The bottom line is that the planet is warming.

No, the bottom line is that humidity is on the rise. Unlike you I am going to explain why humidity is rising and why we should care.

Humidity is rising because we are giving to much money to the poor kids in Africa and if humidity continues to rise in 500 years the humidity will have gone up 5% on average and then states will fail, large populations subjected to famine, flood or disease will migrate across international borders, and national and international agencies will not have the resources to cope.

wat

I think we broke it.

For some reason I felt the need to waste 2 minutes of my life mocking someone who writes "The bottom line is that the planet is warming."

Don't try to mock people anymore.

California's Drought Isn't Due To Global Warming, But Politics

Quote:

Water Wars: President Obama visited California's drought-hit Central Valley Friday, offering handouts and blaming global warming. But the state's water shortage is due to the left's refusal to deal with the state's water needs.
Following legislative action last month by Speaker John Boehner and California's Central Valley Representatives David Valadao, Devin Nunes and Kevin McCarthy, whose Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley Emergency Water Delivery Act was designed to resolve the long-standing problem of environmental water cutbacks that have devastated America's richest farmland, Obama is grandstanding in California, too.
His aim, however, is not a long-term solution for California's now-constant water shortages that have hit its $45 billion agricultural industry, but to preach about global warming. Instead of blaming the man-made political causes of California's worst water shortage, he's come with $2 billion in "relief" that's nothing but a tired effort to divert attention from fellow Democrats' dereliction of duty in using the state's water infrastructure.
The one thing that will mitigate droughts in California — a permanent feature of the state — is to restore the water flow from California's water-heavy north to farmers in the central and south. That's just what House Bill 3964, which passed by a 229-191 vote last week, does.
But Obama's plan is not to get that worthy bill through the Senate (where Democrats are holding it up) but to shovel pork to environmental activists and their victims, insultingly offering out-of-work farmers a "summer meal plan" in his package.

...



"We have infrastructure dating from the 1960s for transporting water, but by the 1990s the policies had changed," said Valadao.
Environmental special interests managed to dismantle the system by diverting water meant for farms to pet projects, such as saving delta smelt, a baitfish. That move forced the flushing of 3 million acre-feet of water originally slated for the Central Valley into the ocean over the past five years.

I would have imagined if you asked a conserv-a-tard why it would be entirely the left's fault. In getting there, such a tard would of course completely ignore things like during the last year there was approx. a quarter to a fifth of the annual rainfall:


There were 2 dry years in a row and 2013 was the dryest year in recorded history.


But a tard would dismiss this... its all just politics!

A tard would think short term weather patterns are caused by global warming.

luckily no tard here suggested the cause the of the short term weather patterns. They only pointed out the stupidity of blaming politicians for the lack of water while ignoring the rather obvious and glaring lack of rainfall.

but I'm glad to see you as jumping in to defend team tard. Just like you did previously with your single word and completely wrong jump in early to incorrectly defend silverman from his tardedness.

Keep up the good work.

California's problems are caused by poor water management kurto. Sorry dude. This is controversial to exactly no one with a clue.

I think I get it now: adios and ikes are the same person. Hence why neither of them ever feels the need to support anything they say with any kind of evidence whatsoever.

Two terrible posters, exact same terrible strategy. All makes sense now.

Yeah and this isn't just one city out of the thousands and thousands of cities worldwide. Yesterday and Tuesday it snowed and it was really cold outside here in Louisville. It was colder yesterday and Tuesday that it was for the last 12 days. This is proof that our world, and not just 2 cities, are experiencing climate change and that this change is caused by people polluting and not enough trees are being hugged.

Love,
Tard

It really seems like you felt threatened by Ikes's bad posting that you needed to jump in and post something dumb. Don't worry, while Ikes is predictably a bad poster I don't think he's a threat for your contention of worst poster. After all, he can still post in the other forum.

If you were smart I would point out to you that no one was talking about a drought in one city. I'd remind you that there were droughts in other states... but to remind you would imply that you weren't completely ignorant of the subject. So your comment about one city is just typical Bahhah stupidity since most informed people know that we're talking about more then one city. But thanks for being you!

I would point out that you're arguing against a strawman of your creation but that would imply you're smart enough to understand what a strawman is.

You're making an argument against climate change that no one in the thread is making. But good of you to take the opposition to a stupid argument you just made up in your own head.

I'm surprised Ikes bothered to post more then 3 or 4 words. Last time he accomplished being wrong with just a few syllables.

Adios>Ikes because he posts less.

If you were talking about a drought occurring all over the country (or world) why did you post a graph of San Fran?

If you have evidence that there is a widespread drought, by all means show your proof. If you have proof that this drought is something beyond just a momentary drought (ie only going to last a year or so- which is nothing compared our world's history) let's see your proof. If you have proof that this drought we occur for so long that we should actually be spending tax-payer money on it then let's see it. If you have proof that this is being caused by increases in pollution and decreases in people wearing tie-dye shirts then lets see it.

Yeah, good idea. Let's not waste our time.

Saying a strawman was created by the person making the argument is redundant. Kinda like calling an "ATM" an "ATM machine".

