Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:14:50 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

However, it will take *huge* success in voter nullification efforts to
prevent Hillary from becoming President.

John Savard

"Voter nullification"? You don't REALLY believe that potential voters are
being prevented from registering, do you? That's conspiracy theory fodder.

Gary

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 5:44:31 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
G.B.Applebaum wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 11:23:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 8:58:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 01:58:50 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

In roland's case it is simply using a pseudonym.

Exactly. A pseudonym, not a sock puppet. There's no intent to deceive.

We have here a situation where "roland" posted messages to a thread
using TWO different names, first "Slurpie" and then "Fred" :

"On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:46:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:31:14 PM UTC-4, FredKartoffel wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 10:42:53 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:33:46 AM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 7:31:03 AM UTC-5, wsne... wrote:
On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 3:05:42 PM UTC-4, SlurpieMcDoublegulp wrote:

slurp's post deleted

From now on, just provide a link rather than waste bandwidth and
emit excessive CO2 with yet another of your insipid copy-and-paste "McArticles."

Yes massa. (bows)

If you think AGW is a serious problem and yet still post your ****,
then you are being a big hypocrite. But we all knew that anyway.
You need to do your part. Following my instructions is a great first step.

You would make a great dictator, yessa massa. (bows)

potato-head, you're probably yet another hypocritical warmingista. Or
maybe just a sockpuppet?"

"Yasah Massa (bows deeply to superior dictator)"


That qualifies as sockpuppetry.

Get lost, TROLL!


Shouldn't that be Apfelbaum!

Thank you for pointing out the error, but I've adopted the English spelling. It has a certain cache. Might do French next.

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 10:14:50 PM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 4:24:34 PM UTC-6, G.B.Applebaum wrote:
He said put your money on Rubio - word to the wise.

If Trump is the GOP nominee, how is Rubio supposed to be elected President? As an
independent?

However, "hasn't happened before" doesn't mean "can never happen".

However, it will take *huge* success in voter nullification efforts to prevent Hillary from becoming President.

John Savard

Those of us who oppose Clinton are hoping for Kasich-Rubio ticket. It would be unbeatable because of few negatives. Those of us who oppose Trump would like to have Clinton-Warren ticket, but there are many negatives, and personally I don't see Warren in an executive role, even as VP. If Trump doesn't get nominated, there will be fireworks for sure. The two conventions this summer will make for some interesting viewing. I have my popcorn ready, and a case of Moon Man lager.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 11:20:22 AM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 9:14:50 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

However, it will take *huge* success in voter nullification efforts to
prevent Hillary from becoming President.

John Savard

"Voter nullification"? You don't REALLY believe that potential voters are
being prevented from registering, do you? That's conspiracy theory fodder.

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 8:23:20 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 17:12:34 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 7:24:33 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:23:54 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

That qualifies as sockpuppetry.

Well, if you're admitting that you're deceived by these names,

Those names aren't deceiving me at all; a quick search shows what roland is doing.

then
yes, I guess it is.

Then you admit that it IS sockpuppetry.

Sockpuppetry for the retarded. A new game.

"roland" is posting using multiple names... sockpuppetry.

On Saturday, June 18, 2016 at 12:46:43 PM UTC-4, "roland" wrote:

People can register but that doesn't guarantee they can vote.

Two words: Early Voting. Two more words: Absentee Ballots.


My part of town is heavily Republican and on voting day it takes me 5 minutes tops to get my ballot and vote.

Same here. I get in line before the polls open.

In the inner city in the Democratic part of town the lines will be 5 hours long.

That's because they vote early, vote often.

Most poor cannot afford to take that much time on a workday.

Early voting.

This country has not deemed it important enough to make voting day a national holiday,

It isn't important enough.

so there will always be this kind of disparity. It may be by design, it may be by accident, or it may be by historical perpetuation, I really don't know.

Voting should be definitely lean towards being "difficult" to do. Registration should be "difficult" too.

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:17:44 AM UTC-6, PortmanBlues wrote:

Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large
swaths of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable by the middle
of this century, a new study predicts.

Or not:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...-double-dynamo

"Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per
cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that
began in 1645."

We might have to roll up all that mylar with which we were planning to
reduce GW :-)

Coupling this with the misunderstanding of cloud formation:

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

this demonstrates is that "climate science" leaves out very important
contributions and is not at all certain. It would appear that it is
presently useless in predicting future temperatures.

