Seriously...

a reply to: AmericanRealist

When the ocean starts infiltrating your water supply you may have to move in with your relatives in Nebraska.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Phage

I suppose I just assumed. My bad.

a reply to: TechniXcality

eh, I recycle everything that I can and turn off all the power when we leave the home. Other than that, I prefer to keep my 80° December beach weather down here in Florida.

May i ask you something?

you mentioned turning off your power when you leave your home, someone mentioned this a few yrs ago to me and i always wondered. Do you think turning off light bulbs burns them off faster? I always thought so but it just kind of popped into my head just now so i thought i'd ask what you thought about that. Maybe it's a dumb question but my rum and coke told me to.

a reply to: Phage

Human activity from living in a world designed by humans for human consumption is the cost of living in this day and age. The problem is thinking that these changes would not happen regardless. Global warming is just another part of climate change, but there are may places getting colder weather, too. There have been abnormal rain fall in many places.

I am saying that we are and have been making a mountain out of a molehill that will be what it is whether or not we call it global warming or not; much of what happens has nothing to do with us and more to do with the Cosmos and where we are in relation to the said Cosmos at any particular time in out history.

Climate change, Global warming, Ice ages are going to happen, different parts of this world are going to be affected differently at different times of the year and will change over decades and centuries.

a reply to: awareness10

Unplugging appliances not in use, fine, it probably takes more energy to power up the electricity than it saves, neither have anything to do with climate change. Heck, those huge wind turbines probably cause more problems for the weather patterns and they do not even consider that a possibility and solar panels absorb a huge amount of radiation from the Sun, could those have anything to do with global warming?

Maybe we have gotten closer to the Sun recently and this has caused a spike in global temperatures in certain areas that are rotating on the axis in the line of fire, maybe the rotation of the Earth has slowed down and is causing these fluctuations.

a reply to: forthelove

Heck, those huge wind turbines probably cause more problems for the weather patterns and they do not even consider that a possibility and solar panels absorb a huge amount of radiation from the Sun.

Compared to the total amount of energy in wind, turbines take very little. A tall building disturbs airflow more than a turbine does. The energy that solar panels absorb is no different from that which a parking lot absorbs. But at least they turn some of it into electricity.

Maybe we have gotten closer to the Sun recently

Nope. Our orbit hasn't changed recently.

maybe the rotation of the Earth has slowed down

It actually is slowing down, very, very, very gradually. But not enough to matter.

a reply to: Phage

New technologies generally produce more jobs.

Any foretelling of the future via your crystal ball what these new technologies will be ? The ones today are not cost efficient ,not very safe for the ecology , and most just go bankrupt even though our President bailed em out for 100s of millions of dollars.

a reply to: Phage

"Some things are worth paying for. "

Not as simple as that. The enormous growth in population has only been possible with the introduction of cheap energy, first coal, then oil. Today, we are barely able to afford keeping our energy expensive concrete infrastructure maintained at today's energy cost much less moving to more expensive options.

The logic is simple.
Higher economic growth causes energy cost to soar as oil reaches peak output and alternatives are sought (fracking).
Higher energy cost causes a recession from the funnelling of money from growth into maintaining higher infrastructure costs.
The recession eventually results in lower energy costs.
Lower energy costs will eventually rekindle higher economic growth,
Restart loop.

The loop can only be broken by a cheaper energy alternative such as that promised by fusion reactors. Else we need rethink our entire infrastructure (cities, roads etc) so it uses far less energy. The current fools in government that approved the cutting down of 15,000 trees for a solar farm for a theme park simply arn't up to the task. Sadly much of the scientific community are awal, too busy riding the CO2 gravy train to feed their families.

