Climate Change Is Like “A Costly, Politically Dangerous Gamble” Or Something

This is being pushed by the same people who have been downplaying actual threats, like that from radical Islam

(Mint Press News) Half of the United States is suffering through drought conditions — including all of California, which saw huge swathes of the San Diego area swept by raging wildfires this month. In the Midwest, major rainstorms and tornadoes inundated the Mississippi floodplain for days, causing millions of dollars in damage. In Baltimore, hurricane-intensity rain contributed to the collapse of a city street.

It is the consensus of the scientific community that the Earth is sick. According to the National Climate Assessment, the world is currently experiencing the effects of climate change, or the shifting of the planet’s climate zones due to environmental factors.

Earth has a fever and the only prescription is a carbon tax, you guys!

Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space….

It’s at that point, the beginning of the 3rd paragraph, that you can discount the rest as having anything to do with science, because we this is supposed to be about carbon dioxide. Carbon is not the same. This is pure politics, and nothing more. Of course, they whine about “denial” and such, forgetting one thing

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Climate Change Is Like “A Costly, Politically Dangerous Gamble” Or Something”

  1. Le 17 mai, les homophobes ont manifesté devant le Panthéon. L’Humour de droite a repris la vidéo des
    événements, avec des sous-titres parodiques.
    À voir sur le blog Une vidéo par jour, ou presque Cette expérience,
    filmée pour le plaisir des yeux, est réalisée
    grâce à un générateur de sons et une plaque de métal
    fixée sur la haut-parleur. En modifiant les fréquences ,
    on crée des zones avec vibrations, et des zones sans.
    Quel effet ? Admirez plutôt ! Allez, après ces deux défaites d’affilée de l’ OM contre le PSG , il faut bien trouver quelque chose pour se rattraper.

  2. s free Wi-Fi so you can lunch and work at the same time.
    Cranberries contain fiber, vitamin C, and poly phenols which are essential for becoming thinner.
    If you are vegetarian then you may even find a tofu recipe
    available.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Your contention that the Earth hasn’t warmed for over 17 years is blatantly false.

    You are either a liar or ignorant. Or both.

  4. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    prove it is a lie J.
    Till then, shut up.

    Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space

    So many wrongs. Carbon does not reflect heat. Only a small portion of the sun’s radiation gets a chance of going back out to space…. and many greenhouse gases and the land and water mass…that many of the greenhouse gases absorb that radiation, changes it, re-radiates it, shares it, and even helps block some of the suns radiation from entering our atmosphere.

    Therefore, while there is some blocking from escape, there is also blocking from entering.

    In Baltimore, hurricane-intensity rain

    Really, hurricane?? So, we had a hurricane blow through Baltimore?!?!? A localized hurricane?!?!

  5. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs,

    “prove it is a lie J.
    Till then, shut up.”

    Gum my balls.

    Every other dataset shows a clear increase. Teach cherrypicks the one that doesn’t. It could be that he is just ignorant of the facts, but that is hardly an excuse.

  6. Hi there to every body, it’s my first pay a visit of this blog; this
    blog contains amazing and genuinely excellent data in favor of readers.

    My homepage best single ladies – bestsingleladies.com,

  7. Nighthawk says:

    Gum my balls

    The exact level of intelligence I have come to expect from Jeffery.

    Thanks for not disappointing.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Nighthawk,

    You make a common far-right miscalculation by conflating intelligence with submissiveness. Let me be perfectly clear. I have no respect, none, nada for you or the luddite commenters, or especially the blogger here. I consider you and yours to be the opposition, the enemy within America.

    Why do you think commenters here can call others names and insult them without being called out? Why do you whine about it?

  9. Trish Mac says:

    Of fer crissakes. The earth has had droughts and extreme weather long before man was driving SUVs, burning coal and drilling for oil. Luckily, they couldn’t tweet it out for the world to see (and alarmists to begin worrying a few centuries ago) back in the 1600’s and 1700’s, yet it occurred.

  10. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    Every other dataset shows a clear increase. Teach cherrypicks the one that doesn’t

    Again, and again… you know that this is not Teach’s graph. Yet you continue to assail him as if it was.

    Again, and again… you have not provided any factual statements or proof that this graph is wrong, cherrypicking time fields, displays something that it doesn’t purport to display, or present one of your own to counter it.

    Go away.

  11. david7134 says:

    jeff,
    Please don’t feel that you have anything to do with intelligence. It is very easy to see that you have a reading problem and can not cogitate provided material.

  12. J Curran says:

    “Carbon reflects heat, preventing infrared radiation from the sun from escaping back into space….”

    If one were to assume this statement is true, why doesn’t “carbon” reflect the heat from the sun, preventing infrared radiation from reaching the surface of the earth?

  13. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    Because his cult’s models tell him so. Or at least he may have read that somewhere and it sounded good.

  14. Jeffery says:

    J Curran,

    Basic physics. Greenhouse gases are largely transparent to the incoming radiation from the Sun. But greenhouse gases DO absorb the radiation that is re-radiated as heat (infrared radiation) from the Earth. It depends on the absorption spectra of the particular greenhouse gas and the wavelength of the radiation. It’s kind of like greenhouse glass allowing significant solar radiation (light) to pass through, but the infrared radiation re-released from the materials inside are partially blocked by the glass, causing the air inside to warm.

    This information is over a century old since Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius correctly predicted that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would cause the Earth to warm more than it would without the added CO2. His data have stood the test of time and is undisputed and factual. I’m surprised that the wise climatologists at the Pirate’s Cove are not familiar with his work. (Actually I’m not at all surprised for a couple of reasons, 1) They eschew science and 2) His findings contradict right-wing mythology at its very core.)

    It has nothing to do with a cult or computer models as Gummyballs would have you believe.

  15. jl says:

    “His data is factual and undisputed.” What a stupid comment. “Undisputed” except for the thousands of scientists that, well, …dispute it. Good one, J. “Teach cherry-picks the one that doesn’t.” Well, then by logic you’re doing the same thing the other way. “Basic physics.” If so, then “basically” all the astrologers “predictions” would be coming true, but they’re not. And again, a model saying something should happen doesn’t mean it’s happening. Mother nature didn’t get the memo.

  16. Jeffery says:

    j,

    This is the problem with science deniers – you deny the most fundamental facts of nature. If you deny that CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, there is little you can discuss intelligently. There is no common ground on the basics of natural physical processes. I could call you ignorant but it goes deeper than that, since you aggressively deny all science and confirmed knowledge that contradicts your ideology.

    I call this “willful ignorance” and to me it is one of the two deadly sins – the other being cruelty. These two sins define modern far-right thought.

  17. Better_Late_Than_Gumball says:

    I call this “willful ignorance” and to me it is one of the two deadly sins – the other being cruelty. These two sins define modern far-right thought.

    Well, that all depends on what you term modern far-right thought? Are you talking about the new nazi fascist movement? A movement that many on the left keep trying to place on the far right? But is actually based on hatred of minorities, disparatism, and control of the populace. And an expansion of the old socialist paradigms termed fascism? Those are traditions of the left side of the political spectrum, much like the original nazi fascist movement.

    If you are trying to bash modern right political thought, then no, you are willfully ignorant of what we believe in, how we feel, and where we feel justice lies. Thus, with you being willfully ignorant, I’d put you in to what you term the “modern far-right thought”.

    Especially in light of your hatred of the poor. Does not your leftist ideology representative in the modern Socialist party (Democrat party) fully emblematic of the fascist movement?

Bad Behavior has blocked 7284 access attempts in the last 7 days.