MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am
Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.
Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….
So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.
The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.
The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?
Surely not your taste in music but a fun video and the (rap) song is a twist on Animal Farm
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
The biggest ruling ever against the global warming alarmism that has been thriving in Washington for decades was issued yesterday. These are the kinds of decisions which will help drive energy prices back down.
To be sure, the Biden admin will appeal but the 5th circuit will rule against them as well, as will the Supreme Court. This admin simply wants to penalize the middle class and the only thing between us and Venezuela are Trump judges..the irony.
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:37 am
Yeah, you're really so persuasive here, cradle.
I'm not trying to persuade anyone MD. I will point out the stupidity of any person that thinks by the use of climate models they can predict what the planet will do in 50 years is jerking your chain. I know this for certain, neither you nor myself know what the planet will do 50 years years from now. I guaran dam tee you if I did I would find a betting line on Vegas and sink 20 or 30 grand betting on prognosticating the future. What money line should I choose??? FIRE.. FLOOD.. DISEASE.. FAMINE.. ZOMBIES.. help me out here MD.. what potential disaster should I be chitting my pants over and where should I put my money? I will just keep doing the same thing I do every morning. I will walk Roxy and pick up the same trash and debris left by the same inconsiderate assholes every night. Then I will ask myself the same question...who exactly are we saving the planet for again??? I understand my concerns are too low on the food chain for the really smart people like you to be concerned with. The real important thing is people eating faux hamburger meat, driving electric cars and installing those really cool mini wind turbines in their backyards so they can go off the power grid and maybe sell electricity back to the power company. That is the true meaning of being a real "green" American.
Cradleanddroptheball,
50 years on a geological scale is 5 seconds from now. If off by 50 years, it’s not even a rounding error….
So what is the mechanism that reverses CC/GW? For the sake of discussion it took us say 60 years to get where we are today. If it takes another 60 years granted everything works perfectly it takes 120 years in hypothetical terms until planet earth reaches its former equilibrium so to speak. In hypothetical terms that now takes 120 years for the planet to forgive us. That still does not answer my initial question.. what is the mechanism in place that reverses CC/GW.. Wishful thinking is not a legitimate mechanism.
The hubris of man makes us think any variance from the current temperature is catastrophic. It's been statistically significantly warmer and colder and we've managed through more than a few times. We need to worry about breathable air and drinkable water.
The "hubris of man" is to imagine that we can't negatively impact the Earth to the point of making it virtually uninhabitable for man for a millennium. We're too 'smart' for that, right?
Who is saying that? What I am saying is man can adapt, and will. The axe was around for probably 10,000 years before it got a handle. Think how fast technology is advancing. We will have clean energy at some point, and probably not as far off as you think. Our air here in America is way better than it used to be, and the water is generally better. People are boating on Lake Erie again. This is about stewardship of the planet, and instead of focusing on solvable issues like clean drinking water for all and cleaner air, we're focused on something that is at best a theory, based on flawed models and to a degree, science corrupted by money and politics.
Get it through X
Advertizement, shot on the banks of the Hoosutonic. General Electric STILL hasn't cleaned it up. Why ?
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
I think I've repeatedly made clear that there are lots of issues that I think are worthy of careful consideration, costs and benefits, risks, etc. Lots and lots of tradeoffs in decisions. Plenty of room for thoughtful discussion.
What I'm less patient about is being indecisive under the notion that we don't have perfect information (which we'll never have), which to me means that we need to look at the agenda of those arguing for indecision...and in this case, we know where Koonin's coming from. Oil industry. Smart guy, but Not a climate scientist. And very likely with a bias. Yeah, that's a problem.
If Koonin was making an argument that oil/carbon is going to need to play a role in energy production, so part of the effort needs to be in carbon capture, not simply a total dependence on cleaner renewables, cool, let's discuss. Same for an argument about nuclear and how we need to work real hard on how to make both production and waste as safe as possible. Ok, let's discuss.
