100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Climate Change... it's really heating up! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
100% of scientists agree that if man-made global warming were real, "the last people we'd want to help us is the Obama administration"  
Ha Ha! You got that right! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. How do you explain that the warming hasn't increased overall over the last Decade-and-a-half,regardless of the Fact that the amounts of CO2 dumped into the Atmosphere should have driven up the Temperature? 'splain that to us! Where did you get the idea that temps haven't gone up in the last 15 years? Many records have been set. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php Some of the sliding scales on some of the graphs show how and when the temperature changed. The data is from multiple overlapping sources. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. How do you explain that the warming hasn't increased overall over the last Decade-and-a-half,regardless of the Fact that the amounts of CO2 dumped into the Atmosphere should have driven up the Temperature? 'splain that to us! Where did you get the idea that temps haven't gone up in the last 15 years? Many records have been set. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php Some of the sliding scales on some of the graphs show how and when the temperature changed. The data is from multiple overlapping sources. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. How do you explain that the warming hasn't increased overall over the last Decade-and-a-half,regardless of the Fact that the amounts of CO2 dumped into the Atmosphere should have driven up the Temperature? 'splain that to us! Where did you get the idea that temps haven't gone up in the last 15 years? Many records have been set. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php Some of the sliding scales on some of the graphs show how and when the temperature changed. The data is from multiple overlapping sources. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/ Your site claims that the NASA data shows no warming but I posted the NASA sites and they say the exact opposite. I looked for links to the statements made in your site but they just go to sites that claim the same thing, not the data. Liberal and conservative scientists agree on the science. (I happen to be conservative). The big rift is in how to approach the problem and what to do about it. The liberal approach is called "carbon credits" which does nothing to reduce c02, it just transfers tons of money from countries like the US to other "poor" countries with a "cut" taken by those (like Al Gore) who happen to invest in carbon credit futures. One conservative approach is to invest in nuclear power plants to replace coal burning ones ... in a methodical way that doesn't impact the economy. The use of hybrid cars, particularly plug in hybrids, is the wave of the future and a percentage use of these vehicles (not complete replacement) will result in the US not needing to import middle eastern oil. This would be a 700 billion dollar boost to our economy, not destroy it with carbon credit payments. It also would dry up much of the funding for terrorist organizations. The major countries producing c02 are the US, China, Europe, and India. They already have nuclear technology so leading the way in electricity production is a win win situation. Putting Americans to work building nuclear power plants is a win win situation. Carbon credits employ no one. The Japanese nuclear plants that were built adjacent to the worst earthquake zone in the world and having only minimal defenses against Tsumani flooding were stupid beyond imagination. Modern designs have passive cooling and produce more fuel than they use. Ironically, coal could be passed through a nuclear plant's steam heater and broken down into many valuble products without the huge c02 problem (The NAZI's made gasoline from coal in WWII). The reason almost all scientists understand the basic science of global warming is that the science is basic. There are some slick looking websites that claim global warming is bunk, but the ones that claim to use NASA's data but don't send you to NASA's data cannot be believed. I posted NASA's data. The world is heating up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Wed 06/18/14 07:24 AM
|
Bovine community outraged by flatulence coming from Washington DC. The United States is spewing 50 percent more methane a potent heat-trapping gas than previously thought, a new study says. Most of it is coming from the federal government in Washington, D.C. Much of that extra methane, also called natural gas, seems to be coming from the EPA offices, including manure, belches, and flatulence, caused by abundant taxpayer-funded lunches, dinners, and breakfasts compliant with Michelle Obama's recommended arugula diet.(People's Cube)
And that's why they put a dome on the Capital building. That thing might blow off some day with all that Gas and Hot Air!
Still, it might be better than what we have been given so far.
