Comments on: Chronic 2000-04 drought, worst in 800 years, may be the ‘new normal’

By: Larry

Larry — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 13:33:29 +0000

sigh…
Pinons dying in New Mexico were caused directly by an invasive insect species. More rain might have helped but not a direct cause. Changes in ocean currents are STILL the biggest cause of local climate change. CO2 only *really* affects the 10 meters above the ocean…

Socialism/Communism causes more human harm then all of the localized changes in climate and yet “The Solution” is even more ….

By: SpottedMarley

SpottedMarley — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 12:27:37 +0000

a new dark age is coming. just as before and just as in the future. its the cyclic nature of everything. there is no need to fear the inevitable

By: Mortran

Mortran — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:53:01 +0000

Bothering you – why?? We should all be happy when Greenland becomes finally green.

By: Mortran

Mortran — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:49:13 +0000

5) bad

By: Starheart

Starheart — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:13:28 +0000

Nobody denies warming per se. What is actively disputed is the fact that it is: 1) global; 2) escalating in the long term; 3) influenced by human factor, but most importantly 4) that we can and should do anything about it.

We’re not quite the masters of our own planet yet. We can’t prevent localized environmental disasters until we establish global climate control. Which is ultimately what’s wrong with the picture: the green lobby is suggesting that we actually may achieve the advertised goals with current levels of technology.

Green tech isn’t quite competitive yet and requires extensive subsidies that could have improved people’s lives in other ways; there’s plenty of clean energy schemes (such as LENR) that we may see on the market soon enough and that will actually do well on said free market. As such, I’m persuaded there is really no need to demolish power plants to construct giant windmills which would be inadequate anyway.

Also, the green lobby is vetoing nuclear power. Well good luck minimizing carbon emission without that.

By: JudMiller

JudMiller — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:59:16 +0000

Is this how they create their computer models too? Just random guesses from a few years of data – shameful.

By: Bri

Bri — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:37:11 +0000

Talk about a third rail to touch. Anyone who looks at the data with prejudging will come to the conclusion that global warming is real. ( just the tree ring data alone is a knock out blow.) don’t believe me. Invest in a skii resort that doesn’t make it’s own snow. From my perspective, which is very subjective, I think we hit one of those “tipping” points. We will see, in the long run, I fear global cooling. We are gonna use carbon for everything. Just like with plants, it’s there for the taking. We will find a balance. I bet coal will be like gold, in the carbon age. Meanwhile, Canada is looking really good.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:20:10 +0000

…lots of good points you make… but this global melting thing is still bothering me….

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/story/2012-07-25/greenland-ice-sheet-melt-climate-change/56479518/1

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:16:52 +0000

this cartoon is still kind of good.. check it out…

http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af261/GatorALLin/Other/BetterPlannet.png

By: Starheart

Starheart — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:23:37 +0000

Classic global warming panic propaganda in its best, which assumes a causality chain in which every single step is up to debate.

1) A local climate shift is a result of global change. (Debatable. We don’t see heat rising worldwide, and many areas are in fact getting colder. Of course, this extreme is also somehow blamed on global change)

2) The change is escalating rather than cyclical and self-stabilizing. (Climate variations are a natural part of planet’s ecology. There is no evidence that heat keeps accumulating. Earth infrared emissions, for example, confirm that heat keeps dissippating as well as ever)

3) Carbon emission is the cause for the climate change. (Debatable in the long term, all direct evidence has been tied to short-term volcanic events)

4) Man-made carbon emission is more significant than natural causes. (Gross overestimation of human potency and comparison of emissions over time to above mentioned massive events)

5) Humans will keep using fossil fuels long enough to affect the environment irreversably (Whereas we barely got any oil left and coal will soon follow, so a shift to other energy sources is inevitable anyway)

5) There is no way to compensate for man-made carbon emissions except to cut them down (There are in fact plans to bind excess atmospheric carbon cheaper and easier to implement than cutting down on fossil fuels)

6) Allocating money and resources here and now to various unprofitable eco-ventures rather than invest in actually competitive developments of relatively clean energy technology for the future is going to help matters (no comment).