Climate change already costing US taxpayers billions in losses, GAO report says

no arguments from me. i keep watching damnyankees buying the same beachfront property in a hurricane zone time after time. when i lived in CA i used to watch damnfools from SoCal buy the same riverfront property (in a flood zone) time after time. reality, as well as karma, is a bitch.

That is part of the narrative. Nothing like an Ice Age to cool things down for a couple million years. I can only speak for the climate where I grew up and now live. Not much of a Winter anymore. We used to wear sweaters in Fall and a heavy coat after that. That was until Spring, but now we often have short sleeve weather for Christmas. I don't know if it's a cycle or man-made, just that it exists. Much more drought too. Trees dying everywhere. More tornadoes. Again, no way to know if it's man-made or just part of a longer cycle of nature that repeats itself over time i.e. interglacials. Regardless, if they are close to being correct we won't have to worry about it for around 50,000 years. Just sea level, more hurricanes, crop loss from drought etc.

"The earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for around 11,700 years, and an article in Nature in 2004 argues that it might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming."

i've lived all over the country... seen it warm-up & dry off... been through tornadoes, hurricanes (& typhoons), droughts, blizzards earthquakes fires & floods. what i DO remember was in the '70's they were wringing their hands about the coming Ice Age... didn't happen. AlGore said the coasts would be flooded by now due to Global Warming... nope.

this ain't about science, it's about control.

Sgt Wayne Wood - Maybe if we could look at the stock portfolios of climate change proponents it would shed some light. Green energy investments by those on the soapbox would raise eyebrows with me. It would make me consider them capitalizing on the data for personal gain. Conversely, the fossil fuel folks funnel tons of cash into government to maintain the status quo. Since I don't live on the coast I'm not sweating it. Not much I can do about the New Madrid fault though, except move, and if I do move again it will be OCONUS.

Look at Al Gore

MSgt Steve Sweeney - science isn't done by consensus. item one. the article is from 2005. got anything recent? item two, the article uses as it's reference the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). the IPCC is a POLITICAL organization NOT a scientific body. Finally, the IPCC publishes it's findings BEFORE the scientific papers are published, and then dictate to the scientists WHAT papers they will accept. any papers that contain data contrary to the political aims of the IPCC is discarded.

none of the "findings" of the IPCC panel has withstood the scrutiny of empirical observation. The "studies" used to establish the panel itself hve long since been discredited.

80% of the data used in the Climate Change "studies" comes exclusively from North America or Western Europe... hardly a representative sample when attempting to make global assertions.

75% of the Earth's surface has no climate or weather monitoring at all. for the computer models generating the "predictions" parametric data is substituted. Parametric data is "made up" in any number of ways. some are frowned upon and not used in serious research.

Computer models are complex systems that are exemplars of the old saying Garbage in, Garbage out. the way you test a computer models is to take a data set and feed it into the computer model. if the model is correct, then a known data set will be returned. the computer models being used have yet to prove correct in any way , shape, or form.

problems with the models. 1) they don't take into account Solar activity, cycles, or super-cycles. 2) they don't take into account atmospheric moisture or precipitation.

run along and bullshit someone else.

Oh I get it.... Someone told you climate change was a hoax, and since you really wanted to believe that your cognitive bias kicked in and you will refute the claim regardless of the type, amount, or pedigree of evidence put in front of you. I would be very interested to see what evidence you would provide in support of your claims - 80% of the data... 75% of the Earth's surface... Was it peer reviewed? By whom? Sean Hannity? Did it use non-parametric data, and why?
Believe what you like. Evidence is of no consequence.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - do you even listen to yourself?

Sgt Wayne Wood - Do you?