Climate and Weather

Didn't read much of the article eh?

The application, which was filed on May 10 and available online, states that there are a number of environmental reasons to allow the wall; to protect the "very serious loss of habitat" that has been caused by the "retreat of the coastline."

"The majority of the Irish dune system and virtually all west of Ireland systems are retreating (due to sea level rise and increased Atlantic storminess)," a report connected to the application states. "The evidence for increased storm activity associated with climate change suggests that erosion will accelerate," it said, estimating that if the current rate of erosion is allowed continue "it will result in a significant loss of habitat, and infrastructure."

. . . but of course you living a purely partisan existence void of reasoning you will ignore that as well.
The one thing I donʻt ignore is the lack of details regarding erosion and the magnitudes of. People like Buffet and Trump Insure others or their interest against the unknown while you ignorantly opine about the unknown as if it is known. Both hope that the policy will expire without a claim albeit one more than the other.
 
I read that, too. Berkshire acknowledges the significant loss of natural habitat and infrastructure that will ensue from climate change. Tough to understand when your head is filled with your own noise. You're the guy who thinks Russia is communist.
 
No, not now and not evah.
Lets just follow the money and that will bear fruit.
Can you provide me a period in time that climate change was not happening.
You think I'm going to debate with scientific consensus? Can I tell you the Earth revolves around the sun because of my research? No. As Joe points out, follow the money. The reason there is an anti-science side to the debate is because we are a fossil-fuel based economy and the oil companies' money has created a fake "debate."
 
You think I'm going to debate with scientific consensus? Can I tell you the Earth revolves around the sun because of my research? No. As Joe points out, follow the money. The reason there is an anti-science side to the debate is because we are a fossil-fuel based economy and the oil companies' money has created a fake "debate."
Yes, the science side has no need or want for money.
 
Science needs funding like anything else, difference is, it doesn't rely on a false narrative to further it's profits.
There will always be research, folks. When it reveals issues (such as the NFL concussion research and climate change and tobacco) that threaten massive corporate profits, there are no limits to the lengths that those threatened will go to via media campaigns, character assassination, falsifying its own research, etc., to protect their position. For some reason, the right now believes, as I have stated, that the scientific research side as the power. Somehow we find conservative politics telling us that while telling us that the white hetero male is the oppressed, labor (in an economy where wages are stagnant) wields too much power over management, etc. SMH.
 
Back
Top