Doom: No Place In U.S. Is Safe From Climate Doom

We can fix this with a tax….no, wait, that’s so 2018, we can fix this with you giving all your liberty and freedom to government

No place in the US is safe from the climate crisis, but a new report shows where it’s most severe

The effects of a rapidly warming climate are being felt in every corner of the US and will worsen over the next 10 years with continued fossil fuel use, according to a stark new report from federal agencies.

Funny how the people who complain the most about the use of fossil fuels still use fossil fuels themselves

The Fifth National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report due roughly every five years, warned that even though planet-warming pollution in the US is slowly decreasing, it is not happening nearly fast enough to meet the nation’s targets, nor is it in line with the UN-sanctioned goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – a threshold beyond which scientists warn life on Earth will struggle to cope.

This year’s assessment reflects the reality that Americans can increasingly see and feel climate impacts in their own communities, said Katharine Hayhoe, a distinguished climate scientist at Texas Tech University and contributor to the report. (she’s the one who refuses to debate anyone on the subject)

“Climate change is affecting every aspect of our lives,” Hayhoe told CNN.

Some of the report’s sweeping conclusions remain painfully familiar: No part of the US is truly safe from climate disasters; slashing fossil fuel use is critical to limit the consequences, but we’re not doing it fast enough; and every fraction of a degree of warming leads to more intense impacts.

I’m sure they can tell us exactly how the doom will happen in the future, right? Predict exact temperatures, hurricanes, snow storms, drought, floods, etc., right?

The latest report contains an important advancement in what’s called “attribution science” – scientists can more definitively show how climate change is affecting extreme events, like heatwaves, droughts to hurricanes and severe rainstorms.

Oh, right, they just look at every weather event and Blame it on global boiling. They can never predict specifically.

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

23 Responses to “Doom: No Place In U.S. Is Safe From Climate Doom”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Dr Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian married to a Christian pastor. Is she a communist shill, part of the commie machine plotting global control?

    “…she emphasizes the importance of not engaging with people she refers to as “dismissive”… We refer to the “dismissive” as Science Deniers or “SciDs”. Hayhoe is polite.

    Hayhoe has also described, “The six stages of climate denial are: 1)It’s not real. (It’s not warming). 2)It’s not us. (It’s not CO2). 3)It’s not that bad. (It’s trivial). 4)It’s too expensive to fix. (The cure is worse than warming). 5)Aha, here’s a great solution (that actually does nothing) (Plant a trillion trees!!). 6)Oh noes! Now it’s too late. You really should have warned us earlier (There’s nothing we can do).”

    Mr Teach gave a wee bit of help to the linked article by adding

    (she’s the one who refuses to debate anyone on the subject)

    Debate who? Mr Teach? Donald Trump? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Heartland? Jim Inhofe?

    Is there a SciD scientist she should debate? Anyway, science is not a debate club. We suggest that climate expert Mr Teach attend a climate science meeting where Professor Hayhoe is speaking and during the post-talk Q&A let fly at the good Professor.

    • L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

      Dr Katharine Hayhoe is an evangelical Christian married to a Christian pastor. Is she a communist shill, part of the commie machine plotting global control?

      I have no idea if she is or not but my guess would be she is not evangelical Christian, and if her husband is a Christian pastor he needs to get back to basics and read the book.

      …she emphasizes the importance of not engaging with people she refers to as “dismissive”… We refer to the “dismissive” as Science Deniers or “SciDs”. Hayhoe is polite.

      that’s truly funny considering we refer to dismissive as people who believe in the science of witch doctors and refuse to see the truth in front of their face. In other words people who have gone through the last 50 years of predictions all being incorrect but still believe in the stupidity of their fake science. That is a born and bred denier. Like H or Elwood. Doesn’t matter how many predictions have been wrong they’re gonna stick with the fake science.

      (she’s the one who refuses to debate anyone on the subject)

      Debate who? Mr Teach? Donald Trump? Marjorie Taylor Greene? Heartland? Jim Inhofe?

      There goes Elwood’s dismissiveness again being a born again climate evangelist he finds the need to be dismissive toward anyone he disagrees with. Which is why he still believes that decrepit genocidal maniac in the White House got 81 million votes. And why when he gets 107 million votes this time around they’ll believe that too.

      Is there a SciD scientist she should debate? Anyway, science is not a debate club.

      There are 10s of thousands of scientists she could debate the problem is anyone that goes out to debate one of you witch doctors can have his reputation ruined be defunded and find himself out of a job. You know it’s kind of like what you did too conservatives protesting now we can’t go out on a protest cause we’ll be called insurrectionists, or how you made it impossible to point out the COVID was a hoax without having your job taken from you for public access to anything denied. You poison the well with everything you do.

