How will humans deal with climate change
edspyhill01
do to deal with things like the flooding of low coastal areas like New
Orleans, Galvaston, resort barrier islands on the New England and Mid-
Atlantic coasts? Most of Florida is in danger of being covered by the
oceans. Major parts of India will soon be under water.
Tashi
Lets instead talk about name change, El douche Bag.
edspyhill01
Go hijack another thread and take your schizophrenia meds.
Tashi
El Douche Bag, are you going to build a dyke or something? Pray tell
how you propose to save the world. Does it involve voting for more
Democrats?
Robert Crim
What would mankind of old do? Migrate.
That's one of the advantages of living in tents.
Robertus
edspyhill01
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:20:45 -0800 (PST), edspyhill01
>
> >Let's ignore the cause(s) of climate change. What will or should we
> >do to deal with things like the flooding of low coastal areas like New
> >Orleans, Galvaston, resort barrier islands on the New England and Mid-
> >Atlantic coasts? Most of Florida is in danger of being covered by the
> >oceans. Major parts of India will soon be under water.
>
> What would mankind of old do? Migrate.
> That's one of the advantages of living in tents.
>
> Robertus
It will demand tough decisions of us and the elected officials at all
levels. The government cannot buy up all the land and properties that
the oceans takes back. Think of St. Petersburg, FL, Barrier island
beaches along the East coast.
Here's one account of Hawaii's tourist beaches being eroded.
http://www.ajc.com/travel/hawaii-s-famed-white-199109.html
Alain Reiher
"Tashi" <dewach...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:810afa9d-af5f-4691...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 22, 12:20 am, edspyhill01 <edspyhil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's ignore the cause(s) of climate change. What will or should we
> do to deal with things like the flooding of low coastal areas like New
> Orleans, Galvaston, resort barrier islands on the New England and Mid-
> Atlantic coasts? Most of Florida is in danger of being covered by the
> oceans. Major parts of India will soon be under water.
New challenges are always stimulating to the human minds. Maybe an
Engineering time is ahead (we've been locked into this economic time for so
long now!) Maybe the Americans engineers, working in collaboration with
India, will create a new type of Dam and built the longest and highest one
in order to save the Atlantic and India's coast, and for the Floridians to
keep their right to vote legally .
But first ... we need to put a stop to our addiction to cars. (This
addiction could easily be substituted by a good habit of smoking Cuban's
cigar, drinking Haitian rum, and playing music!)
Alain
Slogoin
> New challenges are always stimulating to the human minds. Maybe an
> Engineering time is ahead (we've been locked into this economic time for so
> long now!)
When students drop out of the engineering program they typically
change to Business majors. The guy across the street
> But first ... we need to put a stop to our addiction to cars.
Ain't gonna happen unless gas prices to ballistic.
> (This addiction could easily be substituted by a good habit of smoking Cuban's
> cigar, drinking Haitian rum, and playing music!)
Cuban cigars and music are fine but I think I'll pass on the rum,
especially rum and milk. Last night I got together with some luthiers
for tapas, wine and some playing of brand new guitars. Now that's fun!
Robert Crim
wrote:
> Cuban cigars and music are fine but I think I'll pass on the rum,
>especially rum and milk. Last night I got together with some luthiers
>for tapas, wine and some playing of brand new guitars. Now that's fun!
YAK! Who mixes fine rhum and the secretions of bovine females?
That's just nasty.
It's bad enough to put ice in it, but milk? I've heard that Puerto
Rican luthiers enjoy a bit of rum at lunch.
Robertus
Tommy Grand
Do you like advocaat?
Tashi
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:05:05 -0800 (PST), Slogoin <la...@deack.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Cuban cigars and music are fine but I think I'll pass on the rum,
> >especially rum and milk. Last night I got together with some luthiers
> >for tapas, wine and some playing of brand new guitars. Now that's fun!
>
> YAK! Who mixes fine rhum and the secretions of bovine females?
> That's just nasty.
You don't like females do you.
Tashi
Yes, El Douche, should we elect more democrats, or turn off our
lights at night? Or both?
Tashi
El Douche Bag, once the rich tourists can't play on white sandy
beach's anymore, that's when the democrats will save the day!
Robert Crim
Nope. It has too much saturated fats and other nasties.
Robertus
Robert Crim
I don't like hairy faxed females with a tail and 6 nipples squirting
into my Barbancourt. It's a personal thing.
Robertus
dsi1
Cool. I went to Kailua High school with Ms. Boneza's father, Troy III
too. No worry - Kailua beach is still a great beach, it's just shifted
around a little. The reality is that any shoreline is a temporal event.
In the geological sense, they don't last a fraction of a clock tick.
One could think of this as a political and socio-economic problem but I
prefer the long view. This giant conveyor belt these islands are on
means that someday, they'll be tiny rocks and atolls in the Pacific some
1,500 miles to the northwest - fit only as home to a few seabirds and a
short time later, not even that.
A shore line is simply the interface between land and that most dynamic
and powerful of entities: water and the sea. If we are allowed 100 or 50
years stay from a piece of shoreline, we really can't complain when
nature refuses to renew our lease.
Alain Reiher
"Robert Crim" <frit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fctig5511vqj3tpkd...@4ax.com...
