Demigod, or more, in his mind, Obama
believes a sketchy weather projection of a club of like
minded "scientists" (what vaccine, electronic device,
computational machine, extra-terrestrial landing, etc., have
they ever done?) is more destructive than what man has
"kinetically" done against itself forever?
Yet he sits there on his throne, calling nature, which he
can control, if everyone listens to him, a worse threat than
terrorism, This crosses the red line of dementia. WWI
and WWII both were started by terrorism. Who exactly is the
Follower following? Putin? The Ayatollah?
This is a well thought out article. I just finished reading
Cool Times in Nat Geo. I really do believe it is in our best
interest economically to pursue PV, wind and nuclear power.
Given that Tesla is developing efficient batteries to store
PV electricity it seems logical to pursue this technology.
Wind is becoming more efficient and nuclear power I believe
is quite safe. Nuclear can be phased out in favor of wind
and PV as the batteries become more efficient. Three percent
of the world population died in WWII. Based on your world
population count that would be now 210,000,000 if we don't
get this under control. Can you count Obama? You think more
lives will be lost to climate change or giving Iran the bomb
and Putin a pardon? Gene, do you think flower power and
carbon sequestration would have stopped the Axis?
In 2002, the "global warming crowd" predicted that New
England would get less snow than [average, I presume?] in
2014? That's an oddly specific prediction for something that
varies as much as year-to-year weather patterns. It is
unhelpful at best, and a red herring at worst, to point to
specific regions and events over short time scales as you
and Gene Ramirez did. It might be reasonable to talk about
research that suggests years of drought or excessive rain
would be more likely in some regions, or that other regions
might see less snow and more rain or a reduction in both.
But those statements, while properly couched in the usual
scientific language of caution, doesn't make for as strong
of an emotional appeal as saying, "This wacky weather where
I live proves/disproves global warming!" But then, why be
careful to talk about it scientifically when being
hyperbolic and using logical fallacies is so effective?
Here's a quote from the article "Even with this year’s El
Niño-boosted warmth threatening to break records, the world
is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit)
warmer than it was about 35 years ago." It was hot here in
SC too. No doubt you can find specific areas that were
hotter than usual. According to the data that does not
indicate the entire earth is heating up significantly.
Global warming is a big government socialist, (I know I am
being redundant), dream. Create a problem that only
government intervention can handle. Government spending,
regulation and bureaucracy will soar. Nirvana. So
don't let facts like the driving up of energy costs, the
diminished economic prospect of developing nations, and the
reality that the earth has been repeatedly warmer in the
past. Remember Al Gore's inconvenient truths. For the global
warming alarmists, there are a lot of them, as you pointed
out in this article. But not to worry, they jet around the
world to discuss this nonsense. They forget that their jets
burn fossil fuels. Another inconvenient truth that these
Same old baseless
excuses for business-as-usual, blame it on socialism and Al
Gore! Sorry, but back in the real world we have real
scientists working on climate change science. It's been
going on for over 40 years. The core conclusions are well
established. We are warming the planet mainly with our
emissions and deforestation. The consequences are not good.
This is reality. No baseless propaganda to the contrary will
change it. For those that want to learn what the experts say
here's a good site. Google... AAAS Climate Change What We