This is the most recent thread touching on climate change, so I thought I'd post this here. I just came across an interesting graphic showing the countries of world and their GDP per land area. I became curious if such a comparison existed after Joe Scarborough compared the GDP's of Texas and Russia. Russia's GDP is more than twice as big, but it has 25 times more land area. Here's the graphic (GDP per land area.). It's kind of fun to play around with:
But what caught my interest was the largely unsettled areas of the extreme north and south, like northern Canada, Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica. It seems likely that sometime after 2050 that currently temperate regions might become arid and that people will begin homesteading north into currently remote places like Ellsmere island, northern Siberia, and Antarctica (international treaties would have to be modified).
Or will the powerful countries make land grabs in order to build large industrial farms in the newly open spaces?
Be interesting to see her opening proposals on this. She's already in favor of abortion right up to birth...
I spent about ten minutes searching the web for specifics about Kamala Harris's position on abortion regarding timeframe and couldn't find anything. Do you really want to trust LifeNews.com ("Your pro-life beliefs are under attack") to report this accurately? Does carrying out an abortion just prior to birth make sense even to you? It seems a very unlikely thing for anyone to advocate.
You might be interested in this YouTube video provided by Senator John Kennedy's website where he questions medical experts about their positions on laws permitting unfettered abortion up to the moment of birth:
Kennedy states that he believes his question is a yes or no type question, while the witnesses invited by Democrats stated that they didn't believe it was a yes or no question. One witness who is a doctor who provides abortions stated that the question doesn't reflect the way abortion works in this country. When Kennedy proposed a hypothetical of a woman requesting an abortion a week before birth she replied that that just doesn't happen and that she had never encountered such a request. A professor said that the issue required discussion rather than yes/no questions, and Kennedy replied that he would like to have that discussion but didn't see how it could take place if she wouldn't answer his questions, showing no awareness of the difference between yes/no answers and a discussion.
TV shows often present courtroom scenes where a lawyer directs a witness to answer yes or no. I hope in real life that a witness is allowed to respond that they don't believe it's a yes or no question. The classic example of the unfair yes/no question is, "Are you still beating your wife." The opportunities for misrepresentation through requiring yes/no answers seem endless.
Wherever LifeNews.com picked up the idea that Kamala Harris supports aborting "right up to birth," I was unable to find it. Most supporters of abortion would talk about balancing the risks to mother and baby and relying upon medical judgment specific to each situation. Yes/no doesn't cover it.
Yep, the oceans are rising ... but only in Tuvalu and sometimes in Alaska ... hilarious!
I don't understand what you think is gained by parading your ignorance. It's almost like your pulling a Colbert Report kind of thing, taking absurdist conservative stances to make conservatism look bad.
Nonsense. Normal coastal erosion occurs and the climate-change bed-wetters claim it's due to rising oceans. Hysterical brainwashed idiots. ​ If the oceans are rising in America, how come there are no reports of rising oceans in Australia?
If you ask me, global-warming hysteria is a smokescreen designed to distract the masses from the real crisis ... below-replacement birth rates ... genocide in slow-motion caused by feminism.
And isn't there a large reef in northeastern Australia experiencing a bit of trouble due to climate change? Something about warming ocean waters making the coral habitat unlivable and wiping out the more shallow portions by about 50%? I doubt you've heard of the Great Barrier Reef since you don't seem to know much about Australia or what's going on there climate-wise.
Yep, no doubt about it ... rising sea-levels are such a concern in Australia that no one ever talks about it and even the climate bed-wetters in the mass media don't bother reporting it. Funny, that.
Tuvalu consists of three reef islands and six true atolls, resulting from volcanic activity. Atolls are crescent-shaped bcoz they are the remnant of a volcanic crater that once stood perhaps hundreds of meters above sea-level. Erosion from ocean waves can eventually reduce volcanic islands to nothing. ​ Furthermore, Tuvalu lies on the most tectonically-active region on earth - the Pacific "Ring of Fire". Vertical movement of tectonic plates can cause an island to sink into the sea.
Until 15 or 20 years ago Tuvalu was growing in area due to accumulating ocean sand deposits and coral remnants, but rising sea levels and changing environmental conditions for coral have brought that to a halt and reversed the trend. Tuvalu is now slowly losing area due to sea level rise and net erosion. Estimates vary but agree that by the end of the century much of Tuvalu will be uninhabitable. See Climate change in Tuvalu - Wikipedia for details.
As a result of the 1931 Napier earthquake in New Zealand, 40 square-kilometres of sea-bed rose up to become dry land. If tectonic activity can raise land out of the sea, it can also lower land into the sea. But bed-wetting climate scientists ignore that possibility - they never see land sinking; they only see seas rising.
