Houston’s problem is urban sprawl, not climate change. Though it’s man made, the fix isn’t a carbon tax.
in the relentless pursuit of creating an agribusiness friendly environment, we presently have a government in CA w/ a 5:1 “over promised” ratio of assigned water rights to average annual rain fall runoff,… which brings to mind an enron style accounting system or fabulous returns that might be promised “suckers” in a “ponzi scheme” (before the inevitable fall)
truth be told,… social media too often ignores the basic science and math,… which explains the root cause of problems in the first place,… AND continuing to ignore what basic science is saying, only exacerbates the issue(s)
We’re not just talking about flooding events. We’re talking about a volume of water per unit time over a certain area: extreme rainfall events. Those extreme rainfall events are becoming more common. Likewise, the number of extreme heat events are becoming more frequent. It isn’t either/or, then. There is no reason it cannot be both.
Is the huge population growth making the West’s glaciers retreat, too, lol?
Glaciers have grown and shrunk over the millennia. They’re current shrinking cycle offers no proof of man made warming.
There are people here denying that there even IS warming. Then when there is evidence that yes, there is warming and there is climate change, the objection changes to “OK, so what? What proves we caused it?”
Yes, you could be wrong. So could we. The odds would be far better for all of us if serious communication could take place without the far reaching prognostications and labeling those who disagree “deniers.” Real science means seeking the truth. It means looking at the science of those who refute your findings to understand where the differences lie. Not trying to shame them as invalid research or whatever terms were used. It means rather than trying to use a political party to impose their ideology of socialism or more government control, that real science would work within the existing government/economic structures to bring about any changes need. Capitalism is more likely to find new methods to reduce any real pollution, as it has been doing in the US for many years.
The charge doesn’t come from disagreeing. The charge comes from denying scientific conclusions based on whether or not the conclusion is acceptable or not rather than who has the better evidence.
Pick one of those, then.HarryStotle:
Also a false narrative. But a very attractive one to those whose don’t like the consensus.
I said you only get one. A boatload of invalid claims does not amount to one good claim. I have generously offered to address one claim from the video you cited. Now strip away all the right-wing propaganda and cute phrases (like Al-GORE-ithsms) and hyperbole and present just one single scientific claim from that video that you think is most solid and most damaging to the climate science consensus, if you can.Or do you want to go back and actually deal with points made by Delingpole?
LeafByNiggle:
The actual data from the past 150 years shows…
The climate alarmists seek to disallow …
This fails to account for the fact that since the 19th century…
… when many scientists were proclaiming “another ice age”…
…global temperatures we have experienced in the past 20 years are nowhere near…
The alarmists ignore those, or interpolate them away using computer AL-GORE-ithms…
…or this on, or numerous others show a “boatload” of examples…
of how the historical records have been altered ostensibly to “prove” CO2 is the cause of warming.
The climatedata.ca website demonstrates that even the Government of Canada…
ref[eree] ???phaster:
Call ref for sweeping generalization.
AND sadly the subject is not being taught in schools
so,…
www.TinyURL.com/HowBigIsTheEarth
Nope, I’ve not seen any studies that indicate a long term trend increase.
OK, you said pick any one of them, so I pick the one above.
First, this completely ignores the point I was challenging which was about “geologically-unusual” temperature changes. Second, vague references to harmful “trends” are just more assertions without substance. Virtually none of the scary “trends” being mentioned are actually happening.
Truth matters; facts matter. False alarms should be called out and demolished. If your claims aren’t true you shouldn’t make them. Doesn’t it bother you that much of what you believe can be shown to be false? Like “geologically-unusual” warming? Like rainfall, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes et al rising dramatically? None of this is true.
The planet is getting warmer. It is true. This is having an effect on the weather. It is true. The increased levels of CO2 are also lowering the pH of the oceans, which is already having an adverse effect on creatures such as shell-fish. That is also true. The explanation that this is caused by the measurable increase in atmospheric CO2 and tracing that back to the tremendous amount of human-caused combustion of carbon-based fuels is the best scientific explanation for it. Bad-mouthing the scientists who say so or inflating the possibility that some other explanations are more plausible when they aren’t is not going to change that.
The issue is not whether these things are happening (which is more debatable than you obviously believe) but whether man made CO2 is the cause.
The issue is the cause of global warming. Throwing in other disaster scenarios is simply a distraction from the tenuousness of the primary claim.
Legitimate concerns have been raised that are not resolved by dismissing them as being generated in bad faith. Why the concerns are raised is irrelevant. The only meaningful question is whether they are valid.
I completely disagree.
You are cherry picking. We’ve also reforested much of the US and were able to clean up our lakes and rivers, some so polluted they caught fire. The global problem isn’t with what the US is doing to our ecology.