Google Earth: how much has global warming raised temperatures near you?

[boomerangutang]

re: Arctic ice, here's a video of a Nasa worker being interviewed:

Some points:

>>> Arctic sea ice is at one of its lowest level on record, though not quite as low as a few years ago.

>>> two thirds of sea ice has disappeared since 1980's. Much of that is in thickness, not just in area.

>>> generally, the Arctic warms twice the amount as land masses in middle latitudes.

[RickBradford]

Arctic sea ice is at one of its lowest level on record, though not quite as low as a few years ago.

And the headline you will never see in the mainstream media: "Arctic ice surges back to higher levels".

This year's estimated minimum area is 5.3 million square kilometers, about 30% less in area than during the 1980s (7.5m sq.km), but 60% better than 2012 (3.3m sq. km.).

Sea ice volume (area x thickness) naturally follows a similar pattern -- well down on historical values, but has picked up over the past few years.

Should we be worried about this?

Alex Bellini thinks we should, and so he plans to live on a melting iceberg for a year to 'urge' climate change action.

Here's Alex posing with his 4x4 SUV for Facebook, ready to hector us about the perils of CO2 emissions and global warming. And no, he's not joking.

The irony meter explodes.

[wilcopops]

Arctic sea ice is at one of its lowest level on record, though not quite as low as a few years ago.

And the headline you will never see in the mainstream media: "Arctic ice surges back to higher levels".

This year's estimated minimum area is 5.3 million square kilometers, about 30% less in area than during the 1980s (7.5m sq.km), but 60% better than 2012 (3.3m sq. km.).

Sea ice volume (area x thickness) naturally follows a similar pattern -- well down on historical values, but has picked up over the past few years.

Should we be worried about this?

Alex Bellini thinks we should, and so he plans to live on a melting iceberg for a year to 'urge' climate change action.

Here's Alex posing with his 4x4 SUV for Facebook, ready to hector us about the perils of CO2 emissions and global warming. And no, he's not joking.

The irony meter explodes.

Flagelation, necrophilia and beastiality - does it ring a bell?

[RickBradford]

Flagelation, necrophilia and beastiality - does it ring a bell?

What's that -- your entry for Illiterate Haiku of the Year?

[canuckamuck]

Arctic sea ice is at one of its lowest level on record, though not quite as low as a few years ago.

And the headline you will never see in the mainstream media: "Arctic ice surges back to higher levels".

This year's estimated minimum area is 5.3 million square kilometers, about 30% less in area than during the 1980s (7.5m sq.km), but 60% better than 2012 (3.3m sq. km.).

Sea ice volume (area x thickness) naturally follows a similar pattern -- well down on historical values, but has picked up over the past few years.

Should we be worried about this?

Alex Bellini thinks we should, and so he plans to live on a melting iceberg for a year to 'urge' climate change action.

Here's Alex posing with his 4x4 SUV for Facebook, ready to hector us about the perils of CO2 emissions and global warming. And no, he's not joking.

The irony meter explodes.

Flagelation, necrophilia and beastiality - does it ring a bell?

Is that your bucket list?

[canman]

Climate sceptics should be 'crushed and buried': Sir Paul Nurse attacks politicians who 'distort' facts on global warming
Who is Sir Paul I hear you ask; why he is none other than the new president of the British Science Association. I guess he represents the 99.98% of all scientists who are 100% convinced of AGW

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2743255/Climate-sceptics-crushed-buried-Sir-Paul-Nurse-attacks-politicians-distort-facts-global-warming.html#ixzz3CQHpJ2iV

I guess with all the recent news of temperatures flatlining for the last 19 years, Artic ice recovery. Antartic ice continuing to increase etc the only tactic left is to "crush and bury" the opposition.

Edited September 5, 2014 by canman

[canman]

The World Meteorological Organization is releasing a series of imaginary – but realistic - 2050 weather reports from well-known television presenters designed to sensitize people about the local impacts of climate change.

https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/WeatherReportsfortheFuture.html

The propaganda from the chicken little movement is reaching nazi germany proportions.

[RickBradford]

I guess with all the recent news of temperatures flatlining for the last 19 years, Artic ice recovery. Antartic ice continuing to increase etc the only tactic left is to "crush and bury" the opposition.