      And anyway, science is very much a debate club. Everybody in science does not agree and that disagreement is debate. Once again you deny the truth hitting you square in the face. Typical communist.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Well yes. We do dismiss those that dismiss the reality of global warming. Science-deniers (SciDs) have no valid arguments. Not one. If they did, they would have made one by now.

        We get it. Conservatives hate change. So they deny it! It’s not warming. It’s not CO2. It’s all natural. There are no SUVS on Mars. Cavemen had no SUVs!

        BTW, we also dismiss those that claim that Drumpf won the election. We dismiss those who claim that Democrats and libs are running a global pedophile ring. We dismiss those who claim there exists a global communists conspiracy to control everyone and everything.

        Please try to accept the realities of life.

  2. Dana says:

    In his efforts to combat global warming climate change, does our medicine man from Missouri drive to Illinois to fuel up, to pay those higher-than-average gasoline prices due to the state’s higher taxes?

    • Dana says:

      Missouri has the second lowest gasoline taxes in the nation, at 17.47¢ per gallon, while Illinois has the second highest, at 66.5¢ per gallon. Think how much more the worried-about-global-warming Me Dowd could do to save Mother Gaia if he’d just cross the river to buy fuel!

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The normally astute Mr Dana ignores that gasoline is required to drive to Illinois. Burning fossil fuels emits CO2 which is warming the Earth. A stupid suggestion even by nuCon standards. Do better.

        BTW, hippie/commie Mr Dana “believes” in Gaia?? Pretty silly.

        Regarding state taxes, IL has the 5th rated preK–>12 educational system in America. KY is 27th. MO is 29th.

        Illinois teachers average $20,000 more per year than KY or MO teachers.

  3. Jl says:

    Oh, my.. “advancement in attribution science”. Which really isn’t science at all. It’s what’s used when verifiable evidence is unavailable. “I attribute the Bears losing the game because they didn’t pass enough on first down..”. The point is, you’ll never really know. It’s simply correlations dressed up to look like causations.
    “Leads to more intense impacts”. The fact is, there’s no evidence the “impacts” are any worse than before.
    “The six stages of climate denial”. Hayhoe does the typical alarmist dance by starting with the false premise that what others are “denying” is, in fact, true without explaining how she got there. That hasn’t been verified. On Twitter, she immediately blocks anyone who has a different opinion than her, which of course is her right to do, because isn’t science all about just that? Just your view point, no one else’s

  4. alanstorm says:

    We refer to the “dismissive” as dimwits, who don’t understand science. You appear to belong to this segment of the ignorant.

  5. alanstorm says:

    They can never predict specifically.

    Yep. It’s always “may, might, could” -it doesn’t matter which; none of their predictions materialize anyway.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      The Earth continues to warm as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise. Just as predicted.

      Ocean volumes are increasing, just as predicted.

      The oceans’ pH is dropping as predicted.

      The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are shrinking as predicted.

      Arctic ice is decreasing as predicted.

      Glacial ice is decreasing as predicted.

      • Jl says:

        Funny-all of which has happened before with much less CO2. It must be magic…
        It’s amazing how they can predict the effects of warming when we’re in an inter-glacial period…

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Are you predicting that the Earth will stop warming? Good. Hope you’re right.

          We suspect you are guessing. Mr Teach wants to know if you’ll be held responsible if it continues to warm.

          • Jl says:

            I suspect the alarmists would go crazy (more than they are) if it was verified that any warming is by natural events. After all, the same dire “climate crisis” would still be upon us, as warming is warming, no matter what the cause. “We’re all gonna die..but there’s no one to tax or freedoms to be restricted or EVs to be forced down our throats..or the best-carbon credits to be bought..”

  6. H says:

    At this point, finally, even Teach believes the planet is warming.
    If AGW is not causing it, what is causing it? Can anyone else offer an explanation ? Remember, the first person to warn the USA about the danger of CO2 from fossil fuels was a conservative, Ronald Reagan. Fossil fuel profits have financed terrorism for decades. The Saudis gave son in law Kushner 2 billion dollars. How much influence do you think that gets?

    • Jl says:

      “What’s causing it?” Carbon boy-that was answered for you a day or two ago. Did you forget? Don’t worry, we won’t let you forget.
      Even though there are other explanations, remember one isn’t needed because the alarmist theory hasn’t been verified yet. One can’t disprove a negative

  7. L.G.Brandon!, L.G.Brandon! says:

    The Saudis gave son in law Kushner 2 billion dollars. How much influence do you think that gets?