I just hope that Dodo doesn't interject more flatulence into this thread. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Wed 06/18/14 07:55 AM
|
|
Roy Spencer - The Great Global Warming Blunder
a lengthy Book,guess it is available in Bookstores,etc. http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/great-global-warming-blunder/ The Great Global Warming Blunder provides a simple explanation for why forecasts of a global warming Armageddon constitute a major scientific faux pas: climate researchers have mixed up cause and effect when they have analyzed cloud behavior. Combining illustrations from everyday experience with state-of-the-art satellite measurements, Roy W. Spencer reveals how these scientists have been fooled by Mother Nature into believing that the Earth's climate system is very sensitive to humanity's production of carbon dioxide through the use of fossil fuels. He presents evidence that recent warming, rather than being the fault of humans, is a result of chaotic, internal natural cycles that have been causing periods of warming and cooling for thousands of years. Dr. Spencer exposes the political, philosophical, and financial biases that have helped perpetuate the claim by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that there is a scientific consensus on global warming. These biases have led to groupthink and a rejection of any peer-reviewed, published evidence that does not fit the group's preconceived notions. This book challenges our country's leaders to perform a critical review of the IPCC's claims before making any misguided policy decisions that would contribute to the deaths of millions of the world's poor. Instead of fearing more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Dr. Spencer argues, we should consider the possibility that our burning of fossil fuels may actually be beneficial to life on Earth. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. Volcanic eruptions lower the temperature not increase it. So, this entire post has zero relevance to the topic and does nothing to dispel the relationship between volcanic eruptions and the major changes in climate that follow. The Year Without a Summer, a peculiar 19th century disaster, played out during 1816 when weather in Europe and North America took a bizarre turn that resulted in widespread crop failures and even famine. The weather in 1816 was unprecedented. Spring arrived but then everything seemed to turn backward, as cold temperatures returned. The sky seemed permanently overcast. The lack of sunlight became so severe that farmers lost their crops and food shortages were reported in Ireland, France, England, and the United States. It would be more than a century before anyone understood the reason for the peculiar weather disaster: the eruption of an enormous volcano on a remote island in the Indian Ocean a year earlier had thrown enormous amounts of volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere. The dust from Mount Tambora, which had erupted in early April 1815, had shrouded the globe. And with sunlight blocked, 1816 did not have a normal summer. http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/The-Year-Without-A-Summer.htm Evidently, you didn't understand my post. It was in response to a previous post that was speculating CO2 emissions from volcanic activity was a major contributor to climate change and the greenhouse effect. Sulfur dioxide released in volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. Studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. The major cause of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Human activities with the burning of fossil fuels are a major contributor, not volcanic activity. That was my point and it does have relevance. Maybe you can quote those posts because after a quick perusal I found none mentioning volcanoes raising the temperature. I did see the one that included Mt St Helens and CO2, but he made no mention of that raising temperatures. Where did you get the idea that my post said anything about volcanic activity raising temperature? Quite the opposite....my post was about volcanic activity NOT CONTRIBUTING to global warming. Please go back and read it again. You believe that CO2 is causing global warming. You typed that volcanoes contribute a certain amount of CO2 per year. Even if it is only the 2%, that is still contributing to the overall CO2 levels in which you believe are causing the problem. How can you then say they aren't contributing to the warming? I understand that you believe humans are totally to blame, so you were trying to minimize natural influences on climate. I find it rather amusing to think that there were higher levels of CO2 on earth well before any version of our species even existed. This theory that natural influences on climate should be discounted and only the miniscule data of the last 150 years plus the proxies should be considered is ridiculous. All of this is mathematically insignificant when it is taken within the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. I guess you still don't understand my post. I will try to explain it again. Some people think volcanoes are the cause of global warming. I DO NOT. They contribute only 2% of the 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 we pump into the air burning coal, oil and gas. CO2 causes the Greenhouse Effect. And you are right, there were times in the earth's history of high CO2 levels well before humans wlaked the planet. It was an entirely different ecosystem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. How do you explain that the warming hasn't increased overall over the last Decade-and-a-half,regardless of the Fact that the amounts of CO2 dumped into the Atmosphere should have driven up the Temperature? 'splain that to us! Where did you get the idea that temps haven't gone up in the last 15 years? Many records have been set. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php Some of the sliding scales on some of the graphs show how and when the temperature changed. The data is from multiple overlapping sources. