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.
and have NOTHING to show for it
Well, actually there are probably a thiusand excellent pieces of research out there which cover every aspect of climate change from rising ocean levels to glacial melt, from drought patterns to Arctic ice melt. This is impeccable, peer-reviewed, published science that is accepted by every major scientific organisation on earth.
What you mean is that the scientists have produced NOTHING which backs up the claims made by the extreme right wing.
And yes, Westwall, the questions you ask are all easy to answer. So easy to answer that you could answer them yourself as soon as you take your blinkers off.
For 100 BILLION dollars I would expect something tangible don't you? 20 BILLION ended WWII and invented nucler power. 100 Billion has presented us with a whole bunch of maybe's, could's, might's, possibly's and a whole host of other words that say the same thing....which is we don't know.
Maybe that's why every prediction made in the last 30 years hasn't happened. Could that be it? The Arctic still has bucketloads of ice and it is growing ever more extensive year to year. The Antarctic on the other hand has been above your precious 1979-2000 average for nearly two years now. And getting thicker.
Your statements don't hold up to actual facts there junior...try again.
If saving money means giving the private sector less useless regulation and more freedom to generate jobs and income for people, and less reason for the government to confiscate mega billions of your hard earned money, then yes, eliminating money wasted on useless climate change research is a huge pro. And I honestly can't come up with any cons for that.
So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?
How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?
I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison
Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.
Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....
LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)
Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.
Nobody knows why the Anistazis left southern Colorado, either.Foxfyre, I found this on Allan Savory's biography form at Wikipedia:
(Clifford) Allan Redin Savory (born September 15, 1935) is a Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award[1] and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge
I would heartily recommend watching his video to anyone who wonders why so much of the earth has become a desert and what can be done about it.
Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.................... Maybe we were mistaken in removing the buffalo from North America.
Now that is not the answer for all desert land. Eastern Oregon lost the buffalo before the white man arrived. Apparently the drying of that area was simply too severe to maintain the herds.
However, as pointed out, the range fed animals are far more healthier meat than the type of meat we are eating today.
Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.
I find it interesting that right wingers will latch onto anything or anyone who hatches an idea so long as it doesn't challenge their own beliefs that there is no global warming.
Take a better look at Venus!
Take a science class. Venus has a denser atmosphere made up of 96% CO2, O2 is a trace element in the Venusian atmosphere. Further the pressure of the Venusion atmosphere at the surface is 92times that of the Earth.
Only a blissfully ignorant, scientific illiterate would mention the two in the same sentence.
DUH! LOL!
Venus has MORE CO2. It's also HOTTER than Mercury despite being almost twice as far from the sun, receiving only about 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
Well, actually there are probably a thiusand excellent pieces of research out there which cover every aspect of climate change from rising ocean levels to glacial melt, from drought patterns to Arctic ice melt. This is impeccable, peer-reviewed, published science that is accepted by every major scientific organisation on earth.
What you mean is that the scientists have produced NOTHING which backs up the claims made by the extreme right wing.
And yes, Westwall, the questions you ask are all easy to answer. So easy to answer that you could answer them yourself as soon as you take your blinkers off.
For 100 BILLION dollars I would expect something tangible don't you? 20 BILLION ended WWII and invented nucler power. 100 Billion has presented us with a whole bunch of maybe's, could's, might's, possibly's and a whole host of other words that say the same thing....which is we don't know.
Maybe that's why every prediction made in the last 30 years hasn't happened. Could that be it? The Arctic still has bucketloads of ice and it is growing ever more extensive year to year. The Antarctic on the other hand has been above your precious 1979-2000 average for nearly two years now. And getting thicker.
Your statements don't hold up to actual facts there junior...try again.
100 billion? Another lie from Walleyes. Maybe one billion, total, by now. Going to be a lot more as the damage from extreme weather events increases, and we see the need to be able to predict the consequences of the warming.
The Arctic Sea Ice is getting more extensive?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
Such obvious lies.
Take a science class. Venus has a denser atmosphere made up of 96% CO2, O2 is a trace element in the Venusian atmosphere. Further the pressure of the Venusion atmosphere at the surface is 92times that of the Earth.
Only a blissfully ignorant, scientific illiterate would mention the two in the same sentence.
DUH! LOL!
Venus has MORE CO2. It's also HOTTER than Mercury despite being almost twice as far from the sun, receiving only about 25% of Mercury's solar irradiance.
It has more CO2 than the Earth could ever have in your wildest dreams fool. If we burned every CO2 bearing rock on the planet, the CO2 content WOULD STILL BE ONLY A TRACE GAS NIMROD!
I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison
Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.
Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....
LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)
And you claim to be a geologist? The PT Extinction event was a global warming event, caused by the GHGs put into the atmosphere due to flood basalt eruptions in Siberia through coal beds which then triggered the outgassing of ocean clathrates that existed then.
Earth's five mass extinction events
Warmer temperatures cause mass bleaching of corals. However, even in a warmer world, deep ocean temperatures would still remain well below surface temperatures and there would be safe havens where cooler water upwells from the deep ocean. That's not to say meteorites or global warming played no part in coral extinction - both have been contributing factors at various times. But they cannot fully explain the nature of coral extinctions as observed in the fossil record.
What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.
So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.
And you claim to be a thinking human being. Unsurprising you choose the MOST biased website on the planet to support your BS but be that as it may, there is almost no evidence to support the theory that GHG's were the cause of the PT extinction. There's tons to support a COLD climate as a possible cause, there is also minor evidence of a gamma ray burst, and most recently a massive buildup of hydrogen sulfide gas from the Siberian Trap volcanic activity has been presented. For 100 BILLION dollars I would expect something tangible don't you? 20 BILLION ended WWII and invented nucler power. 100 Billion has presented us with a whole bunch of maybe's, could's, might's, possibly's and a whole host of other words that say the same thing....which is we don't know.
