Global Warming/Climate Change

[GTWT]

Can we at least agree there is a different between climate change and pollution? Dirty water is a micro problem, climate change if it IS man made is a macro problem. We have had major positive strides on combating and preventing pollution.

The cause of anthropogenic climate change is pollution - the release of fossil CO2 into the atmosphere. And, just like ozone, mercury, & lead pollution, the increase in CO2 is something we can do something about but only if we first recognize the problem.

Even if yyz28 is right, and the science linking global warming to human release of CO2 isn't certain (science is never certain - it doesn't work that way), we will still be better off by dealing with the problem aggressively. Our air will be cleaner, our oceans less acidic, & our use and dependence on fossil fuels will decrease. We will be forced to build newer & cleaner nuclear power plants & find other sources of energy. We will be forced to live simpler, cleaner, more intelligent lives. I'm convinced the scientists are right and the CO2 we're releasing is having a devastating effect on the environment & on or future. But even if I'm wrong, and I hope I am, we're still better off behaving as if the treat is real.

[UNTstormchaser]

Can we at least agree there is a different between climate change and pollution? Dirty water is a micro problem, climate change if it IS man made is a macro problem. We have had major positive strides on combating and preventing pollution.

Of course there is a difference. But pollution isn't a micro problem. It's a macro problem, the biggest problem we have, because of what it may cause. You should look up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, and tell me that it isn't harmful.

[UNTstormchaser]

That was a large rant to admit that you have beliefs without knowledge, and you want Americans to adopt changes based on your beliefs. You're a theist, and your god is "the environment."

Did biology fail when the dinosaurs became extinct?

Right, right. Because fundamental biology, basic chemistry of the atmosphere, basic knowledge of how much CO2 humans emit (among other pollutants), basic knowledge of the Earth's population history, etc., is not knowledge nor a basis for a belief.

That's a purposely loaded question, based on the context in which you threw it in, but it's actually a legitimate question. I don't think that it's "biology" that failed, since, as with all basic sciences, the theories and laws that govern them are pretty damn concrete, and none of the laws or theories are violated when a species becomes extinct. But, all of the species of dinosaurs and of other animals, plants, etc., that became extinct due to the after effects of the impact of the meteor that hit, failed to adapt (through no fault of their own really...I imagine it was a rather dramatic change), and died off as a result. If anything failed, it was the species which died off (or Mr. Jupiter, since the person who said that isn't actually kidding, and that is actually true that Jupiter's gravity keeps asteroids in their place).

[Monkeypox]

Even if yyz28 is right, and the science linking global warming to human release of CO2 isn't certain (science is never certain - it doesn't work that way), we will still be better off by dealing with the problem aggressively. Our air will be cleaner, our oceans less acidic, & our use and dependence on fossil fuels will decrease. We will be forced to build newer & cleaner nuclear power plants & find other sources of energy. We will be forced to live simpler, cleaner, more intelligent lives. I'm convinced the scientists are right and the CO2 we're releasing is having a devastating effect on the environment & on or future. But even if I'm wrong, and I hope I am, we're still better off behaving as if the treat is real.

Right, right. Because fundamental biology, basic chemistry of the atmosphere, basic knowledge of how much CO2 humans emit (among other pollutants), basic knowledge of the Earth's population history, etc., is not knowledge nor a basis for a belief.

We've gotten down to the core of it. I'm hearing "aggressive" and "forced" to and that the US should adopt legislation NOT BASED ON SCIENCE, but on beliefs. We should ignore that net positive feedback is not agreed upon even by the scientists who agree on anthropogenic global warming. We should ignore that no one can give accurate lead times (meaning it's impossible to say whether or not policies adopted would even work, or even prove them after the fact). We should just DO it, even if it does nothing but make things worse (like AC and refrigeration policy did), or if it doesn't work at all because the basic science is faulty (like most "green" technologies that ignore energy production requirements and long-term storage capacities).

As I said before, if we want it to be about science, fine. But the science isn't there, so it's intellectually dishonest to claim that it is. That's why people have largely ignored the very real science (which is far from basic) when it comes down to it.

