hog88
Your ray of sunshine
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2008
- Messages
- 114,569
- Likes
- 162,771
Here’s a link for you from the same site.lol.......careful not to fall off the edge of the earth.
You don’t even need to ask that he once again jumped to a conclusion. The biography of that blog contributor isn’t even listed with the others. This footnote is all that’s listed.So it does matter who pays them?
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for several think tanks and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black Deathand other books and articles on energy, climate change, economic development and human rights.
I agree with your premise.if you are talking active solutions, I forget the fancy name for it, but "adverse weather reactions".
the world is made up of any number of different climates, there is no one solution fits all. and any active weather control (positive green actions) would have the same issues we have with climate change now. unless you hold it in perfect balance going negative on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would be just as impactful as increased carbon levels.
Ethical implications are present. But, consider hurricanes. People on the gulf would certainly want hurricanes ended. Farmers in the southeast count on hurricane / tropical storm rain as a boost to the water table. Who's right; who wins?Great question, its similar to should we use genetic modification.
Ethical implications are present. But, consider hurricanes. People on the gulf would certainly want hurricanes ended. Farmers in the southeast count on hurricane / tropical storm rain as a boost to the water table. Who's right; who wins?
I think i watched a PBS show (Nature?) about the Colorado river and the dams causing problems for the ecosystem from a lack of flooding.Best course of action is to let mother nature do what mother nature does. To me the biggest effect mankind has had on the environment is rerouting rivers, draining swamp/wetlands and flood prevention.
How should I know? I'm not a climatologist. I just know that the vast majority of the world's best climatologist seem to be in agreement. Deferring to their expertise seems the wisest option. What's the alternative? Ignore them and hope that they're wrong?Uhm. That sounds like an answer but it isnt. How do those who compile the observational data distinguish between a natural phenomena and something else?