Now that's my kind of humor! Thanks for the laugh Robertus!
Alain
doug
In 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Al Gore's global
warming film contained nine significant errors and should no longer be
screened in schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance
Gore's "one-sided" views.
claims about global warming in a new documentary, Nov. 20, 2009. (FNC)
Al Gore's award-winning global warming film "An Inconvenient Truth,"
socked two years ago by a British court ruling that found several
errors, is facing additional scrutiny with the release of a new
documentary that seeks to rebut many of Gore's claims.
Buoyed by the ruling, two Irish journalists -- Phelim McAleer and Ann
McElhinney -- released a documentary in which they gather evidence
outlining the damage of global warming hysteria. In "Not Evil Just
Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude
that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown
there as "an article of science, not faith.
"I wouldn't like our documentary to have nine significant errors and
if it did, I certainly wouldn't be showing it to school children
across America, and that's the important thing," McAleer told Fox
News' Sean Hannity on Friday.
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the
former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, a
problem he says is the biggest moral challenge facing the globe.
If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases,
Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25
years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species
worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century.
The film went on to win Academy Awards for Gore and Guggenheim and to
re-energize Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film
and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because
it is shown there as "an article of science, not faith."
"I wouldn't like our documentary to have nine significant errors and
if it did, I certainly wouldn't be showing it to school children
across America, and that's the important thing," McAleer told Fox
News' Sean Hannity on Friday.
In Gore's film, directed by Davis Guggenheim and released in 2006, the
former vice president argues that humans are causing climate change, a
problem he says is the biggest moral challenge facing the globe.
If humans don't act to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases,
Gore contends, the deaths caused by climate change will double in 25
years to 300,000 people a year, and more than a million species
worldwide could be driven to extinction in half a century.
The film went on to win Academy Awards for Gore and Guggenheim and to
re-energize the environmental movement.
But in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's film
contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in
schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-
sided" views.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of
climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the
film is "substantially founded up scientific research and fact" but
that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and
exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in an contentious
exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the
keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the
errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through
each of the errors but added that the ruling was in favor of screening
the film in schools.
"There's been such a long discussion of each one of those specific
things," he said. "One of them for example was that polar bears really
aren't endangered. Well polar bears didn't get that word." The
audience laughed.
Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is
increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same
question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased,
surely they're not in danger."
Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by
environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his
microphone.
Click here to watch the exchange.
McAleer, who has reported in the past for the Financial Times and the
Economist, among other outlets, said he believes the incident shows
that the members of the Society of Environmental Journalists are
simply environmentalists, not journalists.
"They see it's their duty to protect the multi-millionaire politician/
businessman, rather than support the journalist asking difficult
questions," he said.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing
research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist
to dial back the science to fit his narrative.
"So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just
doesn't like the truth."
McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that
there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and
consequences of global warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000
people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics
works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and
then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells
the truth."
the environmental movement.
But in 2007, a British High Court judge ruled that Gore's film
contained nine significant errors and should no longer be screened in
schools unless accompanied by guidance notes to balance Gore's "one-
sided" views.
The film's "apocalyptic vision" was not an impartial analysis of
climate change, High Court Judge Michael Burton said, adding that the
film is "substantially founded up scientific research and fact" but
that the errors were made in "the context of alarmism and
exaggeration."
Just last month, McAleer publicly confronted Gore in an contentious
exchange at an environmental journalist conference, where Gore was the
keynote speaker and took questions from the audience.
When asked by McAleer whether he would do anything to correct the
errors found by the British court, Gore said he wouldn't go through
each of the errors but added that the ruling was in favor of screening
the film in schools.
"There's been such a long discussion of each one of those specific
things," he said. "One of them for example was that polar bears really
aren't endangered. Well polar bears didn't get that word." The
audience laughed.
Phelim countered that the number of polar bears has increased and is
increasing.
"You don't think they're endangered?" Gore asked.
"The number has increased," McAleer repeated, prompting the same
question from Gore. "If the number of polar bears has increased,
surely they're not in danger."
Before McAleer could say anything else, he was interrupted by
environmental journalists who said it wasn't a debate and shut off his
microphone.
.
McAleer, who has reported in the past for the Financial Times and the
Economist, among other outlets, said he believes the incident shows
that the members of the Society of Environmental Journalists are
simply environmentalists, not journalists.
"They see it's their duty to protect the multi-millionaire politician/
businessman, rather than support the journalist asking difficult
questions," he said.
McElhinney, McAleer's filmmaking partner, said Gore, while doing
research for his newly released book, "Our Choice," asked a scientist
to dial back the science to fit his narrative.
"So much for the inconvenient truth," McElhinney said. "He just
doesn't like the truth."
McElhinney said it's a flawed argument by environmentalists that
there's a consensus that everyone agrees about the causes and
consequences of global warming.
"That's not how science works," she said. "It doesn't matter if 99,000
people all agree about something and one person is right. Politics
works like that -- a certain number of people vote for something and
then it becomes true. But with science, it's the one person who tells
the truth."
Charlie
nipples.
Charlie
"Robert Crim" <frit...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fctig5511vqj3tpkd...@4ax.com...