we speak! now we wait and see how long before the leftist bigots start accusing Global Warming and Republicans on the Chicago Tornadoes.

Wow, that's gotta be the first time warm and cold air have collided ever, right?
What are you, six years old?

Also the first time either weather or climate has been associated with "bigotry".

Words fail me...

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

I am being sarcastic! but it is rather unusual to have the rust belt in this dilemma for Mid-November, Al Roker will blame it on Global Warming, just like he blamed Sandy on G.W.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Florida forecast for the next 7 days will have those in the Michigan are pretty upset! I think the average temperature is around 83/sunny. Now what happens when our warm weather collides with the cold a few states north? Snow?

oops! warm and cold are colliding as we speak! now we wait and see how long before the leftist bigots start accusing Global Warming and Republicans on the Chicago Tornadoes.

Remember when the libs tried to blame Bush using his former relationship via his oil company holdings for the Hurricane Katrina disaster?
No joke.
Idiot reporters such as the now shit canned Soledad O'Brien tried to hypothesize that because the primary source of energy is fossil fuels which they claim are the cause of global warming, reported that the then POTUS was to blame because he was protecting his so called "oil rich friends" which are wholly responsible for what they claim is global warming. They claim global warming causes hurricanes and causes hurricanes to be more severe.
Of course since 2005, there have been fewer storms to make landfall in the US and the intensity of said storms has been much lower. This caused the need for a change
Every time a tropical wave starts tracking toward the US, the global warming freaks rub their hands together in anticipation like little kids on Christmas Eve.
When the storms fizzle out, they groan a collective "oh..........SHIT!!!!!!"...

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

well the tornado's are hitting a Liberal City/areas, yup, it will be blames on the GOP.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I was extending a bit. Electric cars were the rationale given for this wacko black box idea. The fearmonger dropping was "electric cars are taking over, they don't use fossil fuel so therefore the roads won't be paid for" which is bullshit.

La Niña/El Niño is a point well taken; there are many factors influencing long term climate change that make a very long term necessary to reach a conclusion. That's exactly why you can't just say one theory is bullshit or a "hoax". You don't know that, because you can't know that.

Oh but all one has to do is look at climate data and other records to see climate anomalies over the centuries. One such glaring example is the 14th century where diaries from Europe indicated unusually warm winters lasting decades.
And electric cars DO use fossil fuels. Most of our electrical is generated with the use of fossil fuels. These same fuels are used in the production of the batteries. The battery recycling process also uses these same fuels.
The other issue is those who purchase electric vehicles are being subsidized by taxpayers.
In California, those charging stations are used free of charge by electric vehicle users. The state allows this by collecting fees from rate payers to subsidize the stations.
The electric car users pay NO fuel taxes which go to fund road and infrastructure projects.

Of course there have been anomalies, and look up the Little Ice Age for another fascinating event. That's my point -- if we don't know that one theory is correct, then we also don't know another one is not.

EVs were not supposed to be the topic but why they were brought up is this -- in that wacko mileage tax idea, the rationale (and I already said this but I'll just keep typing until it starts to sink in) was given that "electric cars don't gas up, therefore they won't be paying taxes while still using the roads". That was their rationale for the tax idea. Has nothing to do with reality. So you're off on a tangent that goes nowhere.

" if we don't know that one theory is correct, then we also don't know another one is not."
The answer is NOT to introduce new taxes and suffocating government mandates based on 'theories'...
The notion liberals often espouse of "well, we HAVE to do something" usually results in good intentions paving the way to hell while violating every law of unintended consequences.
Of course libs are not happy unless their are grinding their noses on some 'crisis'.
Look, I ma all for new energy technologies. However, I do not accept them unless they meet the following conditions.
1. the fuel MUST be the same or a lower consumer price.
2. the fuel MUST be just as efficient or more efficient.
3. the fuel MUST be free of taxpayer funded subsidies for ANY special interest
4.the fuel MUST be as widely available as what we have now.

BTW, the current ethanol blend requirements now in effect are being rolled back. It just did not work out very well. Ethanol damages the internal parts and fuel systems of internal combustion engines. It also delivers less efficient fuel combustion. Lowers overall engine performance. But for govt subsidies is much more costly than straight gasoline to produce and transport to market.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Florida forecast for the next 7 days will have those in the Michigan are pretty upset! I think the average temperature is around 83/sunny. Now what happens when our warm weather collides with the cold a few states north? Snow?

oops! warm and cold are colliding as we speak! now we wait and see how long before the leftist bigots start accusing Global Warming and Republicans on the Chicago Tornadoes.

Wow, that's gotta be the first time warm and cold air have collided ever, right?
What are you, six years old?

Also the first time either weather or climate has been associated with "bigotry".

Words fail me...

Not it hasn't....Some racially hypersensitive liberal pundits attempted to theorize that not only did Bush order the explosive demolition of the levees during Katrina, he was to blame for the intensity of the storm. All because NOLA is a "chocolate City".

