I notice that you do not mention hurricane severity. Why not?I could look it up, but what is the relevance?
High death tolls in a hurricane from decades ago might simply reflect building codes not up to modern safety standards.
I notice that you do not mention hurricane severity. Why not?I could look it up, but what is the relevance?
High death tolls in a hurricane from decades ago might simply reflect building codes not up to modern safety standards.
But it doesn't. That's what some extreme CAGWers predict, but that's not what we currently observable seeI don't think you grasp that science says our current climate changes are unprecedented and will threaten the survival of humanity.
There is. You just declare them all climate deniers because they do not adhere to your Holy Doctrine of CAGW and follow the teachings of your CAGW bishops.The bottom line is that if your skeptical view of climate change had a basis in science, there would be a robust debate about this among actual climate scientists. There is not.
Blah blah blah, just another word for "heretic" for your religionThe view you espouse is rooted in RW politics and the cynicism and greed of fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists, not science.
This morning DeSantis said he had good interactions with Biden and FEMA and expected federal disaster funds.
I provided a link for the insurance crisis in Florida.
The science is clear on climate change and the terrible consequences we face.
And high damage, etc. today could simply reflect there being more structures and places to be damaged as there are more people.I could look it up, but what is the relevance?
High death tolls in a hurricane from decades ago might simply reflect building codes not up to modern safety standards.
Over time, scientists have become MORE concerned about climate change.
And sure, scientists change their minds, but rarely and only in response to overwhelming data. For some reason, conservatives think that if science can undergo course corrections, then it must all be wrong or untrustworthy.
I don't think you grasp that science says our current climate changes are unprecedented and will threaten the survival of humanity.
More deaths occur in the aftermath of many nowdays....fact. Because of foolish things like putting a generator too close to your house and dying from that.I could look it up, but what is the relevance?
High death tolls in a hurricane from decades ago might simply reflect building codes not up to modern safety standards.
You mean like we would all be dead by 2000 and all the ice caps would melt and states wiped out? Yea, science.
So much for settled science.18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year
Tomorrow (Monday, April 22) is Earth Day 2019 and time for my annual Earth Day post on spectacularly wrong predictions around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970….. In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled...www.aei.org
The track record of climate scientists.
Climate change did not suddenly become a factor this year.
Hot air no evidence, as to be expectedMore irrefutable proof of climate change followed by more irrefutable hypocrisy from right-wingers begging for big government “socialism” after trying to deny it to others.
The climate changes every year, sure.
If these libs are successful and they are able to stop the climate from changing, I hope they don't do it in the winter. I'd hate to have it be permanently cold.
They are doing a how-cold-can-we-stand-it test in Europe this winter.
However they are also burning trees...holy trees....excuse me, they changed the name to "biomass fuel" so Greta doesn't have a cow.
Well, where are the links, and why aren't these dissenting views presented on the websites of the AGU or NAS or other professional organizations of relevant scientists?There is. You just declare them all climate deniers because they do not adhere to your Holy Doctrine of CAGW and follow the teachings of your CAGW bishops.
Indeed, many scientists have come forward pointing out the absurdity of the models and the baked in heating that when used on past data shows more warming than what we even experienced in the real world.
Blah blah blah, just another word for "heretic" for your religion
Well, yes, there is such a thing as settled science. Would anyone get on a plane if aerodynamics was not considered settled?No, they haven't.
IT's your side screeching about 'settled science' when there is no such thing.
Sure, in the earlier days of this field, predictions were wrong, but the trendlines were right. The ice caps and glaciers are melting, the seas are rising, farming is having to adapt and animals are migrating to different climes.You mean like we would all be dead by 2000 and all the ice caps would melt and states wiped out? Yea, science.
This is a relatively young field, and a lot of data can be accumulated in 50 years, along with changes in models.18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year
Tomorrow (Monday, April 22) is Earth Day 2019 and time for my annual Earth Day post on spectacularly wrong predictions around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970….. In the May 2000 issue of Reason Magazine, award-winning science correspondent Ronald Bailey wrote an excellent article titled...www.aei.org
The track record of climate scientists.