Even when temperatures were going up and sea ice was going down, that was their only play. It always was, and always will be. Suppression and demonization is all they know.

Calls for skeptics to be gassed, branded, jailed and judicially executed pepper the history of the Green/Left attitude to the climate debate, because they hate skeptics -- I mean, really hate them.

They cannot tolerate even a skerrick of opposition to their egoic save-the-planet fantasies, which is why we see this pattern of petulant behaviour, which would be thought of as immature in a six-year-old.

They rationalize it as the over-riding need to 'save the planet' whatever that nonsense phrase is supposed to mean.

If extreme Green policies were to be widely adopted, then they would be 'saving the planet' in the same way that Pol Pot 'saved' Cambodia, with his dreams of an agrarian paradise without machinery or urban areas, and naturally with all inconvenient opposition -- especially those with any education -- safely liquidated.

Fortunately, it's not going to happen.

[boomerangutang]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

[RickBradford]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

Don't be a chump -- the data is quite clear that Arctic ice extent is much less than it was in the 1980s, and somewhat higher than it was a few years ago.

The real idiots were those alarmists from big scientific institutions who claimed loudly that the ice was in a 'death spiral' and would be gone by several years ago. And no, they weren't joking.

Let's choose one from the vast store of Arctic fails:

“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.” -- Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Left/Green scientists - Always Certain, Usually Wrong.

[boomerangutang]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

Don't be a chump -- the data is quite clear that Arctic ice extent is much less than it was in the 1980s, and somewhat higher than it was a few years ago.

The real idiots were those alarmists from big scientific institutions who claimed loudly that the ice was in a 'death spiral' and would be gone by several years ago. And no, they weren't joking.

Let's choose one from the vast store of Arctic fails:

Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative. -- Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Left/Green scientists - Always Certain, Usually Wrong.

You answered my question, thanks. It's clear that regardless of data proving warming (now and in the future), you will forever be fixated on denying there's warming.

[RickBradford]

^^^

Dear, oh dear.

You're not Katie Couric by any chance, are you?

[thaibeachlovers]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

Don't be a chump -- the data is quite clear that Arctic ice extent is much less than it was in the 1980s, and somewhat higher than it was a few years ago.

The real idiots were those alarmists from big scientific institutions who claimed loudly that the ice was in a 'death spiral' and would be gone by several years ago. And no, they weren't joking.

Let's choose one from the vast store of Arctic fails:

Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative. -- Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Left/Green scientists - Always Certain, Usually Wrong.

You answered my question, thanks. It's clear that regardless of data proving warming (now and in the future), you will forever be fixated on denying there's warming.

I absolutely believe in climate change ( GW is sooooo over ). I just deny that anything being currently done will ever change the trend.

[thaibeachlovers]

I watched a film about the destruction of the world's ocean fish by overfishing, "Ocean Planet" on tv. Interestingly they didn't recommend reducing human population as a means of saving fish stocks, when it is obviously overpopulation that is causing overexploitation of the fish.

Similarly, I never hear any of the scientists or politicians in the GW scam advocating population reduction. I guess they are just too cowardly to say the truth.

[canman]

If ice cover continues to lessen in the Arctic region, will deniers admit to it? No. They'll find 100 ways to distort the issue - anything but admit Arctic ice is lessening.

Don't be a chump -- the data is quite clear that Arctic ice extent is much less than it was in the 1980s, and somewhat higher than it was a few years ago.

The real idiots were those alarmists from big scientific institutions who claimed loudly that the ice was in a 'death spiral' and would be gone by several years ago. And no, they weren't joking.

Let's choose one from the vast store of Arctic fails:

Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007, so given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative. -- Professor Wieslaw Maslowski

Left/Green scientists - Always Certain, Usually Wrong.

You answered my question, thanks. It's clear that regardless of data proving warming (now and in the future), you will forever be fixated on denying there's warming.

I absolutely believe in climate change ( GW is sooooo over ). I just deny that anything being currently done will ever change the trend.

There is climate change that is a simple fact. The climate has been on a warming trend since the last ice age 10,000 years ago. During that 10,000 years there has been much warmer periods than now and much colder periods with much less CO2 in the air (shock horror!), the trend has however been towards warming. This warming has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. When the vikings settled in greenland and Newfoundland the worlds temperatures were much warmer. Greenland got its name because it was green, the vikings named Newfoundland vineland because of the grapes growing there.

