Earth’s climate is getting so hot that temperatures in about a decade will probably blow past a level of warming that world leaders have sought to prevent, according to a report released Monday that the United Nations calls a “code red for humanity.”
“It’s just guaranteed that it’s going to get worse,” said report co-author Linda Mearns, a senior climate scientist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research. “I don’t see any area that is safe… Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.”
But scientists also eased back a bit on the likelihood of the absolute worst climate catastrophes.
Except they said this 30 years ago, 25 years ago, 20 years ago and each time it was imminent.
ReplyDeleteExcept that said we had to end all fossil fuel use and then Obama signed a deal with China allowing them to massively increase their use of coal. So which is it?
Wow. Moments like these I realize English lacks a good active verb to express actively being moronic -- something like, "to idiotize forth". So much the worse for English....
ReplyDeleteIn a related matter -- well, not a real matter, but related nevertheless, however fictionally....
A serious financial analyst friend of mine did me the favor of some unsolicitied number crunching on my roulette-table weekend gambling. He warns that if I don't stop ASAP, I'm liable to be bankrupt within -- so he cautiously estimated -- the year.
Well, not just one but two years have come and gone since he offered his warning with its clearly reasoned justification, and -- guess what? -- I'm still financially solvent! So "clearly" (!) his caution was misplaced, along, of course of course, with his whole analysis. What's more, I find myself inclined to think that I just stand to make a whole ton o' dough at the roulette wheel. So I've doubled down and increased my stake, "experts" be damned! (He's probably just a silly liberal, godless with bleeding heart. What do they ever know about anything?)
Come on, lucky numbers...!
#tragicrealization
#totalgaiva
#blissfullystupid
You should go easier on yourself. Yes, you have total gaiva and you're blissfully stupid but you don't have to broadcast it to the world.
ReplyDeleteBecause if you had 2 functioning brain cells to rub together, you'd see your analogy completely fails on one important detail - it only works if it's your financial analyst friend (you have a friend - a sure sign you made up the whole thing) is the one with the gambling problem.
Because that's the point - here's Obama - we can't have coal plants in America. Bad! Shut fracking down! Bad! No pipelines! Bad! But okay China, I'm okay with you doing all of that. Because,,, not bad?
Even if you say O'Blama is all bad, it is a red herring.
ReplyDeleteThere are a few questions -
1) is human use of fossil fuels causing detrimental climate change?
2) Is it possible to change our infrastructure so as to reduce or neutralsie CO2 emissions (as well as C0, CH4 etc.)?
3) Even if we enact the above will it reverse the damage done to the climate?
You can make fun, insult everyone all day long, but that does not address what is fundamentally a scientific question.
Yes, you have total gaiva and you're blissfully stupid but you don't have to broadcast it to the world.Lookie! My fiction has found an audience. I knew I had it in me....
ReplyDeleteI see you identify with my tragic hero. Regrettably, your not as coherent; nothing you've written makes much sense.
As for the analogy,
* the financial analyst friend = the climatologists
* the tragic "me" = you & the rest of the Fox news hollering audience
Not quite grasping? Ah, if only English had that verb....
I never said climatologists were full of it. I said that if coal and oil are bad, then they are bad everywhere. It is suspicious when coal and oil are bad in the West but fine in China and India, the world's two biggest polluters. They're not part of all these international agreements, they increase their polluting levels every year and the same folks who scream "Code red!" in every Western capital can't find Beijing and Delhi on a map. Or in other words, why was St. Greta brought out to glare at Trump but not Xi and Modi?
ReplyDeleteRead your own words:
ReplyDeleteExcept [the climatologists] said this 30 years ago, 25 years ago, 20 years ago and each time it was imminent....but hasn't come to fruition. That's the clear implication of your comment. In other words: They're full of it; ignore them.
Phony models predict earth's destruction again. News at 11
ReplyDeleteWhy "phony"?
ReplyDeleteExcellent!
ReplyDelete1) probably, but human use of fossil fuels is only going to increase, not decrease - look at China and India.
ReplyDelete2) possibly, but the Climate Change ideologues reject any talk of "reduction" and instead demand "elimination". Could we spend money to develop scrubbers to reduce coal plant emissions thereby cutting down on pollution and maintaining a cheap source of energy? Yes. Will that happen? No, because it's against the religion.
3) No, so instead of whinging we start investing in adapting. Prepare for weather events. Move people out of endangered areas before the danger it. But again, "adaption" is against their religion.
Scrubbers are effective at reducing sulphur dioxide from coal plants (of acid rain fame 1980s) but not CO2.
ReplyDeleteCarbon neutral is the "goal" . Nuke energy is carbon neutral, haha.
Are you going to move people away from Manhattan for when sea levels rise?
Maybe it's the end of the world. A new race of humans will arise in a million years, but with same Torah. They will find Manhattan under the sea and suggest people lived here millions of years ago. But the future hareidi sages will call that apikorsus - it was only created 6000 years ago to confuse us.
So that's the point. If the seas are going to rise, what's Manhattan doing to adapt? Are they building seawalls? Are they changing their infrastructure? How many small towns along rivers need to start planning to move now and aren't doing it?
ReplyDelete