Speaking of which, how many inches of global warming are you getting in D.C. this week?
Oh how cute.
Speaking of which, how many inches of global warming are you getting in D.C. this week?
Odd that you don't hear "Aspen," "the Alps," or "Utah" as dog-whistles for "rich white people" which you most certainly would if this article were about tax-rates, immigration or anything other than global warming.
Speaking of which, how many inches of global warming are you getting in D.C. this week?
On another note; ever notice that those that trumpet the catastrophic results of "climate change" are also the loudest voices fighting the two technologies that are actually economically reducing CO2 emissions -- nuclear energy and natural gas produced by fracking. Ever notice that?
what are you even talking about? i suppose what really concerns you is going to be the coming water scarcity due to the prolonged droughts and desertification that are in the near future that will affect the poorest of the poor as water becomes an even more valuable commodity than oil?
we have 8 slushy inches. it's going to be 65 degrees in a week and a half. i wore shorts on December 22nd. California is gripped by near catastrophic drought and so is the rest of the southwest. the UK is flooding.
what else?
It's nothing new.
Actually, I don't.
I am very much in favour of nuclear energy. Last I heard so was your communist president.
What does this have to do with anything?
It's no longer really extreme when it starts to become the norm, though, is it?
The norm? It's a big world but in the US in 2013 tornados (strength and number), hurricanes (strength and number) and wild fires were way down.
We haven't had a Cat 5 hurricane in the Atlantic since 2007. Not quite the prediction of Al Gore's movie was it?
The ruling is popularly thought to have convicted scientists for failing to predict an earthquake. On the contrary, as risk assessment expert David Ropeik pointed out, the trial was actually about the failure of scientists to clearly communicate risks to the public. The convicted parties were accused of providing “inexact, incomplete and contradictory information”.
...
Crucially, the scientists, when consulted about ongoing tremors in the region, did not conclude that a devastating earthquake was impossible in L’Aquila. But, when the Defence Minister held a press conference saying there was no danger, they made no attempt to correct him.