Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jun 25, 2013 17:50:49 GMT -5
Obama Makes Major Climate Change Speech at Georgetown
President Barack Obama returned to Georgetown today to make a major speech about climate change from the university's historic Old North Building.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 16, 2013 18:32:32 GMT -5
Some people are really going to hate this, but the EPA is naming their HQ building after a certain Georgetown grad, William Jefferson Clinton.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,398
|
Post by SSHoya on Jul 16, 2013 18:57:01 GMT -5
That's going to drive Al Gore crazy -- or crazier than he already is. . .
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 17, 2013 8:26:28 GMT -5
Some people are really going to hate this, but the EPA is naming their HQ building after a certain Georgetown grad, William Jefferson Clinton. Doesn't make any difference. When the level of the seas rise to what his former VP predicted, the building will be underwater anyway.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,485
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 17, 2013 11:30:54 GMT -5
LOL, Ed!
Just finishing up WJC's address to the troops at the EPA.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jul 18, 2013 9:26:28 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 18, 2013 10:00:11 GMT -5
And another $630,000 wasted.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Jul 18, 2013 11:33:09 GMT -5
"But if geo-engineering is cheap and "fundamentally doable," as Keith claims, that suggests foreign countries, or even wealthy individuals, could mess with the climate to advance their own ends."
That alone justifies $630,000 of research.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 18, 2013 16:02:39 GMT -5
The fact that DARPA hasn't figured out a way to manipulate weather and climate yet is a goddamn crime! My guess is it's because those friggin' geeks are spending all of their time ensuring the extinction of humanity by building killer robots who will activate Skynet at the drop of a hat. And why has no one tried out my idea of dissipating or mitigating hurricanes by dropping a series of thermobaric bombs into them to go off at timed intervals? I mean, the same theory worked in The Core. And that film was based on SCIENCE!
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Jul 18, 2013 20:45:51 GMT -5
They have to make sure Dr. Evil doesn't train sharks with laser beams to melt the ice caps.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 18, 2013 21:03:41 GMT -5
I'm going to bury my head in the sand as well. Because it's cooler a few inches down. Science tells me so.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 10, 2013 8:24:31 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Dec 10, 2013 10:11:42 GMT -5
Oh look, Matt Drudge posted something again. Did it have that siren graphic next to it too?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 10, 2013 13:27:06 GMT -5
Attack the messenger, ignore the facts.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,331
|
Post by tashoya on Dec 10, 2013 15:07:01 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
Member is Online
|
Post by TC on Dec 10, 2013 15:11:33 GMT -5
Attack the messenger, ignore the facts. What facts? The fact that every time Matt Drudge posts a misleading headline regarding climate change, you regurgitate it here, without bothering to try to grok whether it actually supports your head-in-the-sand world view or not? The fact that the article you post goes on to explain that Antarctic lows don't contradict warming trends or climate science whatsoever? The fact that the place measured in Antarctica hasn't been measured much before?
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Dec 10, 2013 17:27:33 GMT -5
Dude you have to stop letting Matt Drudge's interns make you look like a science illiterate middle schooler. Everytime it is cold somewhere it isn't proof of anything. Nor is it compelling proof in the other direction when oh my god, did you see it was really hot in Mumbai last August? The level of discourse, or what passes for discourse, among educated adults in this country makes me cringe in embarassment. The two-party system needs to be smashed into a thousand pieces.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Dec 11, 2013 9:47:50 GMT -5
Climate change believers conveniently select which comparative years they will show to support their beliefs; and then they insult those who disagree with them. Why don't you discuss the temperature of the earth over thousands of years and tell me there is not a cyclic change of temperature with some years' temperatures higher than today - some (approximate) 120,000, 230,000, 320,000 and 410,000 years ago, for instance? No,you choose to ignore these estimates because they do not fit the narrative. Looking at these long range temperatures result in today's rise appearing as mere blips on a cyclic variation. Once you start focusing on these long-term variations you will gain some credibility among us "deniers".
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Dec 11, 2013 10:11:40 GMT -5
You need to make up your mind - is your argument that it is not getting warmer or that it is getting warmer but that is normal cyclical change?
Because pointing out that it is still very cold in Antarctica was an example of the former, but then when that was easily discredited as evidence of anything, you refuted it yourself by making the cyclical argument.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Dec 11, 2013 10:12:15 GMT -5
climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensusThis issue baffles me. Time and time again we have seen how scientists that just 'happen' to be tied to industry interests come out with theories that support those interests. I have asked this before but can someone please tell me why conservatives don't believe the scientific consensus on man-made climate change? It really seems to be an outlier as far as issue advocacy goes, and it again just 'happens' to be something that industry interest spend massive amounts of money to create a false controversy. People who make hundreds of billions of dollars from an industry are probably not actually looking out for the best interests of the overall population when it comes to negative side effects of their industry. It just seem so simple to me. This specific issue is only a controversy because special interests tell conservatives that it's a controversy. I'd be embarrassed to be that obedient.
|
|