 

[Pogo]

oops! warm and cold are colliding as we speak! now we wait and see how long before the leftist bigots start accusing Global Warming and Republicans on the Chicago Tornadoes.

Wow, that's gotta be the first time warm and cold air have collided ever, right?
What are you, six years old?

Also the first time either weather or climate has been associated with "bigotry".

Words fail me...

Not it hasn't....Some racially hypersensitive liberal pundits attempted to theorize that not only did Bush order the explosive demolition of the levees during Katrina, he was to blame for the intensity of the storm. All because NOLA is a "chocolate City".

Even if that were true, even if that claim were true, levees have nothing to do with "climate" or "weather".

Again... DUH.

Plus, your earlier post claimed you were being sarcastic; now you're saying it's real.

Busted.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wow, that's gotta be the first time warm and cold air have collided ever, right?
What are you, six years old?

Also the first time either weather or climate has been associated with "bigotry".

Words fail me...

Not it hasn't....Some racially hypersensitive liberal pundits attempted to theorize that not only did Bush order the explosive demolition of the levees during Katrina, he was to blame for the intensity of the storm. All because NOLA is a "chocolate City".

Even if that were true, even if that claim were true, levees have nothing to do with "climate" or "weather".

Again... DUH.

Plus, your earlier post claimed you were being sarcastic; now you're saying it's real.

Busted.

Don't make this personal...

 

[Pogo]

Oh but all one has to do is look at climate data and other records to see climate anomalies over the centuries. One such glaring example is the 14th century where diaries from Europe indicated unusually warm winters lasting decades.
And electric cars DO use fossil fuels. Most of our electrical is generated with the use of fossil fuels. These same fuels are used in the production of the batteries. The battery recycling process also uses these same fuels.
The other issue is those who purchase electric vehicles are being subsidized by taxpayers.
In California, those charging stations are used free of charge by electric vehicle users. The state allows this by collecting fees from rate payers to subsidize the stations.
The electric car users pay NO fuel taxes which go to fund road and infrastructure projects.

Of course there have been anomalies, and look up the Little Ice Age for another fascinating event. That's my point -- if we don't know that one theory is correct, then we also don't know another one is not.

EVs were not supposed to be the topic but why they were brought up is this -- in that wacko mileage tax idea, the rationale (and I already said this but I'll just keep typing until it starts to sink in) was given that "electric cars don't gas up, therefore they won't be paying taxes while still using the roads". That was their rationale for the tax idea. Has nothing to do with reality. So you're off on a tangent that goes nowhere.

" if we don't know that one theory is correct, then we also don't know another one is not."
The answer is NOT to introduce new taxes and suffocating government mandates based on 'theories'...
The notion liberals often espouse of "well, we HAVE to do something" usually results in good intentions paving the way to hell while violating every law of unintended consequences.
Of course libs are not happy unless their are grinding their noses on some 'crisis'.
Look, I ma all for new energy technologies. However, I do not accept them unless they meet the following conditions.
1. the fuel MUST be the same or a lower consumer price.
2. the fuel MUST be just as efficient or more efficient.
3. the fuel MUST be free of taxpayer funded subsidies for ANY special interest
4.the fuel MUST be as widely available as what we have now.

BTW, the current ethanol blend requirements now in effect are being rolled back. It just did not work out very well. Ethanol damages the internal parts and fuel systems of internal combustion engines. It also delivers less efficient fuel combustion. Lowers overall engine performance. But for govt subsidies is much more costly than straight gasoline to produce and transport to market.

I don't know why you're yammering on and on with this. I've also been against ethanol for the duration. I've put a lot of data into this site over the years, and others. So the yammering is getting old.

What I'm saying above is that if we don't have enough evidence to say climate change is man-made (or partially so), then by the same token we also don't have the same enough evidence to declare that it isn't. You don't get one absolute and not the other.

Meanwhile there's nothing irresponsible about cleaning up your own shit. If we found that people were dumping PCBs over yonder, but we're not sure whether it's gotten to the water table, do we just walk away and declare there's no problem? Use your frickin' head dood, sheeesh.

 

[Pogo]

Not it hasn't....Some racially hypersensitive liberal pundits attempted to theorize that not only did Bush order the explosive demolition of the levees during Katrina, he was to blame for the intensity of the storm. All because NOLA is a "chocolate City".

Even if that were true, even if that claim were true, levees have nothing to do with "climate" or "weather".

Again... DUH.

Plus, your earlier post claimed you were being sarcastic; now you're saying it's real.

Busted.

Don't make this personal...

Sorry, I confused you and 7th Tiger since you responded to his post.

Maybe you should simply respond to your own and let him respond to his.

But btw, "chocolate city" was Ray Nagin's term. Had nothing to do with Bush or with any reporter. So that's a fabrication too. It wasn't related to the levees at all.

 

[TheSeventhTiger]

have any of u seen pics coming out of Illinois? they are on the free republic sight, washington was flattened.