just because liberals are hypocritical dumbasses doesn't mean human activity doesn't change the environment. If you don't care how you are changing the environment, that's one thing. If you deny that everything you do everyday changes the environment, then that is sadly ignorant.
Warmist Professors: Global Warming Created ISIS – ‘Formed because of a severe drought in Syria from 2006-2010′
Of course you are too fucking stupid to grasp what they are saying and can't use even simple cause and effect logic but instead jump to whatever conclusion was drawn for you from your right wing site for ignorant assholes. from the authors.......and BTW they don't say it is the CAUSE of ISIS only that it is a factor. Idiot. "many in the West remain unaware that climate played a significant role in the rise of Syria's extremists. A historic drought afflicted the country from 2006 through 2010, setting off a dire humanitarian crisis for millions of Syrians. Yet the four-year drought evoked little response from Bashar al-Assad's government. Rage at the regime's callousness boiled over in 2011, helping to fuel the popular uprising. In the ensuing chaos, ISIS stole onto the scene, proclaimed a caliphate in late June and accelerated its rampage of atrocities including the recent beheadings of three Western civilians.
Australian taxpayers bilked. Money used to fund theater arts play about ‘Kill Climate Deniers’ http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=3291
WASHINGTON –- Save the planet, save lives? A study released Tuesday says reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in order to curb global warming also would improve health for Americans. That's because reducing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide would lead to declines in other pollutants -- saving up to 3,500 American lives per year, or an average of nine lives per day. The emissions cuts also would prevent up to 1,000 hospitalizations, according to the study. The study, by researchers at Harvard, Syracuse and Boston universities, finds that the "co-benefits" of cutting carbon include reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter, and mercury, which have been linked to respiratory illness, heart attacks and early deaths. "Addressing carbon pollution can address the other pollutants," Jonathan Buonocore, a professor at Harvard's School of Public Health and co-author of the study, said in a call with reporters Tuesday. The study looked at three scenarios for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. One would only require changes at power plants. The second would set a state-based standard and allow reductions to come from throughout the electricity sector. The third would require power plants to make changes up to a certain cost. The researchers said the second scenario yielded the most co-benefits, reducing greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent from 2005 levels, while cutting sulfur dioxide and mercury emissions 27 percent, and nitrogen oxide emissions 22 percent. That scenario also was the most similar to the draft standard for reducing power plant emission that the Environmental Protection Agency released in June, which calls for a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The EPA's own estimatesof the benefits of its draft rules projected that they would prevent 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths. The researchers stressed that the policy mechanisms used to reach the reductions were important. "It varies a great deal how you go about doing that," said Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard's School of Public Health. "It's not something that's automatic. Certain policy options will produce a lot more co-benefits for the same tons of CO2." The study found health benefits across the lower 48 states. Benefits were highest in places where more people are currently exposed to pollutants, and in the places with the worst air quality. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee and Indiana would see the most avoided deaths, the researchers concluded. Kate Sheppard
Best break out the winter coats and start stocking up on massive piles of wood to burn I guess. Winter is right around the corner ya know
Will this climate change have a catastrophic impact on the west coast? I certainly hope so because the herd is in a definite need of thinning. Can't happen soon enough.
California just entered its fourth year of drought: Why things could soon get much worse The 2014 water year was California's driest since 1977 LINDSAY ABRAMS Like the Jewish calendar year, California’s water year has come to an end this month. Wednesday, the state entered its fourth consecutive year of drought. It wasn’t a particularly happy new year. With less than 60 percent of the average precipitation, 2014 was officially the driest year on record since 1977; before that, only 1924 and 1931 were drier. The alarming situation, in the latest update from the U.S. Drought Monitor, looks like this: One hundred percent of the state remains in drought conditions, and the bad news keeps coming. The fall harvest, from grapes and almonds and beyond, was smaller than usual, with revenue losses and high water costs combined costing the agriculture industry some $2.2 billion. Pumpkins are ripening too early. The dairy, golf, beer, rice, ski and shadow marijuana industries are all at risk. Endangered salmon are in trouble. The state’s run through its budget for fighting wildfires. A growing number of communities face the prospect of having no water left in just two months’ time. Lake Oroville, California’s second-largest reservoir, is only 30 feet away from its record-low level: Scientists, meanwhile, are beginning to report that they’ve identified hints of climate change in the drought. The science remains unclear (per Climate Central’s John Upton, “murky as muddy water in a nearly parched lakebed”) but of three studies attempting to detect the influence of climate change on the drought, one, a Stanford study funded by the National Science Foundation, found a direct link between the two. Despite the increasingly worrisome signs, most Californians are only experiencing modest effects of the drought, the L.A. Times reports. It adds, “another rainless winter would probably change that.” That cry’s being echoed in most coverage of the drought. And unfortunately, it may be just what we’re looking at. Uncertainty reigns, but it’s not looking nearly as likely as it once was that an El Niño will come along, and if so, experts doubt whether it will be strong enough to replenish the state’s dwindling water supply. State climatologist Mike Anderson told KQED that somewhere in the range of 150 percent of normal precipitation would be needed to end the drought. If things don’t turn around this winter, the strategies used to stave off the worst for now could end up make things tougher in the coming year. “One of the reasons that agriculture hasn’t done worse this year is because of the tremendous amount of groundwater withdrawal that took place,” Mark Cowin, director of the California Department of Water Resources, told the Times. “That’s essentially borrowing on tomorrow’s future. We’ll pay that price over time.”