A prediction from Piers Corbyn:

To help readers prepare for the next deluge of climate hype note that Britain and Ireland will suffer a series of major damaging deluges and floods during the period 15th to 28th Sept and these were forecast by WeatherAction using solar activity 7 months ago. Green zealots will doubtless claim these events confirm their beliefs but will pause to ask: How many more very wet summers (these are not in their script!) must we suffer before the truth emerges?

It will be interestign to see if this prediction is accurate, he is the worlds foremost authority on long range weather prediction, his website is here:

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact37

[boomerangutang]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

[Gulfsailor]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

Humans tend to do well in a large range of climate conditions, as obviously proven by the fact humans are living around the globe. And most humans do not need to physically adapt to a change in climate as many other creatures do. Most ThaiVisa readers living in Thailand come from much colder climates and are doing just fine in Thailand. The only places in this world where specifically adapted humans live and non natives struggle are on extreme heights such as Bhutan and Nepal and extreme cold, such as near-polar regions. Hence I believe that even if the world would get significantly warmer, humans would be just fine. We would adjust the crops we grow to suit the new climate and maybe move inland a bit if the oceans would rise or just dam it in. Holland has been doing that for 300 years.

Ps. There is no evidence in history that a warmer planet causes more or more severe storms.

[boomerangutang]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

Humans tend to do well in a large range of climate conditions, as obviously proven by the fact humans are living around the globe. And most humans do not need to physically adapt to a change in climate as many other creatures do. Most ThaiVisa readers living in Thailand come from much colder climates and are doing just fine in Thailand. The only places in this world where specifically adapted humans live and non natives struggle are on extreme heights such as Bhutan and Nepal and extreme cold, such as near-polar regions. Hence I believe that even if the world would get significantly warmer, humans would be just fine. We would adjust the crops we grow to suit the new climate and maybe move inland a bit if the oceans would rise or just dam it in. Holland has been doing that for 300 years.

Ps. There is no evidence in history that a warmer planet causes more or more severe storms.

Pardon me, but that's an elitist spin. Most people in the world can't simply pack their belongings and move to a nicer place. Most people don't have more than $20 in the bank and are essentially stuck where they are. I just read a true story about a recent famine in Malawi. Tens of thousands of people dying week by week. Even if there were no GW, there are still endless stories of masses of people suffering if the weather changes unpredictably. Nearly everywhere there are currently mass sufferings: Sudan, SW Burma, Pakistan, most of Africa, ...weather is a major factor. So, let's assume the current weather patterns are the 'default' or normal. If the level of miserable migrations is currently 'default', then with big changes in weather (more severe droughts, more severe storms, etc), then it can only exacerbate the current dismal levels of human suffering.

Sorry to bust your bubble, but, a warmer planet does cause more severe storms. Do some research on hurricanes, for example. They get started where there are warm sea surface temps. Warmer sea surfaces = bigger hurricanes and typhoons. Also: look at incidence of larger storms in the past 20 years. Bigger storms are a'comin'.

[thaibeachlovers]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

What you are saying just reinforces the fact there are too many people in the world, and specifically poor people that live in unsuitable areas in substandard accomodation. Of course they suffer more from adverse conditions. The long term solution is to bring in policies that reduce family size, but whether population could be reduced sufficiently to make a difference is unlikely, as zero world leaders are even talking about it. Most of the western world's leaders are even saying stupid things about needing to increase birth rates.

Anyway, if one watches "Ocean Planet", it is apparent that world fish stocks are about to decline dramatically, which will bring about mass starvation in the poorer areas, as they depend largely on fishing for their survival. The other thing that will kill large numbers of poor people is the coming crisis in fresh water availability.

[wilcopops]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

What you are saying just reinforces the fact there are too many people in the world, and specifically poor people that live in unsuitable areas in substandard accomodation. Of course they suffer more from adverse conditions. The long term solution is to bring in policies that reduce family size, but whether population could be reduced sufficiently to make a difference is unlikely, as zero world leaders are even talking about it. Most of the western world's leaders are even saying stupid things about needing to increase birth rates.

