How Climate Change will Effect Us All »
Posted By vizion 4 months, 3 weeks ago in Science & TechnologyIncreased wildfires. Rising sea levels. More intense tropical storms. Those are just a few predictions taken from a new report that describes the impacts of climate change in the United States.
Read Full Story at globaldatavault.com »
326 Views Share Story 27 Comments Report
Submitted By:
vizion
I'm just a lonely guy from the Lone Star State (Texas) who likes to run around town on my horse wearing my cowboy hat ...
Who Also Submitted: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 27 (view all)
-
-
50%
Endoscopy4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock. That is the bogus "An Inconvenient Truth" lie that in England was shot down in court. Gore did at least a times 10 multiplier of what the Global warming scientists said. They said 2 to 3 inches and that was not enough for Gore. The other basic problem is that it is going into a cooling cycle at the moment. Temperature has been static or down since 2000.
Reply
-
-
40%
BB644 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The sky is falling.... What a scam. I'm sooo tired of asking for the "experts" to lay out their whole concept and proof. Generally, they fail to take into account the planet is 5 billion years old, that at one time or other the temperatures on earth were higher and lower than they claim is a problem. Their studies never explain how we had warming before humans were here. How about why in the past if there was high CO2 gas, it was usually during an Ice Age, not a warming period. Generally speaking, they're using junk science.
Reply
Using the scientific methods taught to you from high school on, lay out how you know the planet is warming. Show your work. 5,000,000,000 year old planet, 100 years of data. For most standards, there isn't enough proof. Oh, and no, I don't need any fancy computer graphics or programs "proving" your theory. I want your work long hand. I want to see your hypothesis and theory. I want to see your testing that can be repeated. I want to see your conclusion. Again, no fancy computer models because any program falls back to junk in, junk out. You can get computer models to show anything if you create the programs yourself. I don't think most global warming experts are really scientists. They're normally failed politicians, failed movie producers or Hollywood folks proving brains and looks rarely are found together. -
57%
buckncindykill4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the midst of global warming, rising sea levels and the witnessing of the extinction of the polar bear comes this story:
Reply
Chicago sees coldest July in 66 years; Average temp 68.9 degrees...
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/chicago.coldest.july....
I wonder when people like algore will realize their arrogance and come to grips with the reality that the earth's climate cannot be predicted, let alone controlled by parasitic organisms like environmentalists? I mean human beings.-
50%
Dionys4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Chicago sees coldest July in 66 years; Average temp 68.9 degrees..."
Reply
"I wonder when people"
I wonder when people like Buck will realize that GLOBAL warming means a generalized trend over the surface of the earth, not specific WEATHER events in one place or another. -
60%
buckncindykill4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The definition keeps changing.
Reply
Maybe you should drop the GLOBAL part and stick with your BS definition of statistical trends and averages. What happens when the "trend" shows a drop in temperature over the surface of the earth? As in the past 8 years? What will you myrmidons call it then? Planetary algidity?
Good grief..........climate change? More like global, liberal, progressive nonsense.
-
-
-
50%
antibrainwasher4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
When you're proud of being stupid, you might be a neocon.
Reply
When you automatically reject anything not in the bible unless it makes the rich richer, you might be a neocon.
When you condemn your children and grandchildren to smother beneath a cloud of fossil fuel burned CO2, and rejoice because you made the rich richer, you might be a neocon.
If you think the earth was created 6000 years ago, and wait the rat pure rapture, you might be a neocon.
If you eat your own on the sinking stinking burning ship called the GOP, and hike the applacian trail, you ......-
33%
BB644 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
First, don't insult someone for having a faith. All of our founding fathers had faith in a supreme being.
Reply
On your fear of CO2, if we eliminate all CO2, life ends on this planet. Even first graders understand this. It's what plants breath.
Also, if CO2 is evil, why not build nuclear plants? They create no CO2 gas while running and use far less resources than any of your wind or solar options. If we're using common sense, coal uses less CO2 than does your wind or solar. It takes huge resources to build wind or solar farms. In most cases you will end up building a small community to maintain the farms. It's very labor intensive too. Wind machines never repair themselves and require large service pools and access roads. This doesn't include the capacitors, inverters, transformers, power lines, towers, etc. that will have to be used to transmit that power. So tell me, how does this help anyone, besides greedy capitalists like me? If you're stupid enough to pee money away, I'm smart enough to take it from you.
-
-
100%
antibrainwasher4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and the Flat Earth birther big foot believers and UFO 911 conspirators and sister humping climate change denier morons fronting for big coal wave their chineese made 'merican flags and tea bags.....