Plenty of valid room...but the argument that we don't know how much or even if man is really responsible for the trends, or whether they'll continue in the status quo, or whether there's ever a tipping point beyond which we can't reverse, simply because we don't have perfect information...so, don't do anything, that's a non-starter for me.
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
I think I've repeatedly made clear that there are lots of issues that I think are worthy of careful consideration, costs and benefits, risks, etc. Lots and lots of tradeoffs in decisions. Plenty of room for thoughtful discussion.
What I'm less patient about is being indecisive under the notion that we don't have perfect information (which we'll never have), which to me means that we need to look at the agenda of those arguing for indecision...and in this case, we know where Koonin's coming from. Oil industry. Smart guy, but Not a climate scientist. And very likely with a bias. Yeah, that's a problem. He's not "coming from the oil industry." He's an academic and he admits that...MIT and Cal Tech. He did a short stint at BP and from what he says, in the renewables research area of the company. Then the Obama admin US of Energy, now back to academia. Best you stop spreading misinformation mdlax.
You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to interpret the data, that's just silly. Bias? He's questioning what he considers problems with how the data is being interpreted/portrayed by scientists and their apparatchiks who claim climate science is "settled."
If Koonin was making an argument that oil/carbon is going to need to play a role in energy production, so part of the effort needs to be in carbon capture, not simply a total dependence on cleaner renewables, cool, let's discuss. Same for an argument about nuclear and how we need to work real hard on how to make both production and waste as safe as possible. Ok, let's discuss. He clearly states, the best way to capture carbon is to plant more trees. Feel free to argue with that.
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
I think I've repeatedly made clear that there are lots of issues that I think are worthy of careful consideration, costs and benefits, risks, etc. Lots and lots of tradeoffs in decisions. Plenty of room for thoughtful discussion.
What I'm less patient about is being indecisive under the notion that we don't have perfect information (which we'll never have), which to me means that we need to look at the agenda of those arguing for indecision...and in this case, we know where Koonin's coming from. Oil industry. Smart guy, but Not a climate scientist. And very likely with a bias. Yeah, that's a problem. He's not "coming from the oil industry." He's an academic and he admits that...MIT and Cal Tech. He did a short stint at BP and from what he says, in the renewables research area of the company. Then the Obama admin US of Energy, now back to academia. Best you stop spreading misinformation mdlax.
You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to interpret the data, that's just silly. Bias? He's questioning what he considers problems with how the data is being interpreted/portrayed by scientists and their apparatchiks who claim climate science is "settled."
If Koonin was making an argument that oil/carbon is going to need to play a role in energy production, so part of the effort needs to be in carbon capture, not simply a total dependence on cleaner renewables, cool, let's discuss. Same for an argument about nuclear and how we need to work real hard on how to make both production and waste as safe as possible. Ok, let's discuss. He clearly states, the best way to capture carbon is to plant more trees. Feel free to argue with that.
I'm all for more trees.
5 years at BP as Chief Scientist. And yeah, I think that's where he's "coming from" ideologically.
The "short stint" was at DOE, yes an academic and spent most of the rest of his career nowhere near climate science.
But got notoriety when the WSJ published an Op-Ed in 2014 and again in 2017, flirted with Scott Pruitt and the Trump Admin, and then he wrote this book that came out in 2021.
Again, I think there's plenty of room for debate and good ideas. But arguing for no action simply because there isn't perfect knowledge is not ok, given the stakes involved.
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
I think I've repeatedly made clear that there are lots of issues that I think are worthy of careful consideration, costs and benefits, risks, etc. Lots and lots of tradeoffs in decisions. Plenty of room for thoughtful discussion.
What I'm less patient about is being indecisive under the notion that we don't have perfect information (which we'll never have), which to me means that we need to look at the agenda of those arguing for indecision...and in this case, we know where Koonin's coming from. Oil industry. Smart guy, but Not a climate scientist. And very likely with a bias. Yeah, that's a problem. He's not "coming from the oil industry." He's an academic and he admits that...MIT and Cal Tech. He did a short stint at BP and from what he says, in the renewables research area of the company. Then the Obama admin US of Energy, now back to academia. Best you stop spreading misinformation mdlax.
