Signs of global warming

Here in California, we just had a heatwave which was unprecedented, setting all time records in many cities. This is in the same year where there were all time records set for rainfall which followed several years of record low rainfall.

Harvey looks like it is the worst hurricane to have ever hit the US and Irma is currently the biggest hurricane ever seen in the Atlantic basin. It is bigger than Florida itself.

Human nature is to act late but in many fields, acting late is acting too late.

Human progress has been based on rational thinking including doing what matters when it matters, not when you feel like it. Doing what is right, even if you'd rather do something wrong.

Which way are we going to go on this as the consequences being? We being America, the only country that is suspending rational thinking in this matter. Will we begin to act when Mar A Lago gets wiped out or will we just be happy when the government pays to rebuild it?

I just hope that CellNUVO would get their shit together. Now I can't contact people to warn them about global warming in America.

I think most in America already know about global warming. My school teacher told me that was how the Great lakes were formed and I don't think that warming period had anything to do with mankind. I don't think mankind has anything to do with the climate change we may be going through now.

When we have a cold snap, it's "weather".

When we have a heat wave, it's "climate change".

In the 1970s my science teachers taught us about global cooling and the coming ice age. The government considered dumping carbon black on the poles to help the Earth retain heat.

Now temperatures are going up, but only after we doctor the data and put our thumbs on the scale by lowering temperature measurements from a century ago.

We experience a historically low number of hurricanes for 12 years and it's not noteworthy, but as soon as a bad one shows up it's a sure sign of global warming.

We create temperature models to predict future warming and then they turn out to be completely wrong.

We need reliable, unadulterated data and unbiased scientists to interpret it.

Just because liberals say that it's "settled science" doesn't mean that it is.

If the Earth is warming we don't know how much, if any, is caused by man.

And if some percentage is caused by man we don't know if anything we do will be able to change it.

And if we can change it we don't know if the cost will be worth it. It might be more economical to live with the symptoms rather than try to address the root cause.

In the meantime, famous people will fly, in their private jets, from summit to summit and conference to conference and give speeches about what the rest of us need to sacrifice in order to support the climate change agenda.

Al Gore and his ilk will continue to leave carbon footprints as big as entire towns while they tell us how selfish we are for driving pickup trucks instead of Priuses.

Until we take the politics out of climate discussions I will continue to give it the cold shoulder.

I agree wholeheartedly but would add money and power to the politics.

You watch ads to gain points to make calls but

Those ads make you buy products. Those products have packaging. That packaging contributes to global warming.

Enjoy your free phone calls to warn people about global warming

:slight_smile:

As always, the explanation is the numbers and in this case it is a easy as 1, 2, 3. Use 3 to cube the first 2 numbers and you can see the sequence is 128 [1 cubed being one, and two cubed being 8]

Why does this matter?

It is obvious because 128 is simply 821 transposed.

That of course is the date of the solar eclipse this year--it happened on August 21.

Shortly afterwards we have the California heatwave and the two hurricanes--post hoc, ergo propter hoc. QED.

The rumors the California heatwave was caused by hot air from the Three Witches (Diane, Nancy, and Kamala), while plausible, are not true.

Chelle is not infallible (sorry Chelle, but iOS is the way to go) but she clearly has won the debate here.

OP double faulted in the initial post and then lost the match by dragging out the most discredited group (other than politicians) in America. By the way LLoyd and Brian, how did the TARP work out for you guys? Richard, your Virgin Mobile customer service is worse than Xfinity's

If one wants to use CEOs in SJW areas then one is on very shaky grounds. The CEOs in the Baptists and Bootleggers paradigm are the latter not the former.

Of course, there are exceptions. For instance one could certainly place a lot of trust in claims made by CEOs of companies engaged in socially responsible areas such as providing free cell phone service to their customers.

Am I the only one to have noticed that, with a little rearranging OP's forum name becomes SJW1?

Interesting!

I don't know if to take your post seriously! I wonder if you wrote it like that hoping to get a certain "Thank You"!

The time you wrote it suggests you were either up late drinking, or very tired. Either we saw ironic humor or what you really feel!

In any case, CEOs of big companies are paid the big bucks to make the right decisions. On balance, they make the right calls more often than 99.99% of the population.

Here is my sincere view on CEOs.

They are paid rather well to represent the interest of shareholders.

Their actions and words may or may not be in line with their personal beliefs--they are not employed because of their personal beliefs.

I do not think one should view comments by CEOs on issues other than their area of direct responsibility as having any more value than that of any other person. It is also my view that the CEOs use their status to project views they believe will benefit the company. That is something their Board of Directors expects them to do.

Companies are not in business to promote social policy--they are in business to make money for their shareholders. In so doing, CEOs may consider it appropriate to align the company's public image with what polls show would be viewed favorably by actual and prospective customers. That is just business. There is no moral issue here.

In their private capacity CEOs may actively support causes and views that are quite at odds with their expressed views when speaking on behalf of the company. That is entirely normal.

Secretary Clinton made this exact point when asked about her speeches to Goldman Sachs. She explained, under pressure obviously, that there she was expressing her private views which might not fully reflect public positions she maintained. What she did not say was whether those private views were views she sincerely believed or whether they were views she would express at a particular private event for which she was being highly compensated.

I use Secretary Clinton as an example only.

It is quite reasonable for any person to have 1) personal beliefs that they keep to themselves, 2) beliefs that they are prepared to share in private settings and 3) views and values they would express in public.

There is no contradiction here--people operate in different capacities in different aspects of their lives and different standards of acceptable and appropriate behavior apply in different areas.

When half the country doesn't believe in climate change, it would be dangerous for companies to not sit on the fence. Coming down on either side risks alienating customers.

CEOs of major companies have taken the position they have because the dangers of climate change are a reality and have to be factored in strategically and operationally. The CIA and our armed forces have to do this as well.

It's interesting that the CEOs of major financial institutions are represented in the list of signatories. They have far less need than hip brands that appeal to millennials to be interested in this issue.

You do realize that Exxon was publicly denying climate change while internally their scientists and executives believed it to be real? This was over the last four decades!