Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice
The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.
Americans are not smart.
No argument there, but I'm not buying into the climate cult propaganda.
It's not a cult. Cults involve blind, irrational devotion. It's layers of scientific findings pointing primarily to one undeniable conclusion: We're rapidly making our planet less habitable for ourselves thanks to fossil fuels, methane, etc.
THere is a LOT blind irrational devotion in the Warmer Camp. They want to go off on what we should eat and what we should drive and what kind of light bulbs we use BEFORE the science actually MAKES successful predictions. So far -- even the IPCC has BACK OFF from it's initial predictions made 30 years ago that started this carnival of speculation. AND MOST of the early predictions have already failed. THAT is the course of "settled science". And WHY the issue is NOT getting any public traction.
There's a a LOT of MISinterpreted science. You do not get accurate GLOBAL averages from the past from ice cores and tree rings, and mudbug shells. These things cannot RECORD a 100 year event like we are now measuring with modern day methods. All they provide as a GLOBAL average is a general "long term mean value". NOT the variance that occurred on TOP of those means 1000 or 400,000 years ago. However -- if you look at some of those paleo-proxy studies INDIVIDUALLY -- the resolution and variance improves and get better "snapshots" of certain portions of planet for CO2 concentration and temperature swings.
So before you launch on cheeseburgers and SUVs and power plants --- just what is the LATEST estimate of the termperature anomaly predicted for 2050? Or 2100? The GW science ain't NEARLY settled.
Uh, maybe for reasons such as this?
Nuclear power is one option, but it carries a host of issues. There is no magic pill. But ignorance and denial is the only truly unacceptable option.
Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.
I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.
There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.
What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.
50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..
The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.
I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).
Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.
But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint
Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.
Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.
Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?
Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot
Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.
No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.
op cit the link in the OP.
Fifteen of the 16 warmest years have occurred in the 21st century. Each of the past 14 months has beaten the global monthly temperature record. But you can still hear people repeating the old claim, first proposed by fossil fuel lobbyists, that global warming stopped in 1998.
Typical obfuscation for max fear factor. What's similar about 1998 and 2015/16? Does MoonBat KNOW? Probably.. Will he include in his report. Hell no..
Both 1998 and 2015 mark the TWO monster El Nino years that bracket a 17 year period with virtually NO increase in GMAST (global avg temp). Almost all those "records" (in between the El Nino years) were set by a typical margin of only less 0.15deg over the previous records. Which was AIDED by the constant fiddling of LOWERING historical temps in the 30s and 40s and RAISING temps in the past couple decades on the TERRESTRIAL data bases. The satellite records -- which USED to agree to brilliantly with the Land/Sea readings show far less in the way of records.
When you get a 3 or 4 degree El Nino period -- REASONABLE folks would point that out. But GW spin meisters will not. Also the spinsters will favor the 10,000 thermometer and cooked books temp records and shun the satellites that have WIDER and more consistent coverage of the globe.
What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice
The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.
Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.
Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot
Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.
No global warming for over 18 years now. The Arctic ice levels are within the 20 year norms so yeah, there IS nothing to see here. Just more globalist propaganda designed to make the middle class poor, and enrich the wealthiest of the one percenters.
Wrong on all counts. Not much more to say. You seem woefully misinformed on this issue.
Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
I am sitting in a place that was once covered by mile high glaciers...and long before man arrived those glaciers melted......so sell the global warming lie somewhere else....
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Jesus talk about being misinformed the oil company's poured billions into green energy R&D.
Ok Gary. There have been 5 ice ages. What happened in between? You see there has been millions of years of climate change. OMG! And I'm supposed to entrust my future and the worlds future over to politicians?
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Should matter to you.. That's NOT the reactor complex at Fukushima Nuclear. That's a petroleum storage facility somewhere on the same coast. But ---- Hey --- what's the diff? If warmer folks ARE more scared of nuclear than Global Warming -- it does put things in perspective.
I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.
There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.
What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.
50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..
The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.
I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).
Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.
But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint
Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.
Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.
Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?
Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe, and driven so clearly by fossil fuel production. We're a force of nature, and we're defying the natural change that allows plants and animals to adapt.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.
The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.
Never before has the heat-up been this quick, this severe
How many of those previous Ice Ages did you witness?
I didn't realize we had such fine resolution in our climate reconstructions.
But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.
Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.
Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.
Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?
Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.
The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.
Fixed your post for you.
I linked up google image search to the wrong thing. Sue me. I don't think scientists or ...."warmer folks"(?)....are more scared of nuclear than global warming. That being said, when we have a reactor meltdown and it renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years, that's kind of a big deal.
There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.
What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.
50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..
The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.
I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).
Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.
But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint
Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.
Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.
Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?
Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........
That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:
Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.