You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to interpret the data, that's just silly. Bias? He's questioning what he considers problems with how the data is being interpreted/portrayed by scientists and their apparatchiks who claim climate science is "settled."
If Koonin was making an argument that oil/carbon is going to need to play a role in energy production, so part of the effort needs to be in carbon capture, not simply a total dependence on cleaner renewables, cool, let's discuss. Same for an argument about nuclear and how we need to work real hard on how to make both production and waste as safe as possible. Ok, let's discuss. He clearly states, the best way to capture carbon is to plant more trees. Feel free to argue with that.
I'm all for more trees.
5 years at BP as Chief Scientist. And yeah, I think that's where he's "coming from" ideologically.
The "short stint" was at DOE, yes an academic and spent most of the rest of his career nowhere near climate science.
But got notoriety when the WSJ published an Op-Ed in 2014 and again in 2017, flirted with Scott Pruitt and the Trump Admin, and then he wrote this book that came out in 2021.
Again, I think there's plenty of room for debate and good ideas. But arguing for no action simply because there isn't perfect knowledge is not ok, given the stakes involved.
Again you're wrong. He's not arguing for "no action." Perhaps try listening to him speak or read the book and then critique? What a concept
tech37 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 11, 2022 4:10 pmUnsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
by Steven Koonin
Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
mmm, former chief scientist at an oil company. But not a climate scientist. The folks who positively reviewed the book are an interesting bunch of characters as well.
Critique of the book includes cherry picked data, agenda driven.
My objection is the conclusion that we can't make policy decisions because things are complex...so, be indecisive and just hope. Maximizing the carbon industry's continued profit generation stream longer.
mmmm
Excellent drive by assessment on your part
Koonin, if not debunks some of the current dogma/orthodoxy surrounding climate change, certainly puts things in perspective based on all of the data, not just the "cherry picked" data and dubious models the Green New Deal types use to justify their religion.
He's certainly not a "denier" but of course will be labeled just that for even daring to question the so-called "settled" climate science.
I think I've repeatedly made clear that there are lots of issues that I think are worthy of careful consideration, costs and benefits, risks, etc. Lots and lots of tradeoffs in decisions. Plenty of room for thoughtful discussion.
What I'm less patient about is being indecisive under the notion that we don't have perfect information (which we'll never have), which to me means that we need to look at the agenda of those arguing for indecision...and in this case, we know where Koonin's coming from. Oil industry. Smart guy, but Not a climate scientist. And very likely with a bias. Yeah, that's a problem. He's not "coming from the oil industry." He's an academic and he admits that...MIT and Cal Tech. He did a short stint at BP and from what he says, in the renewables research area of the company. Then the Obama admin US of Energy, now back to academia. Best you stop spreading misinformation mdlax.
You don't need to be a "climate scientist" to interpret the data, that's just silly. Bias? He's questioning what he considers problems with how the data is being interpreted/portrayed by scientists and their apparatchiks who claim climate science is "settled."
If Koonin was making an argument that oil/carbon is going to need to play a role in energy production, so part of the effort needs to be in carbon capture, not simply a total dependence on cleaner renewables, cool, let's discuss. Same for an argument about nuclear and how we need to work real hard on how to make both production and waste as safe as possible. Ok, let's discuss. He clearly states, the best way to capture carbon is to plant more trees. Feel free to argue with that.
I'm all for more trees.
5 years at BP as Chief Scientist. And yeah, I think that's where he's "coming from" ideologically.
The "short stint" was at DOE, yes an academic and spent most of the rest of his career nowhere near climate science.
But got notoriety when the WSJ published an Op-Ed in 2014 and again in 2017, flirted with Scott Pruitt and the Trump Admin, and then he wrote this book that came out in 2021.
Again, I think there's plenty of room for debate and good ideas. But arguing for no action simply because there isn't perfect knowledge is not ok, given the stakes involved.
Again you're wrong. He's not arguing for "no action." Perhaps try listening to him speak or read the book and then critique? What a concept
I'll dig in further, but that's where I am right now, based on what I've read so far.