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/12/wheres-the-warming/ Your site claims that the NASA data shows no warming but I posted the NASA sites and they say the exact opposite. I looked for links to the statements made in your site but they just go to sites that claim the same thing, not the data. Liberal and conservative scientists agree on the science. (I happen to be conservative). The big rift is in how to approach the problem and what to do about it. The liberal approach is called "carbon credits" which does nothing to reduce c02, it just transfers tons of money from countries like the US to other "poor" countries with a "cut" taken by those (like Al Gore) who happen to invest in carbon credit futures. One conservative approach is to invest in nuclear power plants to replace coal burning ones ... in a methodical way that doesn't impact the economy. The use of hybrid cars, particularly plug in hybrids, is the wave of the future and a percentage use of these vehicles (not complete replacement) will result in the US not needing to import middle eastern oil. This would be a 700 billion dollar boost to our economy, not destroy it with carbon credit payments. It also would dry up much of the funding for terrorist organizations. The major countries producing c02 are the US, China, Europe, and India. They already have nuclear technology so leading the way in electricity production is a win win situation. Putting Americans to work building nuclear power plants is a win win situation. Carbon credits employ no one. The Japanese nuclear plants that were built adjacent to the worst earthquake zone in the world and having only minimal defenses against Tsumani flooding were stupid beyond imagination. Modern designs have passive cooling and produce more fuel than they use. Ironically, coal could be passed through a nuclear plant's steam heater and broken down into many valuble products without the huge c02 problem (The NAZI's made gasoline from coal in WWII). The reason almost all scientists understand the basic science of global warming is that the science is basic. There are some slick looking websites that claim global warming is bunk, but the ones that claim to use NASA's data but don't send you to NASA's data cannot be believed. I posted NASA's data. The world is heating up. Cap and Trade (carbon credits) was originally a conservative idea. George H W Bush loved it! So did the GOP. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Wed 06/18/14 05:14 PM
|
|
Climate change is real...I see some posters think the cause could be volcanic eruptions. Maybe it has nothing to do with the coal and oil we burn. Maybe it's those damn volcanoes. Every few years, Mount Etna, in Sicily, blows its stack. Each big eruption sends millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now, combine that with the output of all the other volcanic activity on the planet. Let's take the largest scientific estimate-- about 500 million tons of volcanic CO2 entering the atmosphere ever year. Sounds like a lot, right? But that's not even TWO PERCENT of the 30 billion tons of CO2 that our civilization is cranking out every year. And, funny thing, the measured increase in CO2 in the atmosphere tallies with the known amount we're dumping there by burning coal, oil and gas. Volcanic CO2 has a distinct signature-- it's slightly heavier than the kind produced by burning fossil fuels. We can tell the difference between the two when we examine them at the atomic level. It's clear that the increased CO2 in the air is not from volcanoes. What's more, the observed warming is as much as predicted from the measured increase in carbon dioxide. It's a pretty tight case. Our fingerprints are all over this one. Volcanic eruptions lower the temperature not increase it. So, this entire post has zero relevance to the topic and does nothing to dispel the relationship between volcanic eruptions and the major changes in climate that follow. The Year Without a Summer, a peculiar 19th century disaster, played out during 1816 when weather in Europe and North America took a bizarre turn that resulted in widespread crop failures and even famine. The weather in 1816 was unprecedented. Spring arrived but then everything seemed to turn backward, as cold temperatures returned. The sky seemed permanently overcast. The lack of sunlight became so severe that farmers lost their crops and food shortages were reported in Ireland, France, England, and the United States. It would be more than a century before anyone understood the reason for the peculiar weather disaster: the eruption of an enormous volcano on a remote island in the Indian Ocean a year earlier had thrown enormous amounts of volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere. The dust from Mount Tambora, which had erupted in early April 1815, had shrouded the globe. And with sunlight blocked, 1816 did not have a normal summer. http://history1800s.about.com/od/crimesanddisasters/a/The-Year-Without-A-Summer.htm Evidently, you didn't understand my post. It was in response to a previous post that was speculating CO2 emissions from volcanic activity was a major contributor to climate change and the greenhouse effect. Sulfur dioxide released in volcanic eruptions has occasionally caused detectable global cooling, the carbon dioxide released in contemporary volcanic eruptions has never caused detectable global warming of the atmosphere. This is probably because the amounts of carbon dioxide released in volcanism have not been of sufficient magnitude to produce detectable global warming. Studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. The major cause of climate change is the greenhouse effect. Human activities with the burning of fossil fuels are a major contributor, not volcanic activity. That was my point and it does have relevance. Maybe you can quote those posts because after a quick perusal I found none mentioning volcanoes raising the temperature. I did see the one that included Mt St Helens and CO2, but he made no mention of that raising temperatures. Where did you get the idea that my post said anything about volcanic activity raising temperature? Quite the opposite....my post was about volcanic activity NOT CONTRIBUTING to global warming. Please go back and read it again. You