What Do We Think About Climate Change

I wonder if they would listen anyhow?

 

Gee Jim, I've always been fond of the AGW Clown Club! They're funny, they run around in circles all day,and they try to make people laugh and forget about reality for a little while.

 

laugh as you may, at .5 meters my house, along with a good portion of florida, will be underwater. It isn't so funny when you have to think about that now.

 

Even if that were true, how are you going to stop that? Do you honestly believe that shaving off a few % of anthropogenic C02 emissions at ENORMOUS expense will just do the trick?

Since the world's leading experts on sea level say that sea level rise is on the same decidedly non-alarming trend it has been on for hundreds of years, why do you believe that anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which as I've patiently pointed out repeatedly, has only a ~60 year history, is the cause of that
multi-centennial trend?

Jimbo

 

Please direct me towards these "experts". I would love to read what they say.

 

Guillermo,

Don't venture out on your boat just yet. Severe weather is headed to Galicia for Saturday.

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-...0/02/severe_blow_coming_to_western_europe.asp

The Met Office is too warmist to be able to give us decent forecasts for the UK. They ignore reality.

http://errortheory.blogspot.com/2008/04/ocean-oscillations-are-not-masking.html

Best wishes,

Perry

 

You should see them piling out of a Yugo!

 

As my English friends would say

rubbish


its wild accusations and unsubstantiated claims were well worth the read though as I got a lot of good laughs out of it

thanks for posting

B

ps
obvious that once again if the deniers cant find any verifiable claims to make within the scientific community they will make wildly unsubstantiated claims on the political front

now who is politicizing the issue eh

nice PR work though
Im sure those guys got paid handsomely for there efforts

 

I highly doubt the ENORMOUS expense of reducing carbon emissions can even compare to the $54 Trillion dollars it would cost in damages, not including a value on the millions of people that would be displaced. So what do you have against spending money to avert a possible calamity? If we don't do anything we are for sure going to suffer. To use a hockey term: 100% of the shots you don't take, don't go in the net. If you could choose between putting a cap and trade system in to regulate carbon emissions, which solved the acid rain problem in the northeast for 1/4 of the projected cost, and would also lead to energy in-dependency or just pretending like nothing is wrong, against the overwhelming evidence, what would you do? an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

 

We need a new BSometer thread. Zed?

 

i would also like to point out that Anthony Watts is a blogger, no credentials in climatology at all. and Joseph D'Aleo is a well known climate change skeptic.

 

bla bla bla

 

Here is a good read:http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/downloads/cost_of_holding.pdf
that is a bit outdated, seeing as it was published in 1991. However, here is proof that sea level is rising:

 

and you deniers would be reading right off the charts

Spear's logic is sound

Better to act now and spend less than to wait till the problems become so huge they cost a fortune to combat

 

Someone took a spear to the brain.