But if you were to summarize his actual recommendations, what would they be?
Re: All Things Environment
Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:49 pm
by PizzaSnake
It’s simple math. Too many humans consuming too much, and more humans want to join the Epicurean party.
Don’t overthink it.
Re: All Things Environment
Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 6:57 am
by cradleandshoot
PizzaSnake wrote: ↑Sat Feb 12, 2022 4:49 pm
It’s simple math. Too many humans consuming too much, and more humans want to join the Epicurean party.
Don’t overthink it.
Does your consuming criticism include the ChiComs? They are the major suspected culprit in the mega tons of plastic and trash being dumped into the South Pacific? Their fleet of fishing boats are also sucking the fish dry wherever they park. Even the Galapagos Islands aren't safe. Your right, dey is too much consumin goin on out dere.
Re: All Things Environment
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:51 am
by CU88
January 2022 was Earth's 6th-warmest January in 143 years. Antarctic sea ice also shrank to its second-lowest January extent on record.
CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:51 am
January 2022 was Earth's 6th-warmest January in 143 years. Antarctic sea ice also shrank to its second-lowest January extent on record.
CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:51 am
January 2022 was Earth's 6th-warmest January in 143 years. Antarctic sea ice also shrank to its second-lowest January extent on record.
Did you drop an extra load in your pants??? Maybe you need an extra bright flashlight to find all those monsters hiding under your bed. Do you also have an advanced degree? I'm asking for a friend. You eat faux meat, drive an electric car and have solar panels on the southern exposure of your roof? I'm only asking for a friend...
Re: All Things Environment
Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 12:48 pm
by PizzaSnake
CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:51 am
January 2022 was Earth's 6th-warmest January in 143 years. Antarctic sea ice also shrank to its second-lowest January extent on record.
“ ALBUQUERQUE — The megadrought in the American Southwest has become so severe that it’s now the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, scientists said Monday, and climate change is largely responsible.
The drought, which began in 2000 and has reduced water supplies, devastated farmers and ranchers and helped fuel wildfires across the region, had previously been considered the worst in 500 years, according to the researchers.”
“ ALBUQUERQUE — The megadrought in the American Southwest has become so severe that it’s now the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, scientists said Monday, and climate change is largely responsible.
The drought, which began in 2000 and has reduced water supplies, devastated farmers and ranchers and helped fuel wildfires across the region, had previously been considered the worst in 500 years, according to the researchers.”
Fear is painstakingly creating the worse-case scenario and then putting it on steroids. “500” years didn’t scare anyone so let’s move it up to “1200”! Lol
Regrettably for those trying to stoke fear to score research grants, real numbers don’t lie:
“ ALBUQUERQUE — The megadrought in the American Southwest has become so severe that it’s now the driest two decades in the region in at least 1,200 years, scientists said Monday, and climate change is largely responsible.
The drought, which began in 2000 and has reduced water supplies, devastated farmers and ranchers and helped fuel wildfires across the region, had previously been considered the worst in 500 years, according to the researchers.”
Fear is painstakingly creating the worse-case scenario and then putting it on steroids. “500” years didn’t scare anyone so let’s move it up to “1200”! Lol
Regrettably for those trying to stoke fear to score research grants, real numbers don’t lie:
CU88 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 14, 2022 11:51 am
January 2022 was Earth's 6th-warmest January in 143 years. Antarctic sea ice also shrank to its second-lowest January extent on record.
Did you drop an extra load in your pants??? Maybe you need an extra bright flashlight to find all those monsters hiding under your bed. Do you also have an advanced degree? I'm asking for a friend. You eat faux meat, drive an electric car and have solar panels on the southern exposure of your roof? I'm only asking for a friend...
by cradleandshoot » Fri Aug 13, 2021 8:57 am
Mr moderator, deactivate my account.
You have heck this forum up to making it nothing more than a joke. I hope you are happy.
This is cradle and shoot signing out.
I prefer to walk, my hips prefer the cart.