Please ignore

Post Reply New Topic

There's no reason to acknowledge this..

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/17/opinion/sunday/17drought.html?_r=1

Ho Hum. Yet another crisis. The world has been in a state of crisis since God invented dirt.

ruveyn

Thanks.

I disregarded your request that we ignore this. Please overlook it.

Any climate change deniers interested in some land in Texas?

I don't think anyone is denying that there is change, just there's a disagreement on the root cause of the change......

to all climate change deniers
do some experimentiation,


seal your greenhouse gas tight then pump in 5 kg of co2, what do you think happens to the temperature?
i did this with a class once, you will in 10 minutes on a sunny day in denmark experience a temperature rise of almost 6 degrees celsius,
we are currently pumping huge amounts of co2 into the air what effect will that have?
what about the many other greenhouse gasses, some of which are many times more potent?

of course we have an effect the only question is how big, why not err on the side of caution?

If it were going cheap enough I would be tempted - but after a year in Austin p- one of their WET years - I swore I would never live in Texas.

But this is a good point at which to remind people to talk straight:

"Climate Change Denier" Is someone who says the climate does not change or is not changing.

Someone who says the climate is changing but Man is not the prime factor is not a "Climate Change Denier"

Someone who says the climate is changing and does not clasim to know the reasons is not a "Climate Change Denier"

Someone who is not sure whether climate is changing is not a "Climate Change Denier"

Someone who says the climate is changing but does not think Carbon Footprint adjustment is the way to go is not a "Climate Change Denier"

Someone who says the climate is changing but doubts we can do anything to stop it is not a "Climate Change Denier"

Someone who says the climate is changing and thinks wde should embrace it is not a "Climate Change Denier"

i think the implied meaning was "deniers of partly anthopogenic global warming"

A lot of the SW US was never meant for large scale inhabitation anyways. In a way I am sort of reminded of the Dust Bowl situation where people assumed the good times were going to last forever in a region known for its aridity. I can't help but wonder if there is a similar (though there are key differences) situation going on there. As to the relation to AGW, I wish that a lot of the politics were removed from that. As Raptor said the debate isn't really about 'is it happening' but 'why'. The problem is a lot of the loud voices are still arguing about whether its happening or not and it puts situations like this into unnecessary politics. The potential for a lot of people to suffer needlessly in these regions is opened up because the AGW debate might overshadow ways to circumvent the problem. There was a cut NASA observatory that would have studied the global climate system and try to determine the source of the current change in climate. I don't know all the details on why it was cut but I strongly suspect the denialist camp had something to do with that. Which boggles my mind because if they want to prove its not anthropogenic what better way than to use space observatories to find other important variables that could be causing it. Yes the planet goes through phases but they don't just happen randomly there is a push factor and we could find out what it is instead of arguing about it to ensure electoral dominance for 4 years. f**k I hate short sighted politics

Which would be a very silly thing to be unless you are a climatologist with a stack of data strongly indicating global cooling or zero net change. It is fine and even proper to be agnostic as to the direction of climate change - how many have done the reaearch? But denial requires that you HAVE done the research, and if there is climate change, humans have to be a factor - and more of a factor than cockroaches.

I prefer my version "anthropomorphic climate change" far interesting , but philologos ruined it by pointing out my error.

Denying global warming alarmists' claims about the drought is easy on this one: the drought is the rest of a la nina weather pattern. Eventually that will subside and eventually we will have another el nino weather pattern. In other words, it's due to a naturally occurring cycle that we don't understand well enough to draw conclusions.

I do really like "anthropomorphic climate change" and see no reason we could not find a use. All the talk in scifi about terraforming, and God making man in his own image, why should we NOT make the planet and its climate more like ourselves?

Then when we kill ourselves off the climate and Mount Rushmore [Anthropomorphic Landscape Modification] will memorialize us to the visitors from Beta Cygni 24.

Indeed, denial is easy.