I've worked for an environmental consultant firm, for and against the EPA/TCEQ, and as an information broker in the field. The science around which people want to "aggressively" adopt policy changes is mostly noise, and severely flawed. I'd love for the US to go to more nuclear power based sources (even though it has it's own flaws), but instead we're bailing out battery companies that get sold to the Chinese at pennies to the dollar, financing electric cars that brick on dirty power, and building new windfarms while old ones sit out in the desert decaying. Smart, economically sound policies aren't what people are advocating, because they're not something that EITHER base wants to hear.

THIS ISN'T FOR SCIENCE. IT'S FOR DOGMATIC BELIEF.

But, I'm done with this topic. I won't change anyone's mind. But I'm frightened by anyone willing to adopt radical policy change so they can feel good, even if it's a loser economically or scientifically.

[UNTstormchaser]

We've gotten down to the core of it. I'm hearing "aggressive" and "forced" to and that the US should adopt legislation NOT BASED ON SCIENCE, but on beliefs. We should ignore that net positive feedback is not agreed upon even by the scientists who agree on anthropogenic global warming. We should ignore that no one can give accurate lead times (meaning it's impossible to say whether or not policies adopted would even work, or even prove them after the fact). We should just DO it, even if it does nothing but make things worse (like AC and refrigeration policy did), or if it doesn't work at all because the basic science is faulty (like most "green" technologies that ignore energy production requirements and long-term storage capacities).

As I said before, if we want it to be about science, fine. But the science isn't there, so it's intellectually dishonest to claim that it is. That's why people have largely ignored the very real science (which is far from basic) when it comes down to it.

I've worked for an environmental consultant firm, for and against the EPA/TCEQ, and as an information broker in the field. The science around which people want to "aggressively" adopt policy changes is mostly noise, and severely flawed. I'd love for the US to go to more nuclear power based sources (even though it has it's own flaws), but instead we're bailing out battery companies that get sold to the Chinese at pennies to the dollar, financing electric cars that brick on dirty power, and building new windfarms while old ones sit out in the desert decaying. Smart, economically sound policies aren't what people are advocating, because they're not something that EITHER base wants to hear.

THIS ISN'T FOR SCIENCE. IT'S FOR DOGMATIC BELIEF.

But, I'm done with this topic. I won't change anyone's mind. But I'm frightened by anyone willing to adopt radical policy change so they can feel good, even if it's a loser economically or scientifically.

Who said anything about radical policy? You're implying so many things about my beliefs that simply aren't true. In a perfect world, the government doesn't even have to touch this subject. But we live in a world where they do. I don't want radical policy change, I want the world to understand that ruining the environment is bad, and there is no alternative other than to try to BEGIN to changing our ways. It's a slow process. But the government has to get involved by backing alternative energy sources both publicly and financially, and get the hell out of the brothel full of the oil kings that they've been stroking for so long.

[yyz28]

Who said anything about radical policy? You're implying so many things about my beliefs that simply aren't true. In a perfect world, the government doesn't even have to touch this subject. But we live in a world where they do. I don't want radical policy change, I want the world to understand that ruining the environment is bad, and there is no alternative other than to try to BEGIN to changing our ways. It's a slow process. But the government has to get involved by backing alternative energy sources both publicly and financially, and get the hell out of the brothel full of the oil kings that they've been stroking for so long.

...but the government IS touching the issue, and that's the point those of us on this side are trying to make. Cap and Trade and the EPA regulating by fiat despite not having legislated regulation to act upon. The Government can't be removed from the discussion. We can agree that it is smart to drive fuel efficient cars and to recycle, purchase repurposed or recycled products, but the Government MANDATES we do it, thus running the cost up on cars, energy, and regulating business beyond what is reasonable. Pushing alternatives that aren't efficient nor cost-effective, and spending government money on R&D and thus government drives the preferred solutions, not the private sector... Government injects themselves, and you can't separate them from the debate.

[GTWT]

Scott, your concern is that the conclusions drawn by the scientific community empower government to regulate industry and individuals. Do you see my point?

[yyz28]

According to the constitution, only the people may empower Government.

