Hello:

Look, I'm a climate change denier too, but this is some crazy weather we're having, huh?

So, even though global warming is a hoax, if my home had been destroyed by Sandy, I wouldn't temp fate again. I'd move or rebuild it on stilts. You?

98% of the worlds scientists AGREE that climate change is REAL, but I'm going to stick with the 2%. I LOVE underdogs. 98% of the worlds doctors AGREE that cholesterol isn't good for your heart.. But, I don't LIKE that idea, so I'm going with the 2%.

Is going with the 2% smart?

excon

If I worried about climate change, the end of the world, what the other 2% were doing, I wouldn't enjoy what I have in the hear and now. The only thing I don't like the thought of is, is leaving my son to whatever happens in the world after I go.

So, you, exxy, I am with you, but I know you are not hairbrained enough to go off the deep end and destroy your cholesterol intake.

I do believe what David Suzuki says about protecting the world oceans though, fishing some species out within the next hundred years and not being able to tap into that natural resource for very much longer. Anyway, I like fish, good for maintaining lower cholesterol.

I will toast you exxy later on with my straight-up-lots-of-olives vodka martini !

I'm going with the 2%, too.

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it

Climate Changes, it's called weather ;)

That's what I keep saying.

Climate change locally is a very tiny part of the very real global situation. All you have to do is look at satellite photos of depleting snow caps, the source of half the world's drinking water. The poor are indeed going to get poorer, dying of thirst and lack of crop water.

Sea rise is irregular (the earth isn't really a perfect sphere) and wouldn't you know it, the poor islands are the ones getting drowned first.

The effect on small lifeforms on land and sea, however, is an equal opportunity scenario, and already is working it's way through both pests (increasing) and small critters needed in the food chain (decreasing). People don't pay any attention to the data until it hits home for them.

Don't worry about the ozone layer and humongous increases in CO2 and flourocarbons. We'll be wiped out before we suffocate or get radiated to death or all get cancers.

Well, since we haven't warmed in 16 years I'm not too concerned. And those hurricanes that were going to increase in number and intensity ever since the Katrina era? They haven't. Prior to Sandy the last category 3 or stronger storm to make landfall in the US was Wilma in 2005. And as devastating as Sandy was, it doesn't make the top 10.

And that ice? It's expanding at record levels in Antarctica, so who knows what that means?

Looking to your own weather patterns is tunnel vision.
Who indeed knows what the increase in ice in Antarctica means.. I'd guess that warmer air in a frigid place means more precipitation. We often say in New England 'it's too cold to snow.'
The ice is clearly decreasing in the Arctic. Polar bear fans know all about that - they are dying off.

As my first post indicated, there has been no rise in temps for 16 years based on over 3,000 reporting stations all over the world. That's not looking to my own weather patterns.

Ex let's get over this hurdle, climate change is real no matter how much we don't like the fact. That having being established, what we do about it is a different argument because much of what we have been asked to do about it is a hoax, it doesn't address the issue at all, two pennieth of nothing is still nothing

I have not denied that climate change might be happening, the extent to which man has contributed is arguable and the extent to which man can change anything is grossly exaggerated

Building your house on stilts while facing a rising ocean isn't an answer Ex it wasn't only water that moved those houses, ex, it was wind. What you have to do is build on higher ground and walk further to the beach. Marinas have to have adequate sea walls so boats cannot be washed ashore, in fact, you might start to ask yourself if owning a boat is worth it, and the idea that tunnels under sea side cities are good urban planning needs to be examined.. Atlantic City isn't the first city to have a boardwalk or similar promanade torn up by wild weather and let's hope reason preveils and they don't try to rebuild it. You also have to start to protecting electricity assets, it is not good enough that substations explode because they were not shut down early enough, wires need to be undergrounded and the hazzard of fallen wires removed and you start to set height limits on street trees as well as different standards for house construction

It is time to realise we are in a new paradigm and our thinking has to change however inconvenient this might be

Quote:

---

it wasn't only water that moved those houses, ex, it was wind.

