Dipshit, what you deniers don't understand is that we humans (and our crops, and our livestock animals) have evolved to survive in a certain climate range, and that we're not going to evolve quickly enough to survive what we're doing to the planet - temps are changing faster than they ever have since humans have been here.
PS: humans haven't been around for 7 million years. We and our immediate ancestors have been around for about 500,000 years.
The point is that you can't extrapolate what weather to expect in a single year. The reason we in the central US got snow in early May this year is because of warmer air forcing polar air southward.
Of course it is, it's got statements of faith about things that can't be proven, it's got prophets, it's got people believing things what ain't true. All it doesn't have is a deity, but at least some of the Buddhist schools are the same way and they're still considered a religion.
I'm a former member of the cult, kiddo, spent my late teens and early-mid 20s in that headspace.
You seem blissfully unaware of two things: 1) Weather != climate 2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
1) By omission. Did you read? They call it "climate change" and omit any reference to how it's caused by pollution. That's part of WSJ's staying on the conservative message.
2) It's implicitly positive that we can grow corn further north now, i.e. over a larger area. Article omits how this implies we won't be able to grow it anymore in southerly regions.
3) Strawman, nobody's saying that scientists should be able to make policy decisions. We are saying that common fuckwits should pay attention to them despite how the fixes are going to be expensive and inconvenient, because ignoring them will be more expensive and even more inconvenient.
But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing (and, by omission, as not being man-made), so we can still ignore scientists when they say we have to stop polluting so much.
You're a fucking moron. The Dems said "OK, keep the government open and we'll negotiate." The teabaggers said "Defund Obamacare or the government gets it."
Irrelevant. The only proposal acceptable to the fucking teabaggers was to get their way or for the government to shut down. You can't negotiate with someone like that.
Absofragginlutely. Kiddo's getting mostly unrestricted access to a computer and dead trees, but (at first) strictly limited access to the cesspool, increasing as she gets older and can handle it.
People (kids too) are more likely to be fucking barbarians when they're behind a computer and have a little pseudonymity, when someone can't reach over and punch them in the nose for going too far.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have time for stupid people, and that includes deniers. Fuck off.
Dipshit, what you deniers don't understand is that we humans (and our crops, and our livestock animals) have evolved to survive in a certain climate range, and that we're not going to evolve quickly enough to survive what we're doing to the planet - temps are changing faster than they ever have since humans have been here.
PS: humans haven't been around for 7 million years. We and our immediate ancestors have been around for about 500,000 years.
The point is that you can't extrapolate what weather to expect in a single year. The reason we in the central US got snow in early May this year is because of warmer air forcing polar air southward.
You're cherry-picking your data, dickhead.
Of course it is, it's got statements of faith about things that can't be proven, it's got prophets, it's got people believing things what ain't true. All it doesn't have is a deity, but at least some of the Buddhist schools are the same way and they're still considered a religion.
I'm a former member of the cult, kiddo, spent my late teens and early-mid 20s in that headspace.
We do, however, know that CFCs are harmful to the ozone layer, and there obviously were no CFCs up there before the modern era.
You seem blissfully unaware of two things:
1) Weather != climate
2) Weather is an inherently chaotic system, and adding more energy (c.f. global warming) increases the chaos, i.e. makes for more unexpected/extreme weather.
Last year Missouri had a really bad drought, especially here in the western part and the area farmers lost their whole corn and bean crops. Where, exactly, is your land?
Ohhhh. You could have just /said/ that you're of the libertarian religion.
There is a difference between Americans and 'merkins. Only in certain areas will you see biblical literalists being elected to office.
Cut man controlled mechanical CO2 emissions to 0 and it will cause no deaths
That depends entirely on how it's done, doesn't it?
1) By omission. Did you read? They call it "climate change" and omit any reference to how it's caused by pollution. That's part of WSJ's staying on the conservative message.
2) It's implicitly positive that we can grow corn further north now, i.e. over a larger area. Article omits how this implies we won't be able to grow it anymore in southerly regions.
3) Strawman, nobody's saying that scientists should be able to make policy decisions. We are saying that common fuckwits should pay attention to them despite how the fixes are going to be expensive and inconvenient, because ignoring them will be more expensive and even more inconvenient.
"They"? Uh huh.
Cut CO2 to 0 and you still have to deal with change.
Don't be stupid. Cut carbon dioxide to zero and you've got two things:
1) no life exhaling it (animals)
2) no life inhaling it (plants).
Nobody's suggesting cutting it down that far.
But see, they're spinning climate change as being a positive thing (and, by omission, as not being man-made), so we can still ignore scientists when they say we have to stop polluting so much.
They're not my team, dipshit. I only vote for them because 1) they're not Republicans, and 2) our political system requires 2 viable parties.
And I do know that from watching their behavior.
You're pretty tiresome, so bye now.
You're a fucking moron. The Dems said "OK, keep the government open and we'll negotiate."
The teabaggers said "Defund Obamacare or the government gets it."
Irrelevant. The only proposal acceptable to the fucking teabaggers was to get their way or for the government to shut down. You can't negotiate with someone like that.
I'd take your opinion seriously if it wasn't utterly intellectually lazy and ignorant of facts.
That's how we got the teabaggers in the first place, idiot.
You must not get out much. I've seen many people say that the 2nd amendment is our defense against a tyrannical government.
Absofragginlutely. Kiddo's getting mostly unrestricted access to a computer and dead trees, but (at first) strictly limited access to the cesspool, increasing as she gets older and can handle it.
I give you the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19
People (kids too) are more likely to be fucking barbarians when they're behind a computer and have a little pseudonymity, when someone can't reach over and punch them in the nose for going too far.
And as the AC noted, pedos.
Reference to the book's Goldstein, scapegoat.
No, religious bigotry is timeless.
Also a Saudi prince owns a good chunk of Fox Agitprop.
Got a cite for your claim about who sells us more oil?