Maybe that's why every prediction made in the last 30 years hasn't happened. Could that be it? The Arctic still has bucketloads of ice and it is growing ever more extensive year to year. The Antarctic on the other hand has been above your precious 1979-2000 average for nearly two years now. And getting thicker.
Your statements don't hold up to actual facts there junior...try again.
100 billion? Another lie from Walleyes. Maybe one billion, total, by now. Going to be a lot more as the damage from extreme weather events increases, and we see the need to be able to predict the consequences of the warming.
The Arctic Sea Ice is getting more extensive?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area
Such obvious lies.
Poor olfraud.....your whole method of asuaging your guilt for being a gross polluter is going down like a lead baloon so you resort to the usual name calling. Here's the reality silly boy, look at all that ice up there....yep that ice.
Why bother? As I showed you quite clearly warmer is better and has allways been so. Instead it would be far better to invest in our space program so that we can find those rocks orbitng our planet that actually DO have the ability to end civilisation.
Global Warming can never do that period end of story...but a rock, a big enough one...could. That's reality.....
LiveLeak.com - Meteorite hits central Russia - Video Collection (16 minutes)
And you claim to be a geologist? The PT Extinction event was a global warming event, caused by the GHGs put into the atmosphere due to flood basalt eruptions in Siberia through coal beds which then triggered the outgassing of ocean clathrates that existed then.
Earth's five mass extinction events
Warmer temperatures cause mass bleaching of corals. However, even in a warmer world, deep ocean temperatures would still remain well below surface temperatures and there would be safe havens where cooler water upwells from the deep ocean. That's not to say meteorites or global warming played no part in coral extinction - both have been contributing factors at various times. But they cannot fully explain the nature of coral extinctions as observed in the fossil record.
What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.
So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.
Everyone of those theories has far more evidence to support them than the fevered imagination of your global warming fraudsters.
Foxfyre, I found this on Allan Savory's biography form at Wikipedia:
(Clifford) Allan Redin Savory (born September 15, 1935) is a Zimbabwean biologist, farmer, soldier, exile, environmentalist, and winner of the 2003 Banksia International Award[1] and the 2010 Buckminster Fuller Challenge
I would heartily recommend watching his video to anyone who wonders why so much of the earth has become a desert and what can be done about it.
Just think of all the implication if Savory is right. Instead of having fewer but oversized, grain fed, hormone laden cattle, etc., you have lots more of them but in their more natural state, living off the land. We would no doubt have healthier meat, and the sheer numbers would feed millions of hungry people, reduce costs of food all over the world, and help solve our climate issues all with one fairly simple solution.
Hmmmmmmmmmmm.................... Maybe we were mistaken in removing the buffalo from North America.
Now that is not the answer for all desert land. Eastern Oregon lost the buffalo before the white man arrived. Apparently the drying of that area was simply too severe to maintain the herds.
However, as pointed out, the range fed animals are far more healthier meat than the type of meat we are eating today.
Global Warming = Miasma theory redux.
Only John Snow deduced the actual cause of the cholera outbreak.
That pie chart was 10,000 to 1, and it was the one that was correct.
No one recognized the truth, because there was consensus.
Yes, and in the 1950's children with asthma were removed from their parents because it was believed that the parents were too nervous causing the children to become asthmatics. And that was a consensus too.
Science, even in the 1950's was light years behind where we are now. There were no computers which could model climate in the manner that they can now. The amount of data which could be analysed was a drop in the bucket compared to what can be done now.
Really, talking about science in the Middle Ages, is like talking about architecture during the Stone Age.
I'll give credit where credit's due, that's a great video.
NASA proved GW stopped 16 years ago... What more is needed to be debated on the subject? Man had little to nothing to do with it getting warmer, science have proven that countless times.
NASA proved GW stopped 16 years ago... What more is needed to be debated on the subject? Man had little to nothing to do with it getting warmer, science have proven that countless times.
When in the entire history of the planet have there been 7 billion people burning fossil fuels 24*7?
The impact on the planet is obvious to those who have the eyes to see.
And you claim to be a geologist? The PT Extinction event was a global warming event, caused by the GHGs put into the atmosphere due to flood basalt eruptions in Siberia through coal beds which then triggered the outgassing of ocean clathrates that existed then.
Earth's five mass extinction events
Warmer temperatures cause mass bleaching of corals. However, even in a warmer world, deep ocean temperatures would still remain well below surface temperatures and there would be safe havens where cooler water upwells from the deep ocean. That's not to say meteorites or global warming played no part in coral extinction - both have been contributing factors at various times. But they cannot fully explain the nature of coral extinctions as observed in the fossil record.
What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.
So rate of change is a key variable in nature's ability to adapt. The current rate of change in CO2 levels has no known precedent. Oceans don't respond instantly to a CO2 build-up, so the full effects of acidification take decades to centuries to develop. This means we will have irretrievably committed the Earth to the acidification process long before its effects become anywhere near as obvious as those of mass bleaching today. If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.
Everyone of those theories has far more evidence to support them than the fevered imagination of your global warming fraudsters.
Hmmm............ Care to show me even one article concerning cold being the cause of the PT Extinction. Perhaps you are thinking of the Ordivician Extinction. You do know the differance between the Ordivician and the Permian, right?
NASA proved GW stopped 16 years ago... What more is needed to be debated on the subject? Man had little to nothing to do with it getting warmer, science have proven that countless times.
When in the entire history of the planet have there been 7 billion people burning fossil fuels 24*7?
The impact on the planet is obvious to those who have the eyes to see.
