While that is absolutely true, the population of CA is still far better off than they would be without the reservoirs - they would have had to move (or die) 2 years ago. The fact is that they will pump water where they need to and it will get expensive, and maybe make certain types of agriculture uneconomical. But we'll defeat mother nature's attempt to kill us.
"Follow the money" is indeed a good strategy. I recommend you apply that philosophy equally to those who have made careers out of denying AGW. It also shouldn't take too much time to realize that we are probably 20 years into something of a consensus on AGW within the scientific community, and "the government" has changed hands between the Democrats and Republicans a few times since then. If there was political influence, you would expect some wavering amongst the scientific community - and yet there has been none.
in that case why the fuck did you bring up the 97% bollocks.
It wasn't me, it was ncc74656.
And if they are modeling the climate then they are fucking awful at it and should go find another job. The climate scientists should really listen to computer experts and programmers to explain to them why their models are shit!!!!.
So you are asserting that all of the climate scientists are bad at their jobs, and if only some smart people would step up and build some proper models, we'd see just how wrong they are. Interesting. If only there were some smart people who wanted to look into climate science...
I completely agree, and my post was meant to be sarcastic. I'm completely against the fatalist attitude.
Seems like we need to adjust either terrestrial radio or let Pandora pay less.
The nice thing about us - versus an anthropomorphized "Mother Earth" - is that we don't need to throw a massive amount of volcanic ash into the air in some completely uncontrolled way. We can put some into the air and see what the effect is like. We can gradually increase or decrease the amount applied. We can stop the "eruption" at any time and let the effect quickly dissipate.
I'm not trying to be glib about this - the ideal is to stop throwing CO2 into the air in the first place. But the fatalist approach irks me - we have never been fatalist about what Mother Nature throws at us. She makes droughts, we make reservoirs and food storage. She makes floods, we build dams. Our whole existence is best summed up as one big fight with that wretched bitch.
Yes, let mother nature take care of us. All hail our Goddess Earth.
Even if the 97% number is a complete fabrication, you'd have a very hard time finding someone who has studied climate for a living who has an opinion that humans haven't significantly contributed to the warming of the planet. Sure, you'll find the odd physicist or meteorologist - but no one who has made it their living to model the climate. Picking at the 97% number is really just grasping at straws and trying to win the argument on semantics.
The car. It would be far, far cheaper for you to install an electric resistance heater in your gasoline car and plug it in than it would be to purchase an electric car.
Versa: MSRP $12,000
Leaf: MSRP $29,000
Yeah, yeah, tax credit brings it down to $21,500. $9500 still buys you a lot of gas and morning 10-minute idles.
Yes, but - and this will probably simply expose my ignorance - shellfish and coral existed back when atmospheric CO2 was high.
Well, they cost you less if you ignore the massive capital investment
All I needed to do was to show that CO2 is toxic and that we don't want it when we combust fossil fuels, we want the energy.
It's not toxic at all in any quantity that will be released from the burning of fossil fuels. It's a red herring and you do the whole debate a disservice by even mentioning it.
Nope, if that were true, we'd not have rising CO2 since those plants "who just adore extra CO2" would be taking it up.
Well, they are taking it up - just not as fast as we can burn it. They take it up on the geological time scale - we are burning it all in a few centuries.
And, yes, it DOES harm animals at this level: Climate change, dumbass.
Climate change is likely to help some animals and hurt others.
No animal likes to be in a species that goes extinct: it's quite harmful.
No, but the remaining species are quite fond of the newly-plentiful resources.
I'm not in any way arguing that man-made climate change is good, but your arguments are not really relevant and calling an ally a "dumbass" seems pretty counter-productive to your implied goals.
This isn't USA Today - he should be able to use his full vocabulary - it is trivial to right-click the word and learn something.
No one is claiming that CO2 levels will approach anywhere near toxic levels. The danger with CO2 is almost exclusively global warming, though sometimes you do hear ocean acidification raised as a possibility. Unlike with your crisp packet, plants just adore extra CO2 and it does not harm animal life at the levels we are talking about.
I agree that it is a pollutant, but I don't think your thought experiment about the sealed room is persuasive.
"Decennia" is plural, so presumably he means over the next couple of decades.
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