Everyone already knows that volcanism and tectonic forces can raise and lower land elevations. You seem to be hoping for fortuitous volcanic and tectonic events to raise land levels world-wide to counter rising sea levels? Does that really seem reasonable to you?
the rest of the world is experiencing an extensive and devastating heat wave.
Er, no. A few places only ... nothing like "the rest of the world". It's kinda disturbing that telling lies seems to come so naturally to you.
A few places? Seriously? Much of the northern hemisphere where it's summer is setting record high temperatures. There are unprecedented wildfires in Canada and parts of Europe like Greece and Italy.
Setting records on the 50,000-year scale.
Oh, so scientists can infallibly and accurately determine what temperatures were 50,000 years ago? Sounds like bs to me.
Parading your ignorance again. You could look it up before posting then post something that reveals knowledge instead of ignorance.
I'm surprised you haven't pulled out the "unprecedented" card yet.
A temperature higher than has ever been recorded is by definition unprecedented. Wildfires on a scale never before experienced is by definition unprecedented.
You seem to have a "head in the sand" mentality: if you can't see it then it's not happening.
This month the world recorded its hottest ever average temperature, not just once but four times in four days.
Oh, here it is ... "hottest ever" = unprecedented". What crap.
When discussing recorded temperatures, that always refers to historical times when measurements were being made. For instance, here's a graphic from Wikipedia showing the increase in world temperatures over the past 50 years, for which we of course have measurements:
This graph shows a global average surface temperatures since 1850 and breaks it down into natural and manmade contributions:
How can these con-men possibly know recent temperatures include the world's "hottest ever average temperature"?
While some climate change discussions involve very long timeframes and attempt to draw on records thousands of years old like sedimentary layers in lakes and oceans, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica, tree rings, etc., most discussions concern only historical time periods for which we have actual measurements. When they say something like "record temperatures" they mean in historical times, not across all time.
The mainstream media cannot contain their excitement in recent reports of "the hottest days in the history of the planet"
The mainstream media is so clueless and gullible. They're like little children ... they'll believe anything.
Just your own words alone are bad enough, but you quoting marc9000 creates some really weird statements. As is your habit, you have misrepresented the person you quoted, in this case marc9000, who was already in the middle of misstating facts. At least he immediately qualified his absurd "hottest days in the history of the planet" with "or at least the last 40 years", which you chose to chop off.
There are no facts coming from you, only post after post of baseless and easily refuted claims. This isn't a discussion, just people cleaning up after your messes.
Be interesting to see her opening proposals on this. She's already in favor of abortion right up to birth
Feminism (the demonic enemy of motherhood) - as anti-life and genocidal as it is - isn't doing enough to reduce populations.
This isn't the topic of this thread, but anyway, like many things that marc9000 says, his Kamala Harris claim in Message 118 is untrue. He was challenged on it twice and didn't respond to either:
Oddly, you responded to his message twice.
It's about time an evil entity like the Democrats introduced euthanising the elderly ... start with anyone over 80 (sorry Mr. Biden) and gradually make the cut-off age lower and lower.
No political party has a monopoly on good or evil, but this aspersion about Democrats has no basis in fact, like most of what you say.
Temperatures at Denver International Airport dropped to minus 24 degrees Thursday morning, marking the coldest December day since 1990 and 1 degree away from setting a record low for the month, according to the National Weather Service in Boulder.
Blame global warming ... it makes things colder ... apparently.
The term "global warming" led some people to make incorrect interpretations, like you're doing now. That's why the shift to the term "climate change."
The Earth's average temperature has been increasing and will be increasing for a long time, but there will continue to be local variations. On average we should expect to see higher highs and higher lows, but that doesn't mean that wide temperature variations are a thing of the past or that very low temperatures are no longer possible.
Why are you raising objections that are on a 6-year-old's level? What's the point? Why not dig into the topic of climate change a bit and learn something so you can have an intelligent discussion instead of throwing out a bunch of two and three sentence error-filled blurbs.
The term "global warming" was replaced by the term "climate change" in a (futile) attempt to explain away cold climate events that seem to contradict the claim that the planet is warming unnaturally. We're expected to believe that abnormally-cold climate events are the result of global warming.
I provided you a correct explanation. Why would you think temperature variations and cold extremes would be absent on a planet only a couple degrees warmer? You don't seem to be thinking rationally. To this point our planet is about 2°F warmer than a couple hundred years ago. That's nowhere near enough to make cold extremes disappear. If there's some logic or rationale behind your thinking then it's not apparent. You're going to have to explain.
Another reason for preferring the term "climate change" is that it's more inclusive of what's happening to our planet. Climate change is more than just an increasing average world temperature. It's also rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers, expanding deserts, shinking tundra, melting permafrost and the resulting release of methane, earlier beginnings of spring and later starts to winter, changes to where crops will grow, changing ecologies that force plant and wildlife migration or even extinction due to loss of habitat, warming oceans that affect fishery locations, and so forth.
™ Version 4.2
