He has none, he is just repeating what the pundits say at Fox News.
In other words, the epitome of the question I asked. "Why keep denying something you have been shown to be incorrect".
Upvote
0
He has none, he is just repeating what the pundits say at Fox News.
By Jove I think you've got it!In other words, the epitome of the question I asked. "Why keep denying something you have been shown to be incorrect".
And let's not forget:
2012 hottest year on record, federal agency says This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Though as you can see by the map, and my avatar, it was still cooler than average where I live.
But in all fairness and to keep things in proper context that is for the 48 adjacent states, not global. At least I haven't seen a global number for 2012 yet. I've been trying for the past several days to access NASA GISTEMP but can't seem to get in. Anyone have that trouble? Just wondering if the site has been hacked.
Give it a try: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
It's the clear false concern for increasing global temperature hiding a hidden adjenda that includes about a dozen political or social concerns.
Fear of overpopulation
Fear of other populations
Fear of loss of green space
Fear of industry
Fear of the future
Fear of Climate Evolution
Deniers simply do not understand the repercussions of climate change. Societies are geared on specific parameters and change those and you are in big trouble. An example being the present sea level on which we base our shipping ports and other infrastructures and the land we chose to live on. Some societies are already loosing their land (small island nations), others simply cannot cope with more than one category 5 hurricane onslaught within a certain period of years as this causes extreme economic pressures that is hard to recover from. While others simply cannot move their ports and infrastructure to higher ground.A hidden agenda? Listen mate, when I write on my blog I'm quite clear that there is a whole package called an ecological catastrophe, or planetary dieoff, or ecocide that is hitting this planet. So when I talk about climate change I'm talking about the peer-reviewed, demonstrable, and very very real phenomenon of us cooking this planet through burning coal. But being a distinct thing does not reduce the threat of all the others. I'm not even sure which is worse.
Deniers simply do not understand the repercussions of climate change. Societies are geared on specific parameters and change those and you are in big trouble. An example being the present sea level on which we base our shipping ports and other infrastructures and the land we chose to live on. Some societies are already loosing their land (small island nations), others simply cannot cope with more than one category 5 hurricane onslaught within a certain period of years as this causes extreme economic pressures that is hard to recover from. While others simply cannot move their ports and infrastructure to higher ground.
There are many examples of how devastating climatic changes can be to modern societies. In the distant past our ancestors simply packed up and moved to greener pastures or had the time to adapt; Today we simply cannot move the already in place infrastructures for they are not only too big but extremely expensive to build.
We have the technology in most cases to actually accomplish forced adaptation in shorter periods of time but the economic strain will undoubtedly be too great to shoulder.
I totally agree! Rising standards of living and education make for the best population control! Nature can recover even under the worst conditions so long as it is given time. Heck we even have bacteria that evolved to break down cyanide in an abandoned mines where cyanide was used in leaching processes.Agreed! And as if global warming wasn't enough, then we've STILL got this wonderful list.
Fear of overpopulation
Fear of other populations
Fear of loss of green space
Fear of industry
Fear of the future
Under 'Fear of Industry' we could also add various hormone disrupting chemicals leaching out of our plastics and bio-accumulating in ecosystems. Wonderful things like endocrine disruptor's still pollute our environments, gradually shifting gender balances this way and that throughout ecosystems. Fortunately the wiki indicates that some of the worst have been banned, and if we just give it a tiny chance, nature can recover. But we're not giving it that chance. We're spreading pests and parasites around the world, paving over and ploughing up our last green-spaces, and spreading the worst parasite of all everywhere: suburbia.
Please don't take me as misanthropic for happening to agree that there is a population crisis as well. I can love human beings and still campaign for population reduction because none of my means of population reduction practice eugenics. The population control means I favour are all about providing adequate clean water, nutrition, housing, education — especially for young girls — and empowerment for women, and free family planning to the poor. If we just did this, then global over-population would sort itself out.
It would (apparently, but I can't quote the study as I only heard this statistic in a lecture I heard) only cost 5% of the globe's military budget. 5%! 5% of the globe's military to provide for the poor, meet UN millennium goals, and probably prevent population pressure points becoming flashpoints for war. EG: "But we can't even feed ourselves, we so DEMAND access to THEIR water..." When populations can't employ or feed themselves, they become desperate. Hitler used that. So did Osama Bin-Laden.
The answers are so obvious, once one realises that for every 3 years of education a girl receives, they, on average, have 1 less child. Yet that weird combination of TEA-party 'faith' & Denialism seems to deny even the basic math that a finite planet cannot sustain an infinite population. I just cannot understand what is wrong with them.
I think the important thing is to ramp up all the power sources we can find, because much of the world will need to relocate in the next 200 years. And attempting that on wind power is not wise.
The latest prophecy fulfilled I've seen was at Bondi Beach Australia 2 weeks ago. We had a red algae bloom, making the sea look EXACTLY LIKE BLOOD. Regarding the catastrophes before his 2nd coming, Jesus said ' As you see the leaves bud forth you know summer is near." One of the main events before His return is the seas turn to blood. This event, on the Pacific Ocean at Sydney was a bud of a future event, perhaps at 1 degree warmer or so when we cross a threshold and this red bloom multiplies across the oceans.
Except algae is not really "blood", is it?
Wind power is more effective than you apparently realize. The numbers I've looked at indicate that one turbine powers over 800 homes. There are objections to these dotting scenic ridgelines, but here in the upper midwest there are LOTS of high-wind areas that no one really minds being populated by windmills. The biggest issue is if they are based in areas of mown grass, that defeats the whole purpose. If it's anchored in farm land that's still used, the yield that's lost is very small; win-win
I don't think either wind or solar will ever be a large source, but both can contribute significantly. (Even 20% is a HUGE #, looking at our National consumption)
Don't you mean down off the coasts of South America?What makes you think that matters?
Anyway the geographical area that matters is around the Mediteranean. When Spanish conquerors first saw it, they recognized the Scriptural meaning, and called it El Nino.
What makes you think that matters?
Anyway the geographical area that matters is around the Mediteranean. When Spanish conquerors first saw it, they recognized the Scriptural meaning, and called it El Nino.
What makes you think that matters?
Anyway the geographical area that matters is around the Mediteranean. When Spanish conquerors first saw it, they recognized the Scriptural meaning, and called it El Nino.
Don't you mean down off the coasts of South America?
In my opinion, modern-day (Egyptian) science needs to keep its ... ironic ... hands away from theological terminology, if it's going to deny [or take a neutral stance that] Christ ever existed as God the Son.(I could also have El Nino mixed with with La Nina)
I'm not sure if they first saw that off S America, or California. (I could also have El Nino mixed with with La Nina)