---

Partly true ;it was wind ,it was water ,it was geography . Look at the map . The East coast of the US makes a perfect L shape at NYC with Long Island . The Storm surge North of landfall made a bee line for that L . Add to that the fact that in the Gulf Coast there is a nice sandy bottom of the sea floor... but here in NY ,after a shallow layer of sand ;there is a floor of bed rock that doesn't absorb a storm .
Finally this storm was a fluke. It was what has been called a 'Perfect Storm ' in that it was already a cat.1 hurricane ;and it met up with a front that in the winter causes Nor-Easter blizzards .
This may have been a 100 year event .It may have been a 500 year event ;but it has happened before here . None of it has anything to do with global warming despite Nanny Bloomy's bleating . Maybe he should bone up on the history .A similar hurricane hit NJ in 1904 . Was that global warming too ?
The 'Long Island Express ' hurricane of 1938 killed 800 people . Global Warming ? Or just part of a weather pattern ?

Well Tom if it is part of a weather pattern you should take precautions, so once a century, once every fifty years, how you get a pattern out of that, who knows. Just an unfortunate series of events but with sufficient frequency to change planning rules. Time to stop people building matchwood houses on the sea shore and create a buffer zone between the sea and development. Reality is there is sea level rise and slowly the tide is coming further in

Quote:

---

Time to stop people building matchwood houses on the sea shore and create a buffer zone between the sea and development.

---

Perhaps.. I wouldn't oppose states doing eminent domain to make barrier islands solely for recreation or preserves. What I do oppose is people living in castles in the sand asking taxpayers to foot the bill when their sand castles crumble.

And so castles made of sand melts into the sea, eventually
Jimi Hendrix

The way I see it there is a great record in geology that shows that or climate on a planetary scale has changed many times. I believe that we are headed for a change but not as the alarmists believe but rather tied more closely to solar activity. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and there is little we can do about it other then figure out how to survive it as a race.

Quote:

---

then figure out how to survive it as a race.

---

Well some think that the only way the race survives is to reduce its carbon footprint to nothing, but reality tells us with climate change comes food stress and there are too many of us to survive doing what we are doing. For a long time the race survived with minimum populations. This recent storm is just a taste of what will happen to large populations

Why are hurricanes named after women?

Because they are wet and wild when they come and take your house when they leave!

I just had too...

There can be no response to that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

The way I see it there is a great record in geology that shows that or climate on a planetary scale has changed many times. I believe that we are headed for a change but not as the alarmists believe but rather tied more closely to solar activity. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen and there is little we can do about it other then figure out how to survive it as a race.

---

Seems we should be protecting the very thing that protects us from the solar activities, the atmosphere.

We know that the air quality affects not only people and animals but plants and all life on the planet. And whatever mother nature throws at us, storms, droughts, or fires, mans reaction is too little to late. Even with a week's warning.

So doesn't matter if the scientists are right or wrong, our response is still not getting it!

Hello again,

When I was a kid, we used to throw our trash on the ground.. We thought the earth was big enough to hide it.. But, we discovered that it didn't go away, so we stopped doing that.. Then we started throwing our trash into the ocean... But, we discovered that it wasn't big enough to hide all the trash... So, we stopped doing that.

Now, we throw our trash into the air. SOME of us think it's big enough to hide our trash. I don't know what they been smokin..

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

So doesn't matter if the scientists are right or wrong, our response is still not getting it!

---

The whole point has been missed, it is bigger than all of us, bigger than our technology and bigger than our egos. The reality is that whatever changes we might have had a hand in we are over populated. The developed countries don't have an answer and the undeveloped countries won't have. They stand with their hands our saying feed us.We have to return to a much simpler life style and reduce our populations otherwise we are going to have wars which will do the job for us.

We just don't get it, we have developed ourselves into a corner. A few well placed explosions and all our technology is useless, all our great distribution systems and industry grind to a hault. This has been made worse by having the world become dependent on a single manufacturing source. Don't blame climate change, blame greed

I go with greed but the only answer to over population is birth control, right? Ask the Chinese how that's worked out for them.

No nation can do it alone and yes the chinese populations needs to be controlled, there are too many of them. That goes for other populous nations. Fact is a sustainable Earth can not support more than 3 billion without depleting resources, many of which are already seriously depleted, so there are other forms of population control and we may experience many of them Sterilisation, Euthenasia, Famine, Pestilence, War, so it's no good throwing your hands in the air and saying birth control didn't work for the Chinese so it doesn't work. It did work, their population will stabilise and start to decline. We already have a serious issue in that two nations account for one third of the population

Love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

China has been controlling their population for years in various ways and have been successful, but the western world could not or would not have the ways and means to do the same:

Maps.unomaha.edu/peterson/funda/sidebar/chinapop.html

Sorry the link won't be easy, you will have to cut and paste but it is worthwhile reading and will answer tals and paracletes post (chinese population is controlled but there is a downside)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)..... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

---

No Tom I recommend strict segregation, particularly in america, the last thing we need is more gung ho yanks spreading themselves around. No eugenics, all should be limited equally. The big problem is women don't control their bodies, they work on afterthought.

