Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Sunday, May 18. 2014I'm taking your bets today on the global warming crisisI'll bet anybody $1000 that Miami will not be underwater in ten years. Any takers? Here's the scare headline: Miami Will Likely Be Underwater Before Congress Acts on Climate Change. Oh no - I'm scared. Not Miami! Not the US Congress! Yikes. Only Congress can save us from drowning. Or do they mean in 4000 years, when they do not realize next ice age will have lowered the oceans once again so that you can walk from Britain to France as they used to do before our SUVs ruined everything? I am deeply, deeply, seriously concerned, and it keeps me up at night. If you are not "deeply concerned" about something, there must be something morally wrong with you. We all must become deeply, seriously concerned about something. Otherwise, what's the point of our existence? How do we otherwise justify it, right? We are foolish animals, me included. OMG, I think I accidentally ate a non-organic, GMO tomato last night. I am doomed. Meanwhile, backtracking climate gurus warn that you should not expect their models to be correct. Not to worry, I do not and will not worry about models of any sort. All of the genius market models have been wrong, and those guys are much smarter than climate scientists.
Posted by The News Junkie
in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays
at
10:16
| Comments (16)
| Trackback (1)
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I wonder just how many politicians, environmentalists or scientists who use the phrase ’97% of scientists’ (or those who more carefully use ‘active climate scientists’) to give weight to their arguments regarding climate change to the public, have any idea of the actual source of this soundbite.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ "Miami will likely be underwater ..." No, no, no. Two words -- "under water." The word Mr. Brownstein misuses is an adjective.
If anyone actually believed this you could buy a hotel on South Beach for what it costs to rent a room in said hotel for a weekend.
Junkie, Write your bet contract tightly. Miami, with Democrats in charge, might be underwater financially. Specify, specify, specify.
That's were I thought this post was going when I read the first line. I wouldn't take that bet.
I'm all-in for Miami still being above sea level in a decade. And once Miami is under water then, and only then, might it be appropriate for Congress to consider if it has a duty to act on climate issues.
I'll bet anybody $1000 that Miami will not be underwater in ten years. Any takers?
If so, that would be one of the better arguments for accelerating anthropogenic global warming. Burn coal: sink Miami. Works for me. Spend some time on these pages for NOAA and you will quickly conclude this stuff is all a bunch of crap.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html Just for example, according to the actual data, sea levels have been rising a steady 1.5 millimeters per year in Honolulu, and have been doing so since they started measuring in Hawaii in 1900. (I suspect a portion of this is due to subsidence of the land mass, as all islands are sinking to a certain extent because of the weight and settling below. You could pick any one of a number of modern cities that are on the same site as their ancient forebears, I like to point to London (Londinium). There has been a city on that spot for two thousand years, before and after the Medieval warm period, the Danes farmed where there are glaciers today on Greenland and the seas between North America and Europe were fairly free of ice.
So my question is, why didn't any of the English Monks write about the flooding of coastal London? I'm not daft, there are ancient seabeds in the middle of the American Southwest and other indications of similar changes in sea-level and land elevation all over the world. Most of it occurring before there was any possibility of human causality. Nor do I think that the modern industrial age has had zero impact on the climate, but volcanoes have zero impact on the climate, until they do and then they can overwhelm the earths climate beyond our pathetic efforts. So do humans do to, or are we more likely to be done to? The next time a comet, or volcano or solar nap/flareup decides to really shake our world do we want a rich humanity with a fully functioning economy and tech base, festooned with nuclear power plants on every continent? Or a wheezing, minimalist world with one foot already in the grave. You, with the Greenpeace Tshirt, sit down. You've already made your choice. News Junkie
You clearly need to check your privilege. Thank you. Didn't a scientist predict NYC underwater in 20 years or so back about 20 years ago? I was thinking I read something about it and how some author then covered his tracks for him and said he made the mistake. I predict some 'scientist' or Al Gore groupie will predict San Diego underwater in about 10 years. Not the city being underwater, but some nut predicting it so.
I'm deeply concerned. The hip waders aren't enough, I must have chest waders before it gets any deeper.
@ #9: the Sundance Sea and Cretaceous Western Interior Seaway were personally caused by George W. Bush. His Most Sublime Warmist Fatwah al-Bore swears this is true. Owners of billions of dollars of Miami property already have taken your bet, by not selling their property and fleeing to higher ground--including quite a few who ostensibly believe in global warming.
As you say, the AGW claim-to-be-true-believers do not act as they would if they truly believed.
Who, what committee, what congress, what religious leader declared that climate cannot change? What is the optimum climate/temps/rainfall? Is it optimum for humans, other species, or whales? The discussion seems to be humanoid-centric and does not value other species or the ecology of the planet. Who asked (speaks for) the other species?
Climate change cannot be good or bad (moral judgement?) unless there is a bench mark standard to measure from. What is that bench mark? Change might be beneficial or detrimental to local populations; but good or bad? To propose an optimum climate standard for humans comes awful close to proposing a Creating Designer. I thought evolutionary adaptation was the ruling theory. Adapt or Die. |
For once the Weather GuysTM got it wrong, at least compared to the weekend forecast they made last Wednesday. While we did have rain, it was only in the morning and by 10AM it was done. Sunny skies and...
Tracked: May 18, 18:21