Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PokerPacker said:

Now that's one thing I don't miss about Texas.  It was in the 90's when I left in February.

Agreed, spent one summer in San Antonio hot as balls and humid as Florida. Miserable and dirty. If that's what supposedly makes Texas great you can keep it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Agreed, spent one summer in San Antonio hot as balls and humid as Florida. Miserable and dirty. If that's what supposedly makes Texas great you can keep it.

Don't get me wrong, I adore San Antonio.  Food is fantastic, people are really nice (heck of a lot of DMV transplants there, too, so I was hardly much of an outsider), "traffic" is laughable, cost of living is a pittance, and the river walk is beautiful.  But boy was it hot and humid.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, twa said:


Naw, just Texas summer :)


Texas, the hotbed of intelligence.


You're lucky you have NASA Houston Headquarters there.  Otherwise, all you'd have is FOODBALL, PEEKUP TROUKS AND RANCHIN'.


And an extremely enlightened take on....Planetary Climate.




*spits tobacco*


Go learn how to make fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

My daughter says they've already had 100* days. Not looking forward to moving, camping in the RV while looking for an apartment, then moving into the apartment and setting up house. 


Welcome to summer, but Austin area is generally less humid and if ya work mornings and evenings it can be almost bearable.

A siesta in the ac 12-4 helps :ols:

you do have ac I hope

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I went to the gym, today.  (First time in months.)  Watched Fox News (and others) on the TV while on the treadmill.  They were pointing out that the iceberg breaking off will not affect sea levels at all, (Which is true, at least in the short term.)  And vigorously explaining to their audience that dumping an industrial waste product, that was shown to produce the greenhouse effect 150 years ago, at a rate of half a billion tons a year, for 100 years straight, cannot possibly affect the climate.  Because the weather changed before the Industrial Revolution.  


Well, that and repeatedly announcing that this entire Russia thing is simply the liberal media trying to manufacture a fake scandal.  Because they're still upset that they got the election wrong, and they're trying to divert attention away from the Trump Victory.  And that's why we've had a parade of stories claiming to be bombshells, every one of which has been proven to be completely nothing

Link to post
Share on other sites




A climate change tax measure Democrats and Republicans alike should get behind.


It’s already too late to stop global warming, say scientists. No matter what we do, sea levels willrise. Some climate activists have even released an interactive map that will let you see how much of, say Washington, DC, will be under water in the next century, with the flooded zones depicted in blue. (Not all of it, alas).

Well, if it’s too late to stop global warming, I have a modest proposal instead: Tax the blue zones. That is, minimize the damage that will occur from flooding many decades in the future by reducing development now.

If we’re seriously worried about flooding from higher sea levels, then we want to make sure that areas that will be flooded in the future won’t be developed now. We want to limit the investment in buildings that will be swamped, and we want to limit the number of people who’ll have to move. And we want to encourage people who live in those areas now to move away in the near future, before they’re flooded.

How do we do that? Well, we could do a lot of things: Limit construction in lower-lying coastal areas, ban rebuilding after hurricane damage, etc. But probably the favorite tool of politicians out to regulate behavior is to tax people for doing things the politicians don’t like. So that’s my proposal: Tax the blue zones. That is, put a large and steeply-increasing tax on property located in areas scientists say are likely to be flooded because of global warming.

Such a tax may seem burdensome up front, of course, but if flooding is as big a problem as climate activists claim, today’s burdens are likely to be minor compared with the the problems prevented by limiting development in the blue zones that are destined to be flooded. Like the high fuel taxes designed to keep SUV-driving flyover types from burning too much gas, my proposed “blue zone tax” will affect behavior now in ways that will reduce costs in the future.




Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d0ublestr0ker0ll said:

Neil deGrasse Tyson is a shill and a TV personality and has a degree in Astrophysics which is NOT Climate Science becuz there was a snowstorm today.

I know climate change is a fraud because my political party says so. They even disagree with the very companies like Exxon who affirm climate change science. That's real leadership....now which way did my lemming herd go?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, twa said:



From your link:


"Keep in mind that Hansen predicted in a greenhouse model that there would be “an increase of from two to five degrees Fahrenheit” in global temperatures by 2018, as quoted from December 1998 edition of Spin magazine."


From the spin article:


“The most comprehensive greenhouse model to date was prepared by Hansen at the Goddard Institute and was published in the August 20, 1988, issue of Journal of Geophysical Research.  Hansen’s model predicts an increase of from two to five degrees Fahrenheit in the next thirty years, depending on which of three alternate future the world’s nations choose-continued expansion of fossil fuel use at the current annual rate of 1.5 percent, a moderate cut-back, or a radical shift away from fossil fuels to alternate source of energy, such as solar, nuclear, wind, and hydroelectric."


Hansen's model from 1988 (with different scenarios for GHG release) compared to observations:






We are closest to scenario B in terms of released GHG.  Looks pretty good, no?


And if you read the Spin article, they talk heavily about CFCs and their role in climate change (and ozone depletion) as they are much more potent GHGs than CO2.  At the time, the Montreal Protocol was signed, but was not in affect.


Obviously, things changed from when Hansen made the model and made the predictions in the 1980s (e.g. CFC emissions went way down).


(I also suspect some of the issue is about what temperature scale you are using.  I suspect Hansen thinks and talks in C, but the Spin article converted that into F so direct quotes of Hansen seem to disagree with what Spin article said, but the 1988 model did not predict 2-5 degrees C warming.  The end is making it seem that Hansen is being inconsistent when he really isn't.  I don't know if the person that wrote the story at your link is being dishonest or is just too stupid and lazy to actually do a little research.


“I don’t think we’re going to get four or five degrees this century, because we get a cooling effect from the melting ice,” he said last week. “But the biggest effect will be that melting ice. In my opinion that’s the big thing – sea-level rise – because we have such a large fraction of people on coastlines, more than half of the large cities in the world are on coastlines.”


So let me get this straight. Temperatures won’t increase because of melting ice, despite him predicting the opposite 30 years ago. And though New York City remains perfectly fine, despite him claiming it would be drenched in water by 2018, it will one day become flooded like Atlantis."


He didn't say that temperatures would increase 2-5 degrees C thirty years ago.)

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

@PeterMPowns @twa's cherry picked hack article. Some of are simply not surprised. The science demiers amongst us love a catchy headline because they know that they cannot combat the details and the actual evidence and models shown. So they settle for Hannity/Limbaugh-esque drive bys that offer zero substance and amount to nothing more than a cheap bumpersticker that at its core is flawed. But it's easy enough for simpletons to remember.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, twa said:

So it's not good news? 

Please you don't care. You cherry pick every damn article you can find in order to throw doubt about climate change science. If a sibgle estimate proves off by 1/10th of a degree your headlines will read "Climate Scientists Are Full of ****!"


Truth comes second to your oil driven political agenda.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...