Priceless.......absolutely priceless.............and you wonder why you have lost credibility.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Global Warming Pie Chart
- Thread starter ClosedCaption
- Start date
Priceless.......absolutely priceless.............and you wonder why you have lost credibility.
Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
- Thread starter
- #443
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
Saigon
Gold Member
Westwall -
Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps.
Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year.
Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted | Environment | The Observer
Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps.
Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year.
Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted | Environment | The Observer
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
But at least that is rarely ever as destructive as "Let's tell everybody that there is a terrible danger for the entire world out there and get our countries to pass a lot of laws to deal with it. Because there are fools who will believe anything if it is published in the right kind of publication, we can make out like bandits. We might have to shut up a few folks, but it will be worth it."
Westwall -
Sea ice in the Arctic is disappearing at a far greater rate than previously expected, according to data from the first purpose-built satellite launched to study the thickness of the Earth's polar caps.
Preliminary results from the European Space Agency's CryoSat-2 probe indicate that 900 cubic kilometres of summer sea ice has disappeared from the Arctic ocean over the past year.
Rate of Arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted | Environment | The Observer
According to YOUR experts cited above there was supposed to be NO ICE in the Arctic by 2013......uh....that's this year isn't it. So, in other words they couldn't even accurately predict what would happen six years hence!
Laughable...simply laughable and you religious dingbat revisionists lap it up like little puppies.
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.
We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.
A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.
Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Little-Acorn
Gold Member
The global-warming hysterics still haven't proven man has any influence on climate, or can do anything to change it in the future. If they try to argue that, they'll lose in a landslide.
In fact, Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.
In truth, climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist hysterics who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, force everyone to go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.
Is this a record?
In fact, Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.
In truth, climates frequently change.
Sometimes the climate gets warmer.
And sometimes it gets colder.
That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.
And man has never had the slightest influence on it.
Even the leftist hysterics who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, force everyone to go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.
What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.
The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.
***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.
Is this a record?
ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
- Thread starter
- #450
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
But at least that is rarely ever as destructive as "Let's tell everybody that there is a terrible danger for the entire world out there and get our countries to pass a lot of laws to deal with it. Because there are fools who will believe anything if it is published in the right kind of publication, we can make out like bandits. We might have to shut up a few folks, but it will be worth it."
yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.
We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
But at least that is rarely ever as destructive as "Let's tell everybody that there is a terrible danger for the entire world out there and get our countries to pass a lot of laws to deal with it. Because there are fools who will believe anything if it is published in the right kind of publication, we can make out like bandits. We might have to shut up a few folks, but it will be worth it."
yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.
We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no
Excuse me? You don't know me and don't have a clue about what I am for and against re the planet.
But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.
What I am NOT for is chasing theories and maxims put out by people who seem to be primarily interested in increasing THEIR personal power and fortunes and don't seem to give a damn what negative effects result from their doctrines and don't care whether they are right or not so long as the money keeps flowing in.
What I am NOT for is giving up my or anybody else's liberties, choices, options, and opportunities for what is very likely flawed science being used by unethical and opportunistic people.
What I am NOT for is condemning some of the world's poorest people to ever more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied the ability to use their natural resources to better the lives as the rest of us have already done.
Be careful what you accuse others of in your zeal to grovel at the feet of the great gods of the AGW religion.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 23,192
- 13,553
- 1,405
With numbers like that, why would any believer ever need to fudge the numbers and email colleagues on how and why to do it? See University of East Anglia.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 23,192
- 13,553
- 1,405
The Earth has been warming, cooling, and undergoing climate change for 4 billion years and is maybe good to go for another 4 billion. Where is the scientific evidence that man impacts it and that the US is mostly the cause?
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
But at least that is rarely ever as destructive as "Let's tell everybody that there is a terrible danger for the entire world out there and get our countries to pass a lot of laws to deal with it. Because there are fools who will believe anything if it is published in the right kind of publication, we can make out like bandits. We might have to shut up a few folks, but it will be worth it."
yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.
We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no
How about that MTBE issue
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Describe these changes in detail please....
Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.
Other than the pollution, none of your listed changes is a negative. The pollution is localised only, there is some inter continental impact from Chinese pollution for sure, but it is for the most part benign.
And I have never once stated that pollution is good or should be ignored. In fact most of my career has been directed at cleaning up mans environmental damage. But that is local for the most part. There is zero empirical data that shows any worldwide pollution cauing problems other than where it is created...your fevered attack on CO2 excepted.
And all evidence shows that CO2 is the bottom rung of the food chain. Halt it and we all die. If that's your goal then stick with it. If on the other hand your goal is pollution control, then think globally, ACT locally.
Your grasp of ecology leaves a lot to be desired. Destruction of habitat is a major problem and a contributing factor in global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.
Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol
Your advice is, let's spend trillions, because that's a good use of our money.
Because warm is bad, and we can stop the climate from warming. LOL!
Derideo_Te
Je Suis Charlie
- Mar 2, 2013
- 20,461
- 7,961
- 360
Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...
Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -
You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.
It's worth being honest about that.
No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.
Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.
Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco
Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
So someone got a prediction wrong therefore all scientific facts are wrong? How many times has the date of the second coming been wrong? Does that mean Christianity is wrong too? Anecdotes are meaningless. Facts are what matter.
Extensive use of fossil fuels.
Massive engineering projects.
Deforestation and destruction of natural watersheds.
Paving and building projects.
Air conditioning and heating.
Pollution of air, water and land on a global scale.
Factory farming for both meat and grain sources.
Other than the pollution, none of your listed changes is a negative. The pollution is localised only, there is some inter continental impact from Chinese pollution for sure, but it is for the most part benign.
And I have never once stated that pollution is good or should be ignored. In fact most of my career has been directed at cleaning up mans environmental damage. But that is local for the most part. There is zero empirical data that shows any worldwide pollution cauing problems other than where it is created...your fevered attack on CO2 excepted.
And all evidence shows that CO2 is the bottom rung of the food chain. Halt it and we all die. If that's your goal then stick with it. If on the other hand your goal is pollution control, then think globally, ACT locally.
Your grasp of ecology leaves a lot to be desired. Destruction of habitat is a major problem and a contributing factor in global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.
I've read enough of Westwall's posts over the last year or so to be pretty confident he is not in favor of destroying habitat in a careless or uncaring manner. And believe it or not, NONE of us skeptics want dirty air, water, soil, or destruction of wildlife and aesthetic beauty any more than anybody else. does
But what most of us do want is to allow human beings to exist, to live, and to improve their well being, along with that of most wildlife, in an intelligent and well considered manner. And to use common sense instead of emotional hysteria to make decisions and evaluate results.
For instance, there is a silvery minnow that supposedly exists ONLY in the middle Rio Grande that has apparently survived there for thousands of years despite the worst floods, despite terrible polluting accidents and forest fires, and despite droughts that dried up the river for months at a time. The environmentalists are so determined to protect those few non descript minnows that they demand untimely release of upstream reservoirs and refuse to allow irrigation down stream at the risk of hundreds of farmers losing their livelihood.
There needs to be a balance of reasonable compromise in there somewhere don't you think?
Last edited:
Expanding on my previous post, I encourage everybody to again look at that video of the scientist (Avery) who now admits that science got it very very wrong in how to save habitats and stop desertification. It was posted several pages back.
I also look at the drilling platforms out in the Gulf. Environmentalists had such a fit that these would upset the ecology. Well it did, but in a very good way. It seems sea critters LOVE those platforms and use them like coral reefs.
Ditto in Alaska, the environmentalists objected mightily to the pipeline and predicted it would devastate the caribou and other wildlife. But there has been no problem. The caribou have thrived quite nicely and actually like the pipeline.
Ditto in the Texas Panhandle. There wasn't much in the way of wildlife, but there are some unique plants and insects there that the environmentalists tried to use to halt expansion of oil and natural gas exploration and production. Well the oil and gas well are pumping all over the place and since they went in there are large quantities of deer, antelope, and a lot of other critters that simply weren't there before. Who would have ever believed that there would be deer hunting in the Texas Panhandle?
And if the planet is warming up to the point that it will start back toward its next cyclical ice age, I'm pretty sure that Canada, Siberia, Greenland, and other points in the far north will be quite ready and able to become prime producers of great food products and will enjoy the boost to their economies.
I also look at the drilling platforms out in the Gulf. Environmentalists had such a fit that these would upset the ecology. Well it did, but in a very good way. It seems sea critters LOVE those platforms and use them like coral reefs.
Ditto in Alaska, the environmentalists objected mightily to the pipeline and predicted it would devastate the caribou and other wildlife. But there has been no problem. The caribou have thrived quite nicely and actually like the pipeline.
Ditto in the Texas Panhandle. There wasn't much in the way of wildlife, but there are some unique plants and insects there that the environmentalists tried to use to halt expansion of oil and natural gas exploration and production. Well the oil and gas well are pumping all over the place and since they went in there are large quantities of deer, antelope, and a lot of other critters that simply weren't there before. Who would have ever believed that there would be deer hunting in the Texas Panhandle?
And if the planet is warming up to the point that it will start back toward its next cyclical ice age, I'm pretty sure that Canada, Siberia, Greenland, and other points in the far north will be quite ready and able to become prime producers of great food products and will enjoy the boost to their economies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 12
- Views
- 141
- Replies
- 55
- Views
- 316
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 230
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8553
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-