Climate Expert: WARNING OF GREAT FLOODS & DROUGHT FOR TEXAS

Can you really have floods and drought at the same time?

I can tell you first hand Texas had a severe drought for about 4 years, followed by severe flooding this year.




-------------------------------------------------
Let the truth be told.....though the heavens fall!
-------------------------------------------------

Introducing FUTUREGEN..............taaadaaa!

Let's see.....if we get a drought (no rain) then this quack thinks the moisture will be sucked out of the ground (drought means no moisture in ground or air, since it would not have rained). Then this quack thinks that that moisture will cause it to rain more. Now, that means the drought would be over...like this year. Sure was great that not once did we hit 100 degrees this whole year! Not once! Great for us.

Now, before you beleive this global warming crap, think about this. I have lived in Texas all my life. Nothing different for us here but "global cooling". Not once did it hit 100 degrees here in Southwest Texas. This quack making his predictions knows nothing.

My exact question...
this 'experts' need a thesaurus

Those fees are critical.

You APPEAR to be the quack here. Hanson is a renouned scientist and expert in his field. Where dos that leave you?

Sure was nice wasnt it.

And we have an early fall for my area(Dallas)
I had frost on the ground this morning,usually doesnt come until late nov.

You critics are hilarious, the earth is going through great changes which jeapardize YOUR very existence, and your talking about taxes.

[link to www.deanesmay.com]

2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and other environmental scientists (so far) have signed a petition saying that global warming hysteria is pseudoscientific baloney. They've been joined by an additional 5,017 chemists, biochemists, biologists, and other life scientists, and over 10,000 other scientists, attached to major universities and research organizations around the world. Yet if you went by what "environmental" activist groups like Greenpeace, Sierra Club, or the so-called "Environmental News Network" tell you, you'd think this petition, and others like it, never existed.

The Oregon Petition reads, in its entirety, as follows...

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.



The petition was put together by Dr. Frederick Seitz, the former President of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Thousands of qualified scientists have signed it, and more are signing all the time. If you're a qualified scientist or meteorologist who'd like to sign the petition yourself, or want to see a list of all the signers, click here to go to the web site run by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which is sponsoring the initiative.

The Oregon Petition is not the only such petition signed by scientists, either. Over 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, have signed the Heidelberg Appeal. This petition, issued in response to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro back in 1992, warns against "the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development." They further warn "the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data."

The Leipzig Declaration is similar. It was signed by scientists who work in climate research, who strongly object to the lack of science underlying the IPCC--a group whose work is usually cited as definitive by Environmental News Network, World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others pushing warnings about global warming. The Leipzig Declaration reads, in part: "...based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature."

A similar statement was released around the same time by dozens of climate scientists employed by government, university, and private research organizations. It attacked Kyoto and similar plans to curb so-called "greenhouse gasses," saying, in part, that "Such policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree."

All of these petitions and more can be found at the Science and Environment Policy Project's web site.

Although you'd think much of this would be explosive news, it's gotten scant attention from most of the news media, and very little from so-called environmentalist groups. Even worse, when they do get discussed, they are often dismissed as "right wing extremists" or "in the pocket of big business." Yet anyone who reads the list of signers of these petitions can see that these are scientists from major universities around the world, not political ideologues.

Why is it that when so-called environmentalists encounter someone who disagrees with them, they feel the need to bash people and accuse them of political bias? Why can't you simply disagree with World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or ENN without being a rabid extremist?

If there is to be real discussion of the issue of global warming, it would seem to me to first require looking at what all the available science has to say, and what actual working scientists say about it. Too bad so many "environmentalist" groups seem to refuse to do exactly that.

Natural decline 'hurting lives'

Continuing destruction of the natural world is affecting the health, wealth and well-being of people around the globe, according to a major UN report. The Global Environment Outlook says most trends are going the wrong way. It lists degradation of farmland, loss of forest cover, pollution, dwindling fresh water supplies and overfishing among society's environmental ills. There is a "remarkable lack of urgency" to reverse these trends. "There continue to be persistent and intractable problems unresolved and unaddressed. This assault on the global environment risks undermining the many advances human society has made. Past issues remain and new ones are emerging, from the rapid rise of oxygen 'dead zones' in the oceans to the resurgence of new and old diseases linked in part with environmental degradation." The well-being of millions of people in the developing world is put at risk by failure to remedy problems which have been tackled in richer societies. "This assault on the global environment risks undermining the many advances human society has made in recent decades. It is undercutting our fight against poverty. It could even come to jeopardise international peace and security." </div>

[link to news.bbc.co.uk]

Further, the temperature is exceptionally cool for this time of year...at least in East Texas. Must make that distinction 'cause ya know TX is a big place with different climates. ;)

.

UN warning. with all the warnings now, you would think the heathens would get the message that the time to prepare is now. But, being who they are, they will sink with the ship.