    The Saudis did not give Kushner $2 billion stop lying. The mere thought of that is ridiculous since if they did you Democrats would have him executed. You know full well that’s a bullshit statement you’ve made it before stop lying you fraud. But now since you keep saying that nonsense it’s time to use the Elwood approach: prove it!

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman suggested Wednesday that the $2 billion investment the Saudi government made in Jared Kushner’s private equity fund would not be affected by a theoretical second term for former President Trump.

      In a rare interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier, the crown prince defended the government-controlled Public Investment Fund’s (PIF) investment in the firm Kushner — Trump’s son-in-law — started after leaving his post as a White House adviser.

      Kushner — who had a close relationship with the crown prince – accepted the investment just six months after leaving office, raising concerns about the appearance of an improper quid pro quo.

      So Saudi Arabia gave Jared Kushner’s private equity fund 2 BILLION USD. Is that better?

      Even Bret Baier (FOX) questioned it. Surprised you weren’t aware of it. Apology accepted.

      • Chris says:

        You missed a couple of key point here. Jared is expected to return a profit on the investment given to his firm. Second, and more importantly, it’s not American Tax payer money being given away.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Perhaps you missed the point. The son-in-law of the US president received a $2 BILLION investment from Saudi Arabia. Would this change the attitude of the US toward the Saudis? That’s the point.

          How much did President Biden supposedly receive? Or Hunter Biden?

  8. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    from Dr Hayhoe:

    I’m a Climate Scientist Because of My Faith—Not in Spite of It

    As a Christian, I believe we’re called to love others as we’ve been loved by God, and that means caring for those who are suffering—their physical needs and their well-being—which today are being exacerbated by climate impacts. How could I not want to do something about that? That’s why I became a climate scientist.

    The first time I was invited to speak at a local church here in Texas, I decided the time had come to share more of my personal motivation, as uncomfortable as it might feel. After all, the reason I’m a climate scientist is because I’m a Christian. Maybe, I thought, just maybe a few of the people there might realize they cared about climate change for the same reasons I did.

    It was a Wednesday night. The meeting was in one of the adult Bible study rooms, down a long hall with tan carpet. A group of about fifty interested people had gathered. I showed them the data revealing that yes, the planet is warming, and yes, humans are responsible. As I expanded on the impacts we were already experiencing in Texas, people listened and nodded along; they felt validated by what I had to say and it matched what they’d witnessed themselves. But then I took a deep breath, gathered up my courage, and for the first time ever, nervously launched into why I cared: the biblical mandate for stewardship and care for creation, the connection between climate change and poverty, and the Bible verses that directed my concern.

    I was half expecting people to laugh; but instead, they seemed surprised. They recognized those Bible verses I was quoting and they lived by the same principles. And the questions I got afterward shifted: they were deeper, far more personal than I’d heard before. This audience cared. Why? Because we had connected over something fundamental and undeniable that we shared.

    Do you, as a Christian, believe you’re called to love others as you’ve been loved by God, and that means caring for those who are suffering — their physical needs and their well-being—which today are being exacerbated by climate impacts? Or is your hatred for others who disagree with you so strong that you no longer can love?

  9. Jl says:

    Let us know when Dr. Hayhoe has verifiable cause-effect evidence that man’s emissions are warming the planet, but thanks for the info on her faith..

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      You should contact her, yourself! After all, you’re a climate scientist!

      Can you explain why an increase in atmospheric CO2 would not increase temperature (as predicted)?

      Thanks.

      • Jl says:

        “Contact her..” I would if I thought I could get an answer, but she follows the alarmist “scientific method” in that any one who questions her views are blocked. *Science*
        “Why it wouldn’t increase temp as predicted..?” Of course I could turn it around and ask why can’t a simple experiment be done to demonstrate the agw hypothesis? An object emits LWIR and CO2 absorbs and re-emits some of that LWIR that returns and warms the initial object. Again, you’re asking for an alternate explanation when the original explanation hasn’t been demonstrated yet. Like I’ve said before, it’s like a criminal trial in that the defense doesn’t have to prove who committed the murder, they just have to prove it wasn’t their client. But that being said, there’s over 140 peer- reviewed papers showing extremely low sensitivity for a doubling of CO2-most at 0.5 degrees or less. The sun/shortwave radiation/less cloud cover theories say those effects would over-ride any CO2 effect.

Pirate's Cove