My concern is that data is manipulated and the issue overblown to drive people to further empower Government. My concern is that the desired outcome (which is now heavily invested in both from a political and credibility standpoint) is pre-set and thus the data is being worked over to ensure that result is achieved. It isn't just about regulation, but the cost of simply living and doing business. Cap and Trade would literally cause another recession and could easily cost the average family TWICE the current cost for energy. ...and it is the empowerment of the Government that has led to huge Government investment in alternative energies that are not cost-effective or as efficient such as solar, wind & bio fuels. This Government preference artificially puts other potential sources at a competitive dis-advantage. Regulation is fine. Don't dump nuclear waste in the ocean. I'm down. Don't paint cars without a paint booth. Yup, I'm down. ...but when the government starts telling people what kind of toilet to buy and what kind of light bulb to buy, I think that's a bit invasive.

[UNTstormchaser]

...but the government IS touching the issue, and that's the point those of us on this side are trying to make. Cap and Trade and the EPA regulating by fiat despite not having legislated regulation to act upon. The Government can't be removed from the discussion. We can agree that it is smart to drive fuel efficient cars and to recycle, purchase repurposed or recycled products, but the Government MANDATES we do it, thus running the cost up on cars, energy, and regulating business beyond what is reasonable. Pushing alternatives that aren't efficient nor cost-effective, and spending government money on R&D and thus government drives the preferred solutions, not the private sector... Government injects themselves, and you can't separate them from the debate.

Re-read what you're responding to, and get back to me. You're arguing that government is involved when I said the government is involved.

[yyz28]

Re-read what you're responding to, and get back to me. You're arguing that government is involved when I said the government is involved.

You started your post with "who said anything about a radical policy". That is what i was responding to. ...the Government is involved and it is the level of their involvement that makes the debate over global warming/climate change so critical.

[UNTstormchaser]

You started your post with "who said anything about a radical policy". That is what i was responding to. ...the Government is involved and it is the level of their involvement that makes the debate over global warming/climate change so critical.

Government involvement =/= radical policy

[Legend500]

OK. We're talking about science, and the sciences, whether hard or soft, require proof. Since I gather that the manner in which I actually provided facts to support my positions seems to have eluded some, I'll show you the problem I have with the global warming conspiracy theorists. Here's just one example:

I doubt the NOAA numbers not because NOAA is a government agency, rather that there has been a great deal of press^{[citation needed]}that their methods don't exactly follow any scientific basis,^{[citation needed]}and that they pick and choose the data to bolster the argument they are trying to make.^{[citation needed]}

Let's take your core argument as the gospel for just a moment - Assuming its true, then the folks trying to make the point to the rest of us who depend on them to draw conclusions on data we haven't all been educated to understand, then the data at least should be consistent. When data is manipulated (be it NOAA^{[citation needed]}or the e-mails uncovered showing that the EPA^{[citation needed]}and several Universities^{[citation needed]}and International groups^{[citation needed]}have been manipulating the data^{[citation needed]}to make things seem worse than they really are)^{[citation needed]}credibility is lost. You've got to see why folks are skeptical.

I'm certainly not berating him. I AM just pointing out that the bulk of the opposition to Nuclear power comes from the Left.^{[citation needed]} ...which is accurate. ...and Yes, I DO want private solutions to this problem, but I am also aware that TODAY, you have to literally get an act of congress^{[citation needed]}and a blessing from the President, via the EPA^{[citation needed]}to build a reactor. These concepts aren't in conflict. If we didn't need government to get permits to build a plant, I wouldn't even list them as part of the equation. ...but that's not how the field is currently striped.^{[citation needed]}

I have hard of it and i oppose it. I'd rather see it being handled by the private sector, butit isn't a bailout, its an insurance program. It doesn't fund plant construction,^{[citation needed]} it basically provides an insurance fund against catastrophic damage as a result of a melt down or failure. ...and it isn't a bailout, it is funded by private industry^{[citation needed]} and the power companies who use power.^{[citation needed]} It is only administered by the Government.^{[citation needed]} It isn't funded with tax dollars.^{[citation needed]}

I also think you're off base regarding cost effective nature of nuclear power, which includes amortizing the cost of plant and reactor construction. According to Nolan E. Hertel, PhD, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology,who is a leading figure in the world of Nuclear Power,^{[citation needed]} quote "the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant. And given the sharp rise in oil and gas prices so far this year, nuclear power's advantage has widened. Instead of wasting high-priced natural gas for electricity production, it would make a lot more sense to replace the gas with additional nuclear power and clean-coal plants, while using solar, wind and other renewables to meet peak demand. Electricity customers would benefit if natural gas were to be reserved mainly for residential and industrial uses. A straightforward and serious effort by Congress to move nuclear power forward as quickly as possible would win public support.^{[citation needed - source is not a political scientist]} Nuclear power is too important to be allowed to stall. The fate of our nation's economic health depends on it.”^{[citation needed - source is not an economist]}

...you know, since we're all about listening to scientists in this thread.