Anyway, if one watches "Ocean Planet", it is apparent that world fish stocks are about to decline dramatically, which will bring about mass starvation in the poorer areas, as they depend largely on fishing for their survival. The other thing that will kill large numbers of poor people is the coming crisis in fresh water availability.

Absolute nonsense - you are applying schoolboy maths to the problem.

[thaibeachlovers]

Saw on the news that the PM of Kiribati is going to the latest talk fest on climate change to try and save his country from disappearing under the water.

Then I got to thinking just what is it that he thinks anyone can actually do to change it? IMO there is nothing.

This is the same as all those scientists and politicians on tv- they all say we have to do something, but they never say what, other than putting stupid taxes on carbon, which won't change a thing. people will complain, but they won't use less carbon, so what is the point?

Japan has increased it's cabon output by rejecting nuclear, China isn't going to cut back in a meaningful way, nor India. More fossil fuel is being used than ever before, forests continue to dwindle dramatically, so what is the answer?

Meanwhile, the politicians continue to jet to conferences instead of using video links. It's hopeless.

[thaibeachlovers]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

What you are saying just reinforces the fact there are too many people in the world, and specifically poor people that live in unsuitable areas in substandard accomodation. Of course they suffer more from adverse conditions. The long term solution is to bring in policies that reduce family size, but whether population could be reduced sufficiently to make a difference is unlikely, as zero world leaders are even talking about it. Most of the western world's leaders are even saying stupid things about needing to increase birth rates.

Anyway, if one watches "Ocean Planet", it is apparent that world fish stocks are about to decline dramatically, which will bring about mass starvation in the poorer areas, as they depend largely on fishing for their survival. The other thing that will kill large numbers of poor people is the coming crisis in fresh water availability.

Absolute nonsense - you are applying schoolboy maths to the problem.

So, what is YOUR solution to climate change?

[wilcopops]

Ok, let's look at it another way. Take Indian tigers, for example. They've adapted to the Indian region. They like warm climate. If the warmest parts of the world became like Iceland, then the Asian tiger would probably die off (yes, we know it's being driven to extinction by humans, but bear with me on this analogy).

Now take people. Most people in the world live in warm climates where just a relatively slight change in temps or water level or precipitation has large effects - particularly on crops.

In the comparison, we're not talking about saber toothed tigers from tens of thousands of years ago, who would love a climate like Iceland, and (for our species), we're not talking about long-ago ancestors living in a world with much fewer homonids.

That's a large reason why GW relates to what's happening now, and what's projected for the next decades. There's no debate about whether weather has changed dramatically in eons past. The pressing issue has to do with how groups of people have adapted to finely-tuned ecosystems, and how calamitous it could be if those ecosystems change within months or years. It's not about ThaiVisa posters, most of whom have enough money where, if things got bad, they could just pack-up and move to a rosier climeate. Scenarios like the aftermath of hurricane Nargis (Burma) or New Orleans after Katrina or South Sudan or the recent Philippines storms, are more indicative of what happens to the masses of 'little people' who can't just rent a U-Haul and move to a better place, when their farms get either drought addled or flooded.

What you are saying just reinforces the fact there are too many people in the world, and specifically poor people that live in unsuitable areas in substandard accomodation. Of course they suffer more from adverse conditions. The long term solution is to bring in policies that reduce family size, but whether population could be reduced sufficiently to make a difference is unlikely, as zero world leaders are even talking about it. Most of the western world's leaders are even saying stupid things about needing to increase birth rates.

Anyway, if one watches "Ocean Planet", it is apparent that world fish stocks are about to decline dramatically, which will bring about mass starvation in the poorer areas, as they depend largely on fishing for their survival. The other thing that will kill large numbers of poor people is the coming crisis in fresh water availability.

Absolute nonsense - you are applying schoolboy maths to the problem.

So, what is YOUR solution to climate change?

my "solution"? only someone who has no concept of how complex the problem is would ask such a facile question.

Edited September 17, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

Problem seems to me that most people who can't accept the idea of climate change don't actually appreciate the difference between "weather" and "climate".

(and "conspiracy" and "theory" for that matter)

Edited September 17, 2014 by wilcopops

[boomerangutang]

The majority (of Muslims) don't wanna cut our heads off and blow us up.

It only takes a minority of hot heads to cause big problems. The majority of those of the same belief systemwill simply step away and wring their hands in meek consternation, uttering something like, 'Oh mighty Allah, where did we go wrong?'.