I am confident it will end up far worse before it gets any better.

a reply to: Phage

That would be New Mexico, and considering it used to have lots of beach front property in the geological past, it does not sound half bad. Even the end of the world has its bright side
a reply to: awareness10
Well that sounds possible with traditional incandescent bulbs. I am still using a combination of some of the CFL bulbs I first purchased in 2007 and others I bought in 2011 as some burned out for whatever reason. I have replaced three with LED's in the last couple of years for others that burned out. I don't think I ever seen an incandescent survive ore than two years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arizonaguy
Some things are worth paying for. Unless you have the "what's in it for me" point of view. But are you sure it won't be costing "big oil" something?

But you're right, better to wait until we know everything.

Some things are worth paying for but not this. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows me that there isn't enough in it for me...especIally since I am skeptical of the motives and science of those that are pushing the climate agenda.

a reply to: Metallicus

there isn't enough in it for me

What a surprise.
Not much in it for me either. I won't be here to see how bad it will get.

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Phage

That would be New Mexico, and considering it used to have lots of beach front property in the geological past, it does not sound half bad. Even the end of the world has its bright side

a reply to: awareness10
Well that sounds possible with traditional incandescent bulbs. I am still using a combination of some of the CFL bulbs I first purchased in 2007 and others I bought in 2011 as some burned out for whatever reason. I have replaced three with LED's in the last couple of years for others that burned out. I don't think I ever seen an incandescent survive ore than two years.

Thankyou for your response, It's getting a bit harder to find incandescent but not impossible yet. I thought LED's would have lasted longer though, incandescent bulbs, some have lasted up to 4 yrs. I know some of the Parliament Buildings have old bulbs that have lasted years, but they just don't make them to last like they once did. I wouldn't mind finding something that Did last a while now that the choices are becoming more and more limited.

a reply to: Phage

Isn't it a matter of DEGREE?

I fail to see that the changes propagandized so extensively . . . are THAT attributable to human crap.

e.g. what . . . !???15 THOUSAND???! undersea volcanoes going off??? IIRC . . . has to add some significant warmth. The sun's changes HAVE to be a factor etc. etc. etc.

Then there's the oft reported horrific abuse and shafting of GOOD scientists who didn't tow the partly line. . . . IIRC, some ending up dead.

Then there's the whistle blower reports . . . e.g. Aaron Russo (youtube) reporting the Rockefeller's laughing about the climate change hoax as a social manipulation.

There's just toooo many flags on the play for me to swallow the dogma from the oligarchy and MSM on such matters.

a reply to: Metallicus

I too, am highly skeptical of this so called 'Climate Agenda', and their need to push it.

The only ones it's costing are us.

a reply to: TechniXcality

Efficiency is a worthy value for a list of reasons--climate change or no climate change.

However, for the oligarchy to use shame manipulation of data and coercive tyrannical manipulation of scientists and ed institutions is criminal, imho.

It is as though they piggy-backed on whatever degree of natural and/or plus human climate change was looming and used it to manipulate the populace for greed and tyrannical !!!CONTROL!!! needs.

THAT is an outrage.

a reply to: Phage

I am convinced that the experts asserting such are right:

1. We have had the largely hidden (and some commonly used already) technologies available to clean up our environment and provide cheap energy.

2. The oligarchy does NOT WANT to do either for tyrannical !CONTROL! reasons as well as greed reasons.

It is not a technological problem.
It is not a human capacity/inability to solve it problem.
It is not an insurmountable problem.

It is a problem of will and horrific cruel leadership problem . . . largely hidden and untouchable.

a reply to: Phage

imho . . . climate change, quake triggered (Canary islands) tsunami's, meteor caused tsunami's, etc. etc.

for some such reason . . . Florida is highly likely to be toast in the not distant future. Particularly the lower half but probably 90% of the state.

To me, it's about as sensible to continue living in Florida as it is to live smack on a San Andreas fault or Cascadia fault 50 feet from the ocean.

IN this era, some things are just more irresponsible than they've ever been.

a reply to: Phage

We may be fossilized old farts . . . however,

I still believe we will be around to see far too much grief for far too many reasons.

I hope I'm wrong. But not a shred of me believes I am.