Gary

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:17:44 AM UTC-6, PortmanBlues wrote:

Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large
swaths of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable by the middle
of this century, a new study predicts.

Or not:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...-double-dynamo

"Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per
cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that
began in 1645."

You seem more inclined to believe a model that is much more poorly
tested than current climate models, which are proving extremely
robust. Not to mention the fact that there's no causal relationship
established between reduced solar activity and cooler climate. The
"mini ice age" you're talking about has certainly not been connected
with reduced solar activity. Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to
make that assertion as evidence mounts that this period only showed
cooler temperatures in the northern hemisphere.

A couple of centuries of cooling would buy us some time, but only if
we used it. As long as greenhouse gases continue to increase, we're
going to be in trouble.

Coupling this with the misunderstanding of cloud formation:

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

this demonstrates is that "climate science" leaves out very important
contributions and is not at all certain. It would appear that it is
presently useless in predicting future temperatures.

Modeling the impact of clouds is difficult. It's important to
understand that we don't need clouds to know that we're heating things
up. Good cloud modeling simply makes our future predictions more
accurate- the difference between a temperature rise that causes
serious problems and one that ends civilization.

That said, our cloud models continue to improve.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 4:45:39 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2016 10:09:00 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:17:44 AM UTC-6, PortmanBlues wrote:

Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large
swaths of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable by the middle
of this century, a new study predicts.

Or not:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...-double-dynamo

"Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per
cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that
began in 1645."

You seem more inclined to believe a model that is much more poorly
tested than current climate models, which are proving extremely
robust.

How can they be "robust" when they aren't "tested" at all? And how can they
be "robust" if they leave out critical effects?

And then there's this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...gwskeptic.html

Not to mention the fact that there's no causal relationship
established between reduced solar activity and cooler climate.

That is pure baloney. Your claim implies that we'll stay warm and toasty
if the sun stops shining :-))

And then there's this:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...co2suf.html#c1

"The temperature variations of the 20th century do not in fact track the
CO2 concentration well at all."

"But overall for the 20th century, it appears that solar activity
correlates more closely with temperature change."

The "mini ice age" you're talking about has certainly not been connected
with reduced solar activity.

And yet climatologists claim that GW produces large variations in
temperatures, some places higher, others lower. But when a large
part of the earth gets cold, suddenly variations don't count :-)

Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to make that assertion as evidence
mounts that this period only showed cooler temperatures in the northern
hemisphere.

A couple of centuries of cooling would buy us some time, but only if
we used it. As long as greenhouse gases continue to increase, we're
going to be in trouble.

Sure, if they reach the point where respiration can't exchange CO2 for O2
from the environment :-)

Okay, that was a joke. I'm not against moderating polluting gases, but
I am against coercion and scare tactics.

Coupling this with the misunderstanding of cloud formation:

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

this demonstrates is that "climate science" leaves out very important
contributions and is not at all certain. It would appear that it is
presently useless in predicting future temperatures.

Modeling the impact of clouds is difficult. It's important to
understand that we don't need clouds to know that we're heating things
up. Good cloud modeling simply makes our future predictions more
accurate- the difference between a temperature rise that causes
serious problems and one that ends civilization.

Or we may be even going into an ice age because we don't understand cloud
formation.

That said, our cloud models continue to improve.

And the solar "constant" theories should be understood, too. This implies
that it's not well enough known to make predictions that are in any way
accurate:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...-double-dynamo

Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Thursday, May 5, 2016 at 2:17:44 AM UTC-6, PortmanBlues wrote:

Scorching temperatures brought on by climate change could leave large
swaths of the Middle East and North Africa uninhabitable by the middle
of this century, a new study predicts.

Or not:

http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...-double-dynamo

"Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per
cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that
began in 1645."

We might have to roll up all that mylar with which we were planning to
reduce GW :-)

Coupling this with the misunderstanding of cloud formation:

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud

this demonstrates is that "climate science" leaves out very important
contributions and is not at all certain. It would appear that it is
presently useless in predicting future temperatures.

Gary


It seems reasonably likely that the reforestation of Amazonia after the
death of 90% of the population caused the CO2 falls which preceded the
little ice age.


http://m.phys.org/news/2011-10-team-...e-age-due.html