Climate change would swamp Trump’s border wall

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I think Eric makes a good point...id be far more likely to get on board and come together for solutions if people would quit insulting me for minor differences in opinion. i mean, do you really think anyone would argue that we need to clean up the Pacific Garbage Patch? Eliminate pharmaceutical and mercury contents in the water supply? Continue to eliminate hydrocarbon emissions? Does anyone really want to make these things worse?

I doubt it....so what, exactly, is the problem? That they don't agree with every last detail of the "why are we doing these things"? That they don't want to pay additional taxes to clean up the waste pushed on us by industry (the same industry that continues to diminish labors cut of the pie during each annual inflationary cycle)?

It seems to me that if the people who belief in man made climate change would quit trying to bicker over how much smarter they are, and instead just start DOING things that don't continue kicking the ass of the middle class, there would be zero resistance. I just don't think its about action. Thats the problem. If it were, action would already be taking place.

originally posted by: amazing
I think the question or issue is that recently, the RIO Grande is flooding more often and flooding higher.

Linking that to Climate Change makes sense. We know the climate is changing and that the earth is getting a little warmer.

Building something as big as a border wall next to the RIO Grande should take that potential issue into account.

What, like waterproof or something?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I almost clicked the link...almost. Then I noticed that it was ThinkProgress.com, so I didn't want to get BS all over my monitor.

Anyone else remember back in the day when the AGW/globalwarming/climatechange folks preached that hotter temps would lead to drier conditions and droughts all over the world? And before that, that we were on the verge of entering an ice age?

This alarmist crap has got to take a rest at some point...

Also, speaking from a logical point of view, here, if extreme events are now much more common (which is HIGHLY debatable), aren't they just events now? There's nothing extreme when they become the norm.

If this stupid wall gets built, there are pretty easy ways where a barrier that can stop humans would still allow water to flow through it.

What a garbage article.

I know, right?!

Wait til the sun blows up, maybe they should start freaking out about that or don't they care about their descendants?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Extreme weather and climate change make both the siting and design challenges unimaginably greater.

Journalism sinks to a new low.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yuppa

If you think this discussion is going to go away just because Trump is in charge then I have a wall to sell you. There are QUITE a few countries that all agree that Climate Change is a problem. Hell China is practically giddy about our stance on Climate Change. That way they get to take the lead in CC policy and get to take the moral high road against us.

Screw them in short. If they want the US to change Nuke us dead. remember just because you have "consensus" does not make you right. Isnt that what people who argue over the popular vote say too?

Climate has always changed. They went from 'Man made global warming" to Global climate change to sell the lie bettter because the man part was not working out as well.

Humans will adapt or die. SCrew living in misery. All i can say is those liers who say man is responsible can drop dead.

Ooooooooooo, I love it when you talk like that.

Maybe the wall keep all the giant flood water on the mexico side.

Eventually have a sorta panama canal for a southern border.

Extra coast guard jobs! lots of beaches and spring break places!

Free moat! Bonus!

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That still doesn't mean that climate change isn't having an impact.

OK, you go ahead and keep embracing that politically motivated association falacy that exists purely to separate workers from their money in the form of more government taxation to fight a goddamned boogieman... I'll; just stay over here with my friends sanity and science.

The science is pretty simple, and it says we're warming the Earth.

Don't group the science with the political / economic solutions.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That still doesn't mean that climate change isn't having an impact.

OK, you go ahead and keep embracing that politically motivated association falacy that exists purely to separate workers from their money in the form of more government taxation to fight a goddamned boogieman... I'll; just stay over here with my friends sanity and science.

The science is pretty simple, and it says we're warming the Earth.

Don't group the science with the political / economic solutions.

How much are humans contributing to the warming and how much is natural variation?

a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

Your valiant efforts to distract and question are failing. The public has turned against you. Pick another beach to die on.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

So you are saying we are avoiding an ice age?

Thats great news!

a reply to: D8Tee

Sure, great news if you're willing to gamble with the possibility of another Great Dying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: seeker1963

Same question. So those floods in the Rio aren't happening? How about trying a bit harder before you declare something fake?

Floods have happened thru out time!

Yes, but the point is that the Rio is flooding worse than before. This is being said is due to climate change, but if you don't want to believe in CC then you still have to account for the fact that these floods are getting worse.

It's a damn shame when people link mother nature to politics!

Climate change isn't politics. It is science.

1) OMG, now the leftists are trying to stop Trump's wall with the "oldie but goodie" climate change? Could they think of a more ineffective angle to combat/protest?

2) Do you, OP, think that modern construction men don't know how to build on water? Are you Krazy?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

Your valiant efforts to distract and question are failing. The public has turned against you. Pick another beach to die on.

Has climate change become dogma that must not be questioned?

a reply to: D8Tee

Have you accepted Climate Change into your heart and as your savior?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: D8Tee

Have you accepted Climate Change into your heart and as your savior?

Our Saviour.

Sweet a swampy moat filled with gators.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

you can see the floods from space

Nvm...

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
That still doesn't mean that climate change isn't having an impact.

OK, you go ahead and keep embracing that politically motivated association falacy that exists purely to separate workers from their money in the form of more government taxation to fight a goddamned boogieman... I'll; just stay over here with my friends sanity and science.

The science is pretty simple, and it says we're warming the Earth.

Don't group the science with the political / economic solutions.

Out of a estimated 100 million scientist exist on the planet at this time. So this is the question how many climatologist are there? Estimates are between 10,000 to 50,000(thats being generous)

So 0.005 percent of TOTAL SCIENTIST believe in AGW we can estimate right?

Far from a consensus. but thats ALL SCIENTIST who arent in consensus.

Apparently climate scientist think they can speak for everyone huh?


Once again th eargument over warming due to CO2 falls flat. Water vapor trapped forms clouds,and those in turn reflect light back actually causing a cooling effect with rain and shade. Also RAIN washes/scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. But this part of the cycle is glossed over to influence people to think we have a problem.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

Your valiant efforts to distract and question are failing. The public has turned against you. Pick another beach to die on.

Oh no....what would anyone do if the public turned against them? I could find some newly exposed land, fresh from the permafrost, to plant all the craps that im going to give.

Seriously, if the only way you can sway people to think just like you is to ridicule them....it doesn't do much for making me want to agree.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: D8Tee

Natural variation would mean we should be cooling, last I checked.

We're warming, though.

Your valiant efforts to distract and question are failing. The public has turned against you. Pick another beach to die on.

Has climate change become dogma that must not be questioned?

I will reiterate the question that I keep asking people who 'question' our impact, because everyone seems to be unwilling to answer it - you pointed me to another thread entirely where it was not answered just the other day, and still shy away:

originally posted by: Greven
Physics are pretty much settled:
-Stefan-Boltzmann law says Earth should be 255 Kelvin throughout the atmosphere
-The surface is 288 K.
-33 K difference between S-B law and observation
-Atmospheric observations explain this - temperature decreases ~6.5 K per 1km above surface, up to tropopause
-The tropopause is the boundary (9-17km depending on latitude, closest at poles and furthest at equator) between the troposphere (lower 75% of all atmospheric molecules) and stratosphere (about 20% of the remainder)
-The atmosphere is clearly redistributing heat (infrared radiation) to the surface.

This is all uncontroversial. What some seem to think is controversial is the mechanism by which this observation occurs - greenhouse gases, whose radiation absorption bands were observed by a 1970 satellite:

This is really easy stuff to understand. It's a lot harder to figure out a solution that doesn't involve millions of deaths. A self-inflicted humanitarian and ecological crises; the fossil fuels that propelled our exponential population growth may well kill us.

Don't run away from it, this time.