The problem is not only fire - there's the flood! The glaciers of Greenland are melting at the current temperatures. Unless the earth's temperature DECLINES, the melting will continue until Greenland is all green without white. When that happens, we will have lost Florida and most of the earth's coastal cities, including New York City, LA, London, Tokyo, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.

This is not controversial, subject to doubt. The glaciers are melting. Now. At current temperatures.

The problem is not only fire - there's the flood! The glaciers of Greenland are melting at the current temperatures. Unless the earth's temperature DECLINES, the melting will continue until Greenland is all green without white. When that happens, we will have lost Florida and most of the earth's coastal cities, including New York City, LA, London, Tokyo, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.

This is not controversial, subject to doubt. The glaciers are melting. Now. At current temperatures.

Anyone who has looked out a window or gone outside, in the last few years, will dispute that something weird is going on with the weather. You can call it climate change, global warming, normal weather disruption, whatever you want, but nomenclature has no effect on weather patterns. Long range models show another ice age in our future, something sure to give global warming deniers a thrill, regardless of the fact that the ice age is likely to be an extinction event. How can global warming trends lead to an ice age, you ask? Well it can, but I don't have the time to explain it to you, you can look it up yourself. Are long range computer models 100% accurate? We won't know the answer to that until the ice age is here, that's just common sense, but what we DO know now is; none of the models paint a pretty picture, no matter how the data is manipulated. That alone should be of concern to everyone.

To what degree does mankind impact climate change? No one knows for sure, but we DO know that mankind does have an impact, and that the impact is cumulative, i.e. adds up over time. The amount of disruption we see today, is the cumulative effect of 100's of years of mankind's influence. How long will it take for any amelioration attempts to be felt? Who knows? Those attempts are cumulative as well, but no attempt = no effect, that's also common sense. What should not be in dispute are; the climate is changing and not for the better, mankind does have an impact to some degree, the effects are cumulative, meaning that we have not felt the full fury yet, and whatever efforts are made to ameliorate the changing climate, will take time to be effective.

The few things that are in dispute, i.e., mankind's contribution, are not a sufficient reason to do nothing, or do very little. As an example: Those of you with small children/grandchildren, knowing that a child that is a toddler today will need twice as much money for college as current student; when is the best time to start contributing to a college fund? A. while the child is a toddler, when a small effort accumulates into a big payoff. B. when the child start High School, requiring a massive effort to achieve the same result, or C. never, just take your chances? This is also common sense.

Arguing about to what degree mans activity causes climate change, or what efforts need to be started now, as opposed to the last minute, and/or how long such efforts will take to be felt, or the other silly questions being asked, is like being inside a burning home and arguing over who started the fire and/or is responsible for it spreading so fast - because - you are going to die. Common sense says to evacuate, call the fire dept., etc. - and spend the rest of your life arguing those points.

For those still denying that there's a problem.........................your house is on fire.

And, they weren't always right.....But, pretty damn good!

Hey, I'm in California where we have had drought....Now, we are getting slammed! But, as I have lived for a few decades, this is the way it has been.
I look at one thing to bolster my questions to climate change people, and it's one they can never answer.....It's a multi part scenario.

Have you ever ever seen the Grand Canyon? " Oh,yes, I have seen the Grand Canyon..."
Do you know how it was formed? " Not really....Water erosion, maybe?"
You are right! Water erosion. This means there must have been a higher water level to produce this erosion, right?
" What are you talking about??"..
Where did the water go?

They can't answer that....

Where did the water go? Sediment shows a history of the Earth, and the Grand Canyon shows different soils at different times. One must conclude that the water level on Earth was as high as the top of the Canyon. Or, the Earth rose.
If, the waters subsided, where did the water go? If the Earth rose, why?

My obscure point is that this Earth is not an accident. And our " Carbon Footprint" is a tool of a bigger agenda.
It is a tool of control by the leftists. Notice those that clamor for climate change laws are very wealthy and fly around in private jets. And, they are invested in ventures that stand to profit from major actions.

There is so hypocrisy it makes me ill.

And, they weren't always right.....But, pretty damn good!

Hey, I'm in California where we have had drought....Now, we are getting slammed! But, as I have lived for a few decades, this is the way it has been.
I look at one thing to bolster my questions to climate change people, and it's one they can never answer.....It's a multi part scenario.

