Full Disclosure: I didn't click the link The problem you run into is that in some areas, they literally cannot give homes away. Back in 09, and probably still today, there were places like Detroit where you could literally buy the entire street for what you have in your wallet right now. The cost to bring the houses up to code was more than what the house would be worth once you had done it. You can't just let abandoned dilapidated houses just sit there though. They are fire hazards, eye sores, a squatter's paradise, and generally bring down value of the rest of the community. A lot of times, the cheapest thing for the city is to bulldoze the houses. Some cities were progressive about it and if they were tearing down a lot of houses in a certain area, they would try to replace them with a park where otherwise it would have been impossible to put a park. It was really an interesting phenomenon a couple years back. I read quite a few articles about it.
That would be you. Even the Weather Channel makes light of GW now. Global Warming exists now as it has, on and off, for a gazillion years. What is dead and buried is the notion that Man is the cause of it and that Man can do something about it. Concentrate on Man's efforts to control pollution and to solve solid waste disposal problems and you will win friends and influence people.
When did that happen? It didn't. A weatherman who once worked at the Weather Channel has blasted Al Gore's stance on global warming. The Weather Channel has done no such thing. Your ignorance of climate is profound. If you think you have a case, then start yet another climate change thread and I'll shred your arguments once again. But you're not going to do that are you? You still confuse climate and weather. One quip and you're done.
No I don't. You have shredded no arguments. All you do is spout nonsense from GW truthers such as yourself.
You have to admit that the sampling of data since the industrial revolution is ridiculously small in comparison to the history of the planet. I don't believe that the planet is warmer now than it was in the middle ages but just for argument's sake, let's assume it is. How in the hell can you say it's mankind and not some other factors? We have no idea if we simply haven't had any major volcanic eruptions in the last two hundred years. Maybe it's the sun or some other factor. The climate is a complex issue and the idea that it's just us doing has not been proven. Until it's proven they should stay away from any additional costs for consumers....and that is where I think the global warming topic is dead in the water. No sane person is going to accept additional taxes for a issue that will not impact their life and provides them with no personal benefitand is not guaranteed to work.
only really two points ever need to be made. 1. isnt it true that is not possible to know if the earth would have warmed to this extent, even if there were no humans on it, given that we have no other earth to compare it to? (yes) 2. isnt is also true that throughout history the climate has always fluctuated wildly, including times when there was more c02 in the atmosphere than there is now, even at a time before humans, so isnt it true that we should expect nothe other than climate change, regardless of our actions, and for the climate to remain stable would be unprecedented? (yes) one more point i always mention: there are certain sorts of fables that are so catchy, people cannot resist them. one of them is guilty "we caused the downfall" myths.
