Originally posted by Tony Kania: But as smart as you are ...
He has you fooled Tony, .
Originally posted by newf: What a surprise, people commenting on the headline, not the article or the report itself.
That would be because the headline is the story. Why would we want to comment on the report, much less the article ? Why did we even commission an 800 page report ? The debate is over. The science is settled. The screwing is coming. 800 fricken pages and not one solution, . Why ? 'Cause if you tell a lie enough times it will become true.
Originally posted by newf: The sheep don't have an attention span that can follow much else the intelligence to see the scam.
Fixed that fer 'ya. Do you know how much this scam will affect temperatures in 100 years ? 2/100ths of one degree.
Originally posted by newf: What a surprise, people commenting on the headline not the ... report itself.
What a surprise, the article mentions "the report"
Even saying the report ...
The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase “climate disruption” as another way of saying global warming.
The article also mentions "the report" 15 times, with out a link to it. Sounds official, a "report". Reminds me of when was screwing off on a job and would carry a clip board around for a disguise, . It snuck in only once the name of the report. Without really identifying it as "the report". I noticed you didn't comment on the report. Here is your chance ! 840 pages of chance. WARNING : The pages are not numbered. National Climate Assessment It's pretty, and, look at the bottom. Lookie how many gooberment agencies are on board.
Which regime official said "there is no room in this administration for "climate change" deniers ? Look sheeple, we have a consensus of gooberment agencies, . Peer reviewed, . Try to find "Response Strategies". It's a hoot.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-08-2014).]
I wish that $1 USD would be automatically deposited to my bank account every time that some life sciences challenged doofus (including some on this forum, although I will not list their forum names) has blithely offered "Hey, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It will help farmers improve their crop yields. What's not to like?"
Climate change may cause floods, hurricanes, droughts and severe weather, but surely it will be good for plants, right? After all, the carbon dioxide that plants thrive on will build up in the atmosphere.
Actually, that doesn’t translate into better crops, researchers reported on Wednesday. While grains such as corn, wheat and rice might grow faster and even taller, they’ll carry fewer of the nutrients that people need, such as zinc and iron.
So even as people have more to eat, malnutrition in the poorest regions of the world may get worse, the experts reported in the journal Nature.
“This study is the first to resolve the question of whether rising carbon dioxide concentrations — which have been increasing steadily since the Industrial Revolution — threaten human nutrition,” said Samuel Myers of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the study.
At the end of this NBC News column, there is a reference to scientists eyeing the possibility of specially bred strains of food crops that would (theoretically) tolerate and thrive at elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide without diminishing their dietary value in terms of these trace levels of vital nutrients (iron and zinc).
Seems like this is also a potential opportunity for new varieties of GMO food crops.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-09-2014).]