Reply
you can't fix red state stupid, they like it that way, just like they like their purty sisters.-
33%
BB644 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've asked the other believers from the Temple of Global Warming, I mean Global Climate change to explain their beliefs to me. Use the scientific method. No fancy movies, no mock up computer models. I want to see this in real scientific form. Where not only do you show your successes but failures also. Explain how you tested and retested getting the same results. What was your control standard. Planet is 5,000,000,000 but you have about 100 years of semi-accurate data. In traditional science, there isn't enough hard data for your control, much less information to draw to a conclusion. Show your work.
Reply
Oh, if like me you slept through basic science, I posted the steps considered standard for the scientific method/process. Lets see how you came to your conclusion. Prove it to me.
-
-
33%
lloydm654 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
One way we will be affected Al E Gore will be super rich,we will be in the dark,and cold trying explain our stupity at the polls.But daddy you were told these people were bad,I know son we won't make the same mistake again.From now on your mother and me will only vote for a real American,not an almost,maybe American.It will be a while,but we can fix it.
Reply -
100%
riverat4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just a few coments. First, I don't recall any scientist saying we would go from here to straight line hot. Maybe science writers did--Scientists also said parts of the earth might get cooler. Most are not comfortable with the term Global Warming but prefere Climate Change.
Reply-
Neutral
chevydog4 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
At last a measured comment. My congrats. One gets sort of tired/bored of reading nothing but rants. The thing is that Climate Change is not dramatic enough for people to to deal with on a political basis--way too mundane. Of course there will be climate change. Change is always with us, whether we like it or not. Just as a personal aside, I'm not a big fan--prefer stability. But (creeping heresy warning here) doesn't climate change sort of leave open the possibility that what everyone is loudly debating is nothing more than standard data scatter overlaid over a secular trend of who knows what direction?
Reply
Like you, Just a few comments (But I'll probably be wordier.)
* This debate has a political component, which makes it both different and more heated than earlier episodes. IMHO, to the detriment of logic.
* I was in my working career during the "Ice Age" episode of the mid-1970's. The people that were telling us that we were certainly going into the next Ice Age were the same (qualifications/respnsibility/education) as those who are supporting global warming /climate change now. I've discussed the Ice Age thing Propeller. One guy (tangent001) likes to tell me that it wasn't "peer reviewed". My answer is that that's applying 2009 methodology to the 1970's. The whole world was different then in many ways; and IMHO one simply can't do that.
As I stated above, Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever has a political component to it that makes it different than earlier "we've overwhelmed the Earth; we're doomed" episodes. Otherwise, all we'd be doing is reading scattered articles in Time or Newsweek or Scientific American and yawning. The Ice Age thing in the 1970's didn't have any politics associated either. It was gonna happen - period. Nothing we or government could do about it. I really didn't want to see it happen --was royally tired of shovelling snow. Still, lots of things happen in life that we don't like.
But this situation/theory/whatever was proposed and boosted by a prominent Dem. So certain Repubs felt that they had to as a matter of course oppose it; after all, by their way of thinking, no Dem could ever do anything that made sense. (The same holds true in the other direction as well for certain Dems.) I'm not so sure that Global Warming itself is the problem; as much as what Mr. Gore is saying is necessary to blunt/slow it . It's not going to affect me -- I'll be long dead. But I must admit that I'm not attracted by the idea of what seems to me turning the US into a third-world country for my grandchildren. Anyway, ooposing the evil Mr. Gore (100% sarcasm) can take the form of opposing the proposed remedies or denying the conditions that supposedly make them necessary. Many of the the concepts behind the remedies (renewable energy, living in harmony with nature, the US not "hogging" so many resources) have pretty broad appeal. So denying change is often what it comes down to.
-
-
More News
Engadget
Kodak wins preliminary ruling in patent squabble with Samsung
Fujitsu LifeBook UH900 spotted in the wild, courtesy of shouting speech bubbles
NorhTec Gecko Surfboard is neither gecko nor surfboard (it's a keyboard PC)
Dell adds cheaper Latitude On Flash module to some laptops
Jimmy and 'the nerdy guy' yuk it up Late Night style (video)
Science Daily
Hubble finds smallest Kuiper Belt object ever seen
Link between infertility, low egg reserve, and breast/ovarian cancer gene (BRCA1) suggested
Dyslexia: Some very smart accomplished people cannot read well
New study links DHA type of omega-3 to better nervous-system function
Valuable, rare, raw earth materials extracted from industrial waste stream
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.