Have you ever ever seen the Grand Canyon? " Oh,yes, I have seen the Grand Canyon..."
Do you know how it was formed? " Not really....Water erosion, maybe?"
You are right! Water erosion. This means there must have been a higher water level to produce this erosion, right?
" What are you talking about??"..
Where did the water go?

They can't answer that....

Where did the water go? Sediment shows a history of the Earth, and the Grand Canyon shows different soils at different times. One must conclude that the water level on Earth was as high as the top of the Canyon. Or, the Earth rose.
If, the waters subsided, where did the water go? If the Earth rose, why?

My obscure point is that this Earth is not an accident. And our " Carbon Footprint" is a tool of a bigger agenda.
It is a tool of control by the leftists. Notice those that clamor for climate change laws are very wealthy and fly around in private jets. And, they are invested in ventures that stand to profit from major actions.

There is so hypocrisy it makes me ill.

Anyone who has looked out a window or gone outside, in the last few years, will dispute that something weird is going on with the weather. You can call it climate change, global warming, normal weather disruption, whatever you want, but nomenclature has no effect on weather patterns. Long range models show another ice age in our future, something sure to give global warming deniers a thrill, regardless of the fact that the ice age is likely to be an extinction event. How can global warming trends lead to an ice age, you ask? Well it can, but I don't have the time to explain it to you, you can look it up yourself. Are long range computer models 100% accurate? We won't know the answer to that until the ice age is here, that's just common sense, but what we DO know now is; none of the models paint a pretty picture, no matter how the data is manipulated. That alone should be of concern to everyone.

To what degree does mankind impact climate change? No one knows for sure, but we DO know that mankind does have an impact, and that the impact is cumulative, i.e. adds up over time. The amount of disruption we see today, is the cumulative effect of 100's of years of mankind's influence. How long will it take for any amelioration attempts to be felt? Who knows? Those attempts are cumulative as well, but no attempt = no effect, that's also common sense. What should not be in dispute are; the climate is changing and not for the better, mankind does have an impact to some degree, the effects are cumulative, meaning that we have not felt the full fury yet, and whatever efforts are made to ameliorate the changing climate, will take time to be effective.

The few things that are in dispute, i.e., mankind's contribution, are not a sufficient reason to do nothing, or do very little. As an example: Those of you with small children/grandchildren, knowing that a child that is a toddler today will need twice as much money for college as current student; when is the best time to start contributing to a college fund? A. while the child is a toddler, when a small effort accumulates into a big payoff. B. when the child start High School, requiring a massive effort to achieve the same result, or C. never, just take your chances? This is also common sense.

Arguing about to what degree mans activity causes climate change, or what efforts need to be started now, as opposed to the last minute, and/or how long such efforts will take to be felt, or the other silly questions being asked, is like being inside a burning home and arguing over who started the fire and/or is responsible for it spreading so fast - because - you are going to die. Common sense says to evacuate, call the fire dept., etc. - and spend the rest of your life arguing those points.

For those still denying that there's a problem.........................your house is on fire.

And, they weren't always right.....But, pretty damn good!

Hey, I'm in California where we have had drought....Now, we are getting slammed! But, as I have lived for a few decades, this is the way it has been.
I look at one thing to bolster my questions to climate change people, and it's one they can never answer.....It's a multi part scenario.

Have you ever ever seen the Grand Canyon? " Oh,yes, I have seen the Grand Canyon..."
Do you know how it was formed? " Not really....Water erosion, maybe?"
You are right! Water erosion. This means there must have been a higher water level to produce this erosion, right?
" What are you talking about??"..
Where did the water go?

They can't answer that....

Where did the water go? Sediment shows a history of the Earth, and the Grand Canyon shows different soils at different times. One must conclude that the water level on Earth was as high as the top of the Canyon. Or, the Earth rose.
If, the waters subsided, where did the water go? If the Earth rose, why?

My obscure point is that this Earth is not an accident. And our " Carbon Footprint" is a tool of a bigger agenda.
It is a tool of control by the leftists. Notice those that clamor for climate change laws are very wealthy and fly around in private jets. And, they are invested in ventures that stand to profit from major actions.

There is so hypocrisy it makes me ill.