believe that CO2 is causing global warming. You typed that volcanoes contribute a certain amount of CO2 per year. Even if it is only the 2%, that is still contributing to the overall CO2 levels in which you believe are causing the problem. How can you then say they aren't contributing to the warming? I understand that you believe humans are totally to blame, so you were trying to minimize natural influences on climate. I find it rather amusing to think that there were higher levels of CO2 on earth well before any version of our species even existed. This theory that natural influences on climate should be discounted and only the miniscule data of the last 150 years plus the proxies should be considered is ridiculous. All of this is mathematically insignificant when it is taken within the 4.5 billion years the earth has existed. I guess you still don't understand my post. I will try to explain it again. Some people think volcanoes are the cause of global warming. I DO NOT. They contribute only 2% of the 30 BILLION TONS of CO2 we pump into the air burning coal, oil and gas. CO2 causes the Greenhouse Effect. And you are right, there were times in the earth's history of high CO2 levels well before humans wlaked the planet. It was an entirely different ecosystem. I hope that we can find answers and soon. Someone has to know. Al Gore? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a story published by CNN Money: ... This comes on the heels of the World Bank announcement last week that it was cutting its prediction for the United States and the broader world economy. Many expect Federal Reserve policymakers to do the same downward revision when they meet this week.
What went wrong? Blame it on the deep freeze that caused a very weak start to 2014. "In the early part of the year, as a harsh winter conspired with other factors... momentum faded in the U.S economy," the IMF said. Global warming alarmists tell us that a mild winter in the USA is the result of man-made global warming. So, what do they tell us when the USA has a harsh winter, a particularly bad deep freeze? Yes, and one can freeze his ying-yang off in the Hebei Province of northern China too. 
Hey you should try climbing the Great Wall in November with a mild cold spell, would advise a heated jock. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From a story published by CNN Money: ... This comes on the heels of the World Bank announcement last week that it was cutting its prediction for the United States and the broader world economy. Many expect Federal Reserve policymakers to do the same downward revision when they meet this week.
What went wrong? Blame it on the deep freeze that caused a very weak start to 2014. "In the early part of the year, as a harsh winter conspired with other factors... momentum faded in the U.S economy," the IMF said. Global warming alarmists tell us that a mild winter in the USA is the result of man-made global warming. So, what do they tell us when the USA has a harsh winter, a particularly bad deep freeze? What the alarmists say really doesn't matter. But what the scientists say (that I have explained to you more than once) is that heat causes instability. The rising air creates a deep draw from the polar regions that causes periods of colder weather in some areas. Weather is not climate. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus Same old tired trash from the same old tired source, the government paid hacks at NASA, but hey why not add the other government hacks over at IPCC? Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis Ooh, look a peer reviewed report that says NASA is full of crap, as usual. 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs 
Too bad some on here wouldn't know science unless the government told them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
enjoy!
http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/study-west-antarctic-glacier-melt-due-volcanoes-global-warming/ Excellent article, thank you, I enjoyed the source very much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about you stop looking to the paid off media and look to documented scientific fact? There are many factors that affect our planets climate and temperature as well as CO2 levels. First off....these past two years are cooler in the North American/UK/Russian regions....not hotter. This is attributed to several factors. Our sun has seasons just like Earth does. It runs on convection. When there are sunspots, it is in a cooling trend. Just like pudding that gains a skin even though it is bubbling. It takes approx. seven minutes for solar heat to reach our planet....so when the convection cools....that is all the time it needs. When it warms....same thing. When there are very few if no solar spots....we begin hearing terms like....solar flares....this is a solar summer....like three summers ago and prior. These are natural, non-human affiliated trends. Keep in mind...our planet has been fully devoid of ice several times well before man....and it has been almost half covered in glaciers several times as well. Our atmosphere breathes. It is approximately 135 miles thick. We are also surrounded by a magnetosphere. In fact...the Northern Lights are various solar rays sheering off of our Northern Magnetosphere....gamma, infra, ultra, X-ray, etc....we and everything on our planet exude infra-red heat. It is the coolest heat. If grammars entered our planets atmosphere, the devastation to our planet would be excessive. .... Well....at least to all life upon it. So much for Captain America and The Hulk. Volcanoes and all types of volcanic activity release CO2 into our atmosphere. All living critters release CO2 into our atmosphere. Plants LOVE CO2. They inhale it and thrive. They exhale oxygen, which we need. More CO2 equals more plants which equals more oxygen. Actual scientific study over the last thousand years has shown us a ONE degree global raise in temperature. 1 whopping degree! Our media lies for the biggest purchaser. Who has money to gain from this lie? Let me clue you in. They are wealthy ex-hippies that have invested heavily in or even purchased companies that sell solar/wind/electric energy ideology.
