Watch what happens to Florida when the ice melts ...

There are those who believe in science, and those who believe in angels, devils, burning bushes and talking snakes.

Science says the ice is melting. Watch the show below ...

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/heres-what-earth-would-if-all-ice-melted

by Obamasucks on 9/7/2015, 12:04 pm
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/06/sorry-president-pants-on-fire-but-alaska-is-cooling-not-warming/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium

The poles have spent the VAST majority of earths history unfrozen. So what exactly is "normal"?

The poles have spent the VAST majority of earths history unfrozen. So what exactly is "normal"?


Normal is not 8 of the last 12 years having record floods on midwestern rivers. Normal is not having folks piling up sand on Navarre Beach to not have houses on barrier islands fall into the sea. Normal is not having Miami under water.

Last time I checked humanity cannot hop into a time machine and return to another time. We are left with lowering man made pollution or suffering the consequences for our collective inaction. The debate is not about time machines.

“The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.” Dr. James Hansen, 1988, in an interview with author Rob Reiss. Reiss asked how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years.

June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect.

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands."

2seaoat wrote:Normal is not 8 of the last 12 years having record floods on midwestern rivers.

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V17/N30/EDIT.php

Climate-Change-Induced Flooding Volume 17, Number 30: 23 July 2014

More frequent and more devastating floods are both (1)predicted for the future and (2)claimed to already be occurring by a host of climate alarmists, as a result of climate change that they claim is induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions. But are these claims correct?

In a massive review of the subject conducted by a team of seventeen researchers hailing from eleven different countries, i.e., Kundzewicz et al. (2013), we learn the following: (1) "no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude/frequency of floods during the last decades," (2) "there islow confidence in projections of changes in fluvial floods, due to limited evidence and because the causes of regional changes are complex," (3) "considerable uncertainty remains in the projections of changes in flood magnitude and frequency," (4) increases in global flood disaster losses reported over the last few decades "may be attributed to improvements in reporting, population increase and urbanization in flood-prone areas, increase of property value and degraded awareness about natural risks (due to less natural lifestyle)," (5) "the linkages between enhanced greenhouse forcing and flood phenomena are highly complex and, up to the present, it has not been possible to describe the connections well, either by empirical analysis or by the use of models," and (6) "the problem of flood losses is mostly about what we do on or to the landscape," which they say "will be the case for decades to come."

In closing, Kundzewicz et al. write that "the climate change issue is very important to flooding, but we have low confidence about the science," adding that "work towards improvements in GCMs [global climate models] to bring us to a point where all of this is made clear is much needed, and may take much time." And they thoughtfully remind us - in the interim - that "although media reports of both floods and global flood damage are on the increase, there is still no Mauna-Loa-like record (see Vorosmarty, 2002) that shows a global increase in flood frequency or magnitude.

Lmao... or it's just another fucking war... and wars have refugees. Damn you're easy. Get an umbrella and a nightlite.

Oh... and some floaties... hahahaha.

PkrBum wrote:Lmao... or it's just another fucking war... and wars have refugees. Damn you're easy. Get an umbrella and a nightlite.

Oh... and some floaties... hahahaha.

Well, I know you're not much of one for "science" or "peer reviewed studies", but there are those who disagree with your glib assessment ...

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.abstract

Salinsky wrote: In the next 10-15 years, when the catastrophic effects of human-induced climate change are no longer deniable, I wonder what the response will be from the deniers who are still alive.

Will they deny that they were deniers?

Will they simply say that there was nothing that could have been done?

Hahahaha ...

... just kidding.

They'll blame Obama for not fixing it.

What fun! Empty threats being made by a group whose previous dire forecasts prove FALSE.

So vapid are their threats that they are forced to change the name of their ill-conceived movement from GLOBAL WARMING to CLIMATE CHANGE. They fully acknowledge they have been proven wrong but refuse to give up their massive scam.

These zealots forecast this same warming, before the turn of the century. According to them, we'd be under water by now. Instead...Global Warming stops in its tracts for which the zealots first deny and then make excuses. All with an ultimate goal of making their messiah, Al Gore and his comrades, billionaires.

Global warming ‘pause’ expands to ‘new record length': No warming for 18 years 5 months

'Since December 1996 there has been no global warming at all...A new record length for the Pause: 18 years 5 months.'

'It remains possible that el Nino-like conditions may prevail this year, reducing the length of the Great Pause. However, the discrepancy between prediction and observation continues to widen.'