Saw on the news that the PM of Kiribati is going to the latest talk fest on climate change to try and save his country from disappearing under the water.

Then I got to thinking just what is it that he thinks anyone can actually do to change it? (shortened for brevity) It's hopeless.

There's a very small tourist island off the coast of Belize called Cay Caulker (pron. 'key'). I went there 25 years ago, and then went 18 yrs ago. The most recent time, they had built a steel wall around the island. Same material used for roofs. It was out in the waves, about 20 meters from the shore in low tide. It was sad to see it, because who could imagine that a wall of 2mm thick steel could keep out the force of the ocean, plus it probably played havoc on any semblance of ecological balance. I doubt that wall lasted 2 years. Please don't tell Thai engineers, as they might try building walls along Thailand's coasts (the same folks who wanted to lessen Bkk's flooding with boat propellers), plus there'd be a large amount of tea money kickbacks in purchasing that much materials.

As for 'hopeless'. Go ahead and think those thoughts. You're probably around middle age, like me, and it's natural to get cynical as one gets older. However, let's not convey too much of that to the younger generation. We brought them in to this world. We don't want to keep hammering home a message of hopelessness. They need to think there are plausible solutions, or at least glimmers of hope. I talk to youngsters about solar power, among other things. I was reading about an Indian man who is organizing poor back-woods villagers in India (mostly grandmothers) to teach them about solar. Many of his graduates are going out and doing tangibly good things, such as overseeing installations of solar.

[RickBradford]

.... it's natural to get cynical as one gets older. However, let's not convey too much of that to the younger generation. We brought them in to this world. We don't want to keep hammering home a message of hopelessness. They need to think there are plausible solutions, or at least glimmers of hope.

You will, then, presumably, fervently oppose the sort of climate agit-prop which is reducing young schoolchildren to gibbering wrecks.

In a new survey of 500 American pre-teens, it was found that one in three children, aged between six and 11, feared that the earth would not exist when they reach adulthood because of global warming and other environmental threats. An unbelievable one-third of our children believe that they don't have a future because of scary global warming stories.

We see the same pattern in the United Kingdom, where a survey showed that half of young children aged between seven and 11 are anxious about the effects of global warming, often losing sleep because of their concern. This is grotesquely harmful.

And let us be honest. This scare was intended. Children believe that global warming will destroy the planet before they grow up because adults are telling them that .

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/jun/15/climate-change-children

And no, they're not joking.

[wilcopops]

...and it's down to the Rick Bradfords of this world who twist and distort the evidence presented so much and attribute all sorts of exaggerated claptrap to the real theories and claims behind climate change.

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncse/30/3/americans-scientific-knowledge-beliefs-human-evolution-year-

Edited September 17, 2014 by wilcopops

[RickBradford]

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncs...evolution-year-

Actually, I had nothing to do with that report, entertaining as it is (and nothing to do with climate change, of course).

Nor am I in any way responsible for the state of education in America.

Pure make-believe on your part.

[wilcopops]

Here are the results of RB's pseudo-scientific arguments.......

http://ncse.com/rncs...evolution-year-

Actually, I had nothing to do with that report, entertaining as it is (and nothing to do with climate change, of course).

Nor am I in any way responsible for the state of education in America.

Pure make-believe on your part.

actually I'd be surprised if you had anything to do with anything real.

[RickBradford]

actually I'd be surprised if you had anything to do with anything real.

That says more about you than it does about me.

Back on the climate front, another ignorant nimrod, this time in the shape of Michael 'Piltdown' Mann, whose hockey-stick graph started this whole climate bandwagon rolling, is being gradually disowned even by the alarmists he was counting on.

He filed a lawsuit against journalist Mark Steyn, who calls Mann "Doctor Fraudpants" and there have recently been a number of amici briefs filed on behalf of the two sides.

Supporting Steyn are such notorious right-wing nutjob deniers as the American Civil Liberties Union, The Washington Post, NBC News, and The Los Angeles Times.

Supporting Mann, at the deadline yesterday, are ..... nobody.

Mann will soon be wishing, if he isn't already, that he hadn't tried to suppress Steyn via the legal system.

Edited September 18, 2014 by RickBradford