Much of the population needs serious reeducation, you can say one thing for the Muslims they seem to have some aspects of human relationships under control

Quote:

---

Much of the population needs serious reeducation

---

Yes Uncle Mao .

Quote:

---

love to wake up in the morning to Neo-Malthusianism. Maybe we should mandate that our women wear Malthusian belts(Aldous Huxley's innovation)... oh but wouldn't that blow away this fiction of 'choice' and women controlling their bodies ? Maybe we could go a step further and adopt Eugenics so we can construct that more perfect population.

---

And there you have it, why all those good liberals want free contraceptives. It's not about choice, it's not about women's rights, it's about climate change.

Quote:

---

The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.

The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions."

---

If Obama gets reelected he'll have accomplished his part on that and then he can continue his job crushing, economy wrecking, energy price soaring EPA agenda.

EPA's Insanely Ambitious Agenda If Obama Is Reelected

As usual a republican opinion piece being passed as scientific facts. Its well known you guys are okay with big business screwing up the air, water, and land as long as they make bookoo bucks and trickle a few down to YOU!!

Exactly what did he say that was incorrect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Exactly what did he say that was incorrect?

---

Taken together, they will further drive up pump prices, impose construction bans on local communities, and cripple oil, natural gas and coal production.

Energy prices are set by the markets as a commodity, and it's the global markets that raise or lower the prices as despite huge profits fueled by subsidizies the price has gone up NOT down. Production of oil, natural gas, and coal is also going UP, so is safe and clean an unreasonable expectation to for? How about wages in those industries going UP with all those record profits? How about fair market compensation when those companies want to build in a community instead of this imminent domain crap?

How about cleaning up their messes or have we forgotten Exxon Valdez, BP, or the Colorado River? To leave these consideration of FACTS out of the debate and broad brush the concerns of the business model as being beneficialwith no downside is short sighted and prejudiced.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations:

So we should let big companies pollute with NO restrictions? REALLY? May not hurt you but what of the kids wholive in those communities?

OZONE RULE

Quote:

---

EPA itself estimated that this would cost $90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs.

---

A study also shows that government and private industry could better mitigate costs and transition into even bigger energy jobs than are currently held. While initial cost estimates are high, long term profitability would more than offset the costs.

The sad part is what makes these endeavors truly and unnecessarily expensive is DELAYING implementation a number of years.

Hydraulic Fracturing:

Industries are already reporting data voluntarily. More to mitigate law suits in the future than to actually be safe. Wyoming ain't the only place that has to deal with contamination, but everywhere fracking is done has raised issues of documented contamination.

I could go on into all the other headings as they allspeakof cost but fail to point out that these costs are associated with making the operations in these areas clean and safe.

I mean his money projection are true, but you do want clean air, water, and land don't you????

Where your author is totally wrong is the onesided priority of profis over people and safety concerns of communities.

That's why we are fighting the Keystone pipeline in Texas.

All I see is spin, not an answer to my question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes Uncle Mao .

---

And you more than anyone, education and reeducation are tools to bring about change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

All I see is spin, not an answer to my question.

---

The article you linked was all spin from a non professional. Not only were basic scientific facts from years of data misrepresented, but so much was left out of what was presented that the whole article lacked any basis for credible consideration as an serious exploration of the real issues.

You should know that.

Don't worry Tal after every storm the blame brigade gets to parade their favourite theories.

You know the stuff, warming oceans, bigger, more frequent storms, devastation, calamity.

We are all doomed, AAAGggggH!

Hello again, clete:

Quote:

---

we are all doomed, AAAGggggH!

---

I'm afraid it's true. Republicans LOVE to shoot themselves in the foot. This time they want to shoot mine too.

Will they EVER grasp the science?? Uhhhh, no.

Excon

No The trogs can't grasp the science because it costs money, now if it were free