First off, the comments I was responding to was about CA (not all over the country.) Knowing the original post CLEARLY pointed out that the issue was CA, it wouldn't matter to someone better informed then you that one of the examples I cited was limited to one city in CA.

I actually posted two graphs. Granted, the second one was not labelled as clearly but for the record, it was rainfall in CA. Still - even if I ONLY posted the SF graph if you weren't dense you would realize that it was never intended to be an argument that because it was dry in SF therefore Global warming. My point which really isn't that hard to follow is that you cannot simply blame water problems in the state on state politics while ignoring the fact that it was two dry years in a row including the drying year in its recorded history!!! But a moron misses this obvious point and fabricates that this was an argument meant to prove the existence of global warming!

I don't have to post evidence that the drought exists outside of San Francisco simply because you're too stupid and uninformed to (1) figure it out (2) every listen to the news (3) know how to use the internet.

Also again, despite the fact that I pointed out you stupidly are making a straw man argument,... you continue to do so. Please look up straw man argument and see if you can understand what it means. Then, and this may be too tricky for you, figure out how it applies to you.

I'll give you a clue, I've now explicitly told you what my argument was. Try to figure out how the questions you list above fit into the actual argument I'm attempting to make that I've now clarified for you.

I kind of thought your whole MO was to waste people's time? You clearly don't use your time educating yourself, reading clearly, etc. What is your point if not to waste time?

Its kind of funny that you're making sarcastic remarks like this as if you get it and you're correcting me... and yet in the same post you carry on with your strawman argument. Reminding us that you are still clearly an idiot.

Climate Change is Happening

Climate Change Misdirection

Quote:

In his second inaugural address on Monday, President Obama laudably promised to "respond to the threat of climate change." Unfortunately, when the president described the urgent nature of the threat—the "devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms"—the scary examples suggested that he is contemplating poor policies that don't point to any real, let alone smart, solutions. Global warming is a problem that needs fixing, but exaggeration doesn't help, and it often distracts us from simple, cheaper and smarter solutions.

For starters, let's address the three horsemen of the climate apocalypse that Mr. Obama mentioned.

Historical analysis of wildfires around the world shows that since 1950 their numbers have decreased globally by 15%. Estimates published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show that even with global warming proceeding uninterrupted, the level of wildfires will continue to decline until around midcentury and won't resume on the level of 1950—the worst for fire—before the end of the century.


Claiming that droughts are a consequence of global warming is also wrong. The world has not seen a general increase in drought. A study published in Nature in November shows globally that "there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years." The U.N. Climate Panel in 2012 concluded: "Some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia."

As for one of the favorites of alarmism, hurricanes in recent years don't indicate that storms are getting worse. Measured by total energy (Accumulated Cyclone Energy), hurricane activity is at a low not encountered since the 1970s. The U.S. is currently experiencing the longest absence of severe landfall hurricanes in over a century—the last Category 3 or stronger storm was Wilma, more than seven years ago.

While it is likely that we will see somewhat stronger (but fewer) storms as climate change continues, a March 2012 Nature study shows that the global damage cost from hurricanes will go to 0.02% of gross domestic product annually in 2100 from 0.04% today—a drop of 50%, despite global warming.

This does not mean that climate change isn't an issue. It means that exaggerating the threat concentrates resources in the wrong areas.

....

In the long run, the world needs to cut carbon dioxide because it causes global warming. But if the main effort to cut emissions is through subsidies for chic renewables like wind and solar power, virtually no good will be achieved—at very high cost. The cost of climate policies just for the European Union—intended to reduce emissions by 2020 to 20% below 1990 levels—are estimated at about $250 billion annually. And the benefits, when estimated using a standard climate model, will reduce temperature only by an immeasurable one-tenth of a degree Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Even in 2035, with the most optimistic scenario, the International Energy Agency estimates that just 2.4% of the world's energy will come from wind and only 1% from solar. As is the case today, almost 80% will still come from fossil fuels.

....

Instead of pouring money into subsidies and direct production support of existing, inefficient green energy, President Obama should focus on dramatically ramping up investments into the research and development of green energy. Put another way, it is the difference between supporting an inexpensive researcher who will discover more efficient, future solar panels—and supporting a Solyndra at great expense to produce lots of inefficient, present-technology solar panels.

He is way to kind to the politicians including Obama. No demagoguing going on with alarmism by pols and SOBs like Gore.

Are you trying to be a parody of a dumb conservative? I've been worried about you lately, man. Is everything OK on the home front?

Real conservatives denounce the Fed, and don't get their panties all bunched up in a ball over certain stupid social issues.

re: The Tragic Death of the Republican Party

Ugh, Lomborg again.

It's kind of hard to tell, but Lomborg is agreeing with Obama that global warming will increase wildfires. That's what the PNAS paper he references says as well. The paper also shows that the midcentury increase and its decline was likely caused by human activity.

Drought is certainly a threat if warming continues. Heavier rainfall events, faster evaporation, decreased snowpack can all lead to drought--and all are consequences of global warming.

The IAEA never uses the "most optimistic scenario," so I'm not sure what he's talking about here. The IAEA has underestimated the growth of renewables every year for a long time now.

you are gay