Wow... talk about mis-leading.

While this administration hasn't blocked any new plants and when asked has said it feels nuclear power is safe, it hasn't been out there pushing Nuclear power as one of the alternative sources of energy.^{[citation needed]} ...AND moreover, when it comes down to it, the huge^{[citation needed]}environmentalist movement, which is a big power player in the Obama machine,^{[citation needed]} opposes expansion of nuclear energy.^{[citation needed]}

A couple of speeches and allowing a pair of rectors built on an already existing power plant which has been in the works for 15 years doesn't exactly make you Pro-Nuclear.

No proposed legislation on the subject,^{[citation needed]} no push on congress to act.^{[citation needed]}

You use a study from 2006 to make a point about a solar peak which is happening now?

http://stevengoddard...ar-10-16-26.gif ^{[citation needed - source is not a scientist][attribution needed - source is a nom de plume]}

...and here's the data on 2010/2011 winter.^{[citation needed]} The chart on this one is interesting too, only that is shows high and low peaks for decades past industrialization.

Please understand my point. I agree we can have some impact on our local environment. ...but this planet has been through FAR hotter times^{[citation needed]}and FAR colder times^{[citation needed]}and has done so with or without us. ...and EVEN if we've put additional CO2 into the atmosphere and that somehow is causing global climate shift, the planet will continue through these natural cycles,^{[citation needed]}that will be FAR MORE extreme^{[citation needed]}than anything we can even pretend we can do to the earth^{[citation needed]}(short of nuclear winter as a result of global nuclear war).

[GTWT]

According to the constitution, only the people may empower Government.

Government, and the people who make up both government & the governed, are empowered by many things. Government is empowered by an income stream, by an effective military, and by information, including scientific information.

My concern is that data is manipulated and the issue overblown to drive people to further empower Government. My concern is that the desired outcome (which is now heavily invested in both from a political and credibility standpoint) is pre-set and thus the data is being worked over to ensure that result is achieved. It isn't just about regulation, but the cost of simply living and doing business. Cap and Trade would literally cause another recession and could easily cost the average family TWICE the current cost for energy. ...and it is the empowerment of the Government that has led to huge Government investment in alternative energies that are not cost-effective or as efficient such as solar, wind & bio fuels. This Government preference artificially puts other potential sources at a competitive dis-advantage. Regulation is fine. Don't dump nuclear waste in the ocean. I'm down. Don't paint cars without a paint booth. Yup, I'm down. ...but when the government starts telling people what kind of toilet to buy and what kind of light bulb to buy, I think that's a bit invasive.

So the answer is 'yes.' Your argument isn't with the science, it's with the effects the science will have on government decisions that effect you & your finances. I'm sorry, Scott, but it's irrational to reject reality because you don't like what it will mean for you.

Oh, and Legend500 raises an interesting point, Scott. When he asks for citations, he's asking where do you get your information. There are scientists, a relatively few scientists, who agree with some of what you say, but I get the sense that those are not your sources. Who do you read on the subject of anthropogenic climate change?

Edited August 15, 2012 by GTWT

[EagleGreen]

No matter how you slice the pie, the earth is warming. Nobody knows if it is human induced but the circumstancial evidence is overwhelming in favor of anthropogenic influence. In and of itself, global climate change (nicely described by stormchaser) is not the problem. Everyone would be onboard if it didn't affect their paycheck, or self-esteem. I work with farmers and ranchers on a daily basis and they are certainly coming around to the idea after years of me describing what they WILL see versus what they hope for. They are largely a right leaning group.

