CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 146,670
- 69,807
- 2,330
- Thread starter
- #41
And in 1975, the National Academies of Science published a paper in which they stated that the current understanding of climate was too meager for real predictions
And that hasn't changed.
Tell you what, you believe what you want. You can be 100% sure that you know what tomorrow's weather will be and the day after that. I have no problem with your hubris.
That however does NOT give you the right to impose bullshit redistribution and regulatory schemes on the rest of us. If you're sure the seas are rising, move away from the shore and leave the rest of us to drown in your assurance of what's to come.
Bullshit. We are not talking weather, we are speaking of climate.
As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough.
One problem you deniers are totally blind to, is that we do not know exactly how the rapid climate change will play out. We know now that consequences come at a much lower temperture increase than our models indicated. Consequences such as the rapid melt of Arctic Sea Ice and the outgassing of Arctic Clathrates. What we do know is that we have 7 billion people on this planet dependent on a reasonable climate in which agriculture can feed us. What we saw in 2010 and 2011 does not give confidence that we can expect that climate in the future.
"As for the regulatory and re-distribution schemes, they will be imposed out of neccessity if the climatic change is severe enough." -- Old Rocks, EnviroMarxist
Ahh, finally Old Rocks lets his Inner Marxist come forth!
Now you see what's behind the fraud of AGW
"...clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy" -- IPCC Official Policy