Btw....we have polluted our air and water....but contrary to what we are being told at this time....we are not the worst offenders. China is. They do not care about emissions. I could keep going with scientific data and the lies being told by the media....for instance....they tell us to stop driving cars....or to keep up on emissions, etc....but at the same time....the EPA allows chemical companies to dump their leftovers into our skies. They claim they are controlling our weather. They are not....but if they were....then family members of those killed in Joplin, Katrina, etc....should sue the heck out of them. Just saying....you can't claim just the good weather. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Climate Change Report Paints Dire Picture For Business
June 24, 2014 5:07 AM ET The U.S. economy faces great risks from climate change, according to a new study that focuses on the current and future effects of climate change on everything from jobs, to crop yields, to energy production. Though the study presents no new climate science, it paints a dire picture of the business and economic effects if action isn't taken, including crop yields that fall by more than 70 percent in the Midwest and billions of dollars' worth of property literally underwater on the East Coast. The study is called "Risky Business", and the driving force behind it is a bipartisan group of prominent former businessmen and public officials: entrepreneur and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; retired hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer; and Henry Paulson, a former Wall Street titan and Treasury secretary under President George W. Bush. Paulson, a Republican, acknowledges that many in his party are skeptical of the science of climate change and want more research. He says this new study suggests the business and investment community needs to take action. "It's going to increasingly be difficult for anybody, regardless of party, to say there isn't a problem," he says. Paulson says he hopes the study can influence the business community by applying a major business tool — the science of risk management. "The more we can talk about risk management, which is part and parcel of the free enterprise system and a conservative principle, I think we will make some headway," Paulson says. The study says there's a better-than-ever chance that as much as $23 billion worth of Florida property will be underwater by the middle of the century. "I think we've got to act on all possible fronts, because I really do think that life on Earth, as we know it, is at stake here," ______________________________________ Seems like many of you are having a good time making jokes on this thread and posting funny pictures while some are warning businesses to plan for these scenarios. It's not going to be funny when coastal cities are flooded and crops are failing due to droughts. Climate change is real and it's going to affect you in some serious ways. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bovine community outraged by flatulence coming from Washington DC. The United States is spewing 50 percent more methane a potent heat-trapping gas than previously thought, a new study says. Most of it is coming from the federal government in Washington, D.C. Much of that extra methane, also called natural gas, seems to be coming from the EPA offices, including manure, belches, and flatulence, caused by abundant taxpayer-funded lunches, dinners, and breakfasts compliant with Michelle Obama's recommended arugula diet.(People's Cube)
And that's why they put a dome on the Capital building. That thing might blow off some day with all that Gas and Hot Air!
Still, it might be better than what we have been given so far.
I just hope that Dodo doesn't interject more flatulence into this thread.
I am not the one who first mentioned such gas in this thread. Now, a word from this thread's newest sponsor ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Tue 06/24/14 05:22 PM
|
|
Bovine community outraged by flatulence coming from Washington DC. The United States is spewing 50 percent more methane a potent heat-trapping gas than previously thought, a new study says. Most of it is coming from the federal government in Washington, D.C. Much of that extra methane, also called natural gas, seems to be coming from the EPA offices, including manure, belches, and flatulence, caused by abundant taxpayer-funded lunches, dinners, and breakfasts compliant with Michelle Obama's recommended arugula diet.(People's Cube)
And that's why they put a dome on the Capital building. That thing might blow off some day with all that Gas and Hot Air!
Still, it might be better than what we have been given so far.
I just hope that Dodo doesn't interject more flatulence into this thread.
I am not the one who first mentioned such gas in this thread. Now, a word from this thread's newest sponsor ...
Oh no! Not the Beano! 
|
|
|
|
|