(Also see:
It’s Official – There are now 66 excuses for Temp ‘pause’ – Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming)

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/05/05/global-warming-pause-expands-to-new-record-length-no-warming-for-18-years-5-months/#ixzz3lHBu5VeH

Salinsky wrote:You don't have to wait 10-15 years.

It's happening now.

The Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and the mass migrations of people from the region into Europe are directly linked to climate change.

Who could make these things up?

Wordslinger wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:There will be no catastrophic effects resulting from climate-change in 10-15 years. That is pure fearmongering that is designed to try and goad nations into enacting the political agenda that is closely tied to the climate-change movement.

There is no shame in being called a climate-change "denier." Most "deniers" will agree that there has been a gradual warming of the Earth over several decades. The real debate centers on whether this is dangerous, requiring restrictive legislation that might have serious impacts on the quality of life of people. The 'denier' and 'anti-science' labels cut off the oxygen supply to reasoned exchange of ideas on the subject.

By "quality of life of people," are you referring to what would happen if we decreased the burning of fossil fuels? Or?

Currently 10 calories of fossil fuels go into every calorie of food produced in America. We are talking about the diesel burned by tractors, farm equipment, food-distributing trucks and trains, as well as the fertilizers and pesticides sprayed on crops (all of which are petroleum-based). So, if the forces behind climate change manage to politically ban the use of fossil fuels while chasing after some errant near-term tipping point (which I do not believe will happen), they could conceivably be dooming millions, if not billions (worldwide) of people to death by starvation.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:There will be no catastrophic effects resulting from climate-change in 10-15 years. That is pure fearmongering that is designed to try and goad nations into enacting the political agenda that is closely tied to the climate-change movement.

There is no shame in being called a climate-change "denier." Most "deniers" will agree that there has been a gradual warming of the Earth over several decades. The real debate centers on whether this is dangerous, requiring restrictive legislation that might have serious impacts on the quality of life of people. The 'denier' and 'anti-science' labels cut off the oxygen supply to reasoned exchange of ideas on the subject.

By "quality of life of people," are you referring to what would happen if we decreased the burning of fossil fuels? Or?

Currently 10 calories of fossil fuels go into every calorie of food produced in America. We are talking about the diesel burned by tractors, farm equipment, food-distributing trucks and trains, as well as the fertilizers and pesticides sprayed on crops (all of which are petroleum-based). So, if the forces behind climate change manage to politically ban the use of fossil fuels while chasing after some errant near-term tipping point (which I do not believe will happen), they could conceivably be dooming millions, if not billions (worldwide) of people to death by starvation.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/10-calories-in-1-calorie-out-the-energy-we-spend-on-food/

That's a popular leftist theme... if the warming activists aren't on board yet... they will be.

#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief….

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

#2) Microsoft’s Bill Gates….

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines,health care,reproductive health services,we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

#3) Barack Obama’s top science advisor,John P. Holdren….

“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child,despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy,might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable,with official permission,for a limited number of births.”

#4) George W. Bush’s science advisor Paul Ehrlich….

“Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet.”

#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg….

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided,there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled “Facing a Changing World: Women,Population and Climate”….

“No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation.”

#7) David Rockefeller….

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

# Jacques Cousteau….

“In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate 350,000 people per day.”

#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner….

“A total population of 250-300 million people,a 95% decline from present levels,would be ideal.”

#10) Dave Foreman,Earth First Co-Founder….

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide,destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness,with it’s full complement of species,returning throughout the world.”

#11) Prince Phillip,the Duke of Edinburgh….

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#12) David Brower,first Executive Director of the Sierra Club….

“Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society,unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals,the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”

#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger….

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

#14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman,Morality,and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company,1922. Page 12….

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

#15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer….

“So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required —we could party our way into extinction!”

#16) Thomas Ferguson,former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs….

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way,through nice clean methods,or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in El Salvador,or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control,it requires authoritarian government,even fascism,to reduce it….”

#17) Mikhail Gorbachev….

“We must speak more clearly about sexuality,contraception,about abortion,about values that control population,because the ecological crisis,in short,is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

#18) John Guillebaud,professor of family planning at University College London….

“The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do,such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka….

“This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished,and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.”

#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton….

“This year,the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund,and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade –since we last had a Democratic president,I might add.”

#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff….

“We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can’t support many more people.”

#22) The first of the “new 10 commandments” on the Georgia Guidestones….

“Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.”