The reason folks call global climate change a hoax and other derogatory terms is mulitfaceted but generally centers around 2 issues: 1) Al Gore made it a political issue and they are of the opposite party. Agreeing that global climate change is happening would make them a yella-bellied, tree-huggin', liberal...and they can't have that. 2)The ideas to "correct" the increase in greenhouse gases seems unfair and costly. That is, China (and other industrial nations) are pumpin' bad gas in the air on a daily basis, so why should the U.S. citizens regulate especially when it is going to cost us precious dinero. Further, government regulation is bullsh!t; if greenhouse gas increase was a problem then the "free market" would self-regulate.

I get it, but the earth is still warming. Not on a "natural cycle" that anyone can identify; although it may be a really long-term cycle that we don't understand. Regardless of the cause, the earth is warming. Colder winters, hotter summers, an increased frequency of drought, with an overall warming trend. It's true (whatever truth is). I would feel like a dick if I didn't do anything about it. Our kids and their kids will likely fight over water like the Ewings fight over oil. I imagine that just before it is "too late", our decendents will be living under a high tax situation trying to quickly remedy this issue and some folks will be makin' a LOT of money off water...that is how the "free market" will be involved.

Edited August 15, 2012 by EagleGreen

[FirefightnRick]

Population Control is obviously the answer say's Obama's Science Czar.

...."Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both? ..."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Supposedly Romney asked for advisement from this nut job in '06 before passing co2 legislation in Massachusetts, but I want to believe that was long before anyone outside a college setting had thoroughly vetted the man and knew he had even at one time considered encouraging parents to kill their own children.

Rick

Edited August 15, 2012 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

Population Control is obviously the answer say's Obama's Science Czar.

...."Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both? ..."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Supposedly Romney asked for advisement from this nut job in '06 before passing co2 legislation in Massachusetts, but I want to believe that was long before anyone outside a college setting had thoroughly vetted the man and knew he had even at one time considered encouraging parents to kill their own children.

Rick

One can dream...

[meangreenacct]

Population Control is obviously the answer say's Obama's Science Czar.

...."Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both? ..."

http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/

Supposedly Romney asked for advisement from this nut job in '06 before passing co2 legislation in Massachusetts, but I want to believe that was long before anyone outside a college setting had thoroughly vetted the man and knew he had even at one time considered encouraging parents to kill their own children.

Rick

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

[FirefightnRick]

RUN FOR YOUR LIVE'S! IT'S

"ANOTHER ICE AGE".

TIME MAGAZINE, June 24, 1974

...." As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds —the so-called circumpolar vortex—that sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent storms—the Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemisphere—thereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years...."

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

...."Under questioning by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., during his Senate confirmation hearing, Holdren said he "no longer thinks it's productive to focus on optimum population for the United States. ... I think the key thing today is that we need to work to improve the conditions that all of our citizens face economically, environmentally, and in other respects. And we need to aim for something that I have for years been calling 'sustainable prosperity.'"

Vitter continued with his line of question, asking directly, "Do you think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?"

Said Holdren: "No, senator, I do not. ... I think the proper role of government is to develop and deploy the policies with respect to economy, environment, security, that will ensure the well-being of the citizens we have."....

Of course he would deny having anything at all of ever remotely harboring such sick ideas. He was up for a cabinet position. I watched that line of questioning on c-span that day. He co authored that book and signed off on it. To me if he could agree to put it in print with his name on it then he's a sick bastard.

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

KEEP RUNNING!

"The Cooling World"

Newsweek April 28, 1975

..."Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality...."

Rick

[EagleGreen]

KEEP RUNNING!

"The Cooling World"

Newsweek April 28, 1975

..."Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality...."

Rick

You realize this is silly, right?

[UNTstormchaser]

KEEP RUNNING!

"The Cooling World"

Newsweek April 28, 1975

..."Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality...."

Rick

http://www.livescience.com/22387-greenland-melting-breaks-record.html

That doesn't happen when the temperature goes down.

[FirefightnRick]

One can dream...

You dream of parents being able to legally kill their own kids some day?

Rick

[FirefightnRick]

You realize this is silly, right?

I wear a green fire helmet and scream my head off in public for the Mean Green. I wrote the book on SILLY!

Rick

[EagleGreen]

I wear a green fire helmet and scream my head off in public for the Mean Green. I wrote the book on SILLY!

Rick

ha! That doesn't seem so silly, to me. I typically lose my voice at the MEAN GREEN games.