https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2004/feb/22/usnews.theobserver Just a little over 15 years ago this is what climate alarmists were pushing. Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.. A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world. Interesting thing about the article how the use the word "could result" and "will result" interchangeably.
Widespead rioting will erupt around the world. Mega-drought. All because we eat meat and drive cars. Uh huh, sure.
For some reason, I am so seriously not worried about the climate issues these art fags cry about...They should count their fucking blessings...
There is some significant evidence that climate change is very real. However, much like extremist climate change denialists (who say "haha look its still cold in Antarctica checkmate climate change activists!"), extremist climate change activists misrepresent the whole truth and choose to ignore the inconvenient stuff for clickbait headlines and (in the case of Al Gore) terrible movies. The problem is the US isn't the worst offender as much as Greta and everyone else want you to think. India is the third largest producer of greenhouse gas (only slightly better than the US) and China is currently the world's leader in greenhouse gas by a large margin. Very little however is being discussed about these other countries - focus has primarily been on the west. This isn't to say the US cleaning up it's act wouldn't have a profound effect on the reduction of greenhouse gas (in that light they are correct), but China and India are conveniently left out of most climate change activist propaganda. Aside from the specific "anti-west" focus of climate change activists, I also take issue with their methods. Switching to nuclear power would have a very large effect on greenhouse gas emissions. Yet, these people want us to stop eating meat because cow farts are just too much for the environment. God forbid we use a 80 year old clean power generation method! I'm all for electric vehicles because frankly they are just far more efficient modes of transport (instant torque, relatively simple and cheap fueling process, low maintenance) provided we can improve battery technology and reduce the overall cost of ownership since they are still niche vehicles (I like my truck and if I could swap in an electric motor for instant torque I'd absolutely love it - it'd be the perfect off road motor). I could write a few more paragraphs targeting climate change denialists. There is no point however. Whereas I believe climate change activists are misguided propagandists, climate change denialists are unfathomably stupid. The Southwestern United States is calling on line 1 wondering where their water has been for 25 years. I don't believe cow farts have to do with it but if you ever wanted an example of climate change induced problems the near perpetual drought in the southwest is a great example.
For 1000s of years, there have been cities that sank into the sea, islands that have sunk and lakes that have vanished. It will keep happening, but it wont be because we burned fossil fuels. It's just a natural part of the environment.
Where does the power come from, Boris? Wasn't the Hoover Dam built for irrigation and water flow to places like Vegas and SoCal? ( Along with the electrical generation). Yeah, that was 90 years ago. I think the Southwestern US has been having water problems for longer than 25 years. The ebb and flow of climate in it's natural state.