Posted on 03/12/2014 7:52:27 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
--BIG SNIP-- Putin has said that "two or three degrees" of climate change could be good for Russia, in that it would reduce heating costs and increase crop yields.
Of course Russia will face harsh consequences from global warming as well. Wildfires and drought have hit the country hard in recent years -- trends that will likely only worsen as the planet continues to heat up.
So for all you out there blasé about climate change, you may want to take a long hard look at your position -- because it doesn’t take that much effort to see a post-global warming Russia emerging as an unchecked superpower.
America has done pretty well for itself under the current global climate. Doesn’t it make sense to do everything we can to preserve that trove of good fortune?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
You are so correct
I get it. Global warming is so evil it is always bad except when it deliberately helps your enemy because yes it is that devious.
Tell it to the thermonuclear furnace 98,000,000 miles from Earth. Old Sol doesn’t give a crap about climate change.
You’ve got to read this!
Global Warming ping.
Russia may become a super power?
Looks like they are pretty much in control for now Big boy!
Corrected Title:
“How curbing climate change can prevent Russia from becoming a superpower by 2499”
A few yrs ago, there was a liberal clown who (seriously) urged a repeal of the Laws of Thermodynamics.
Explain to me again how ram’s bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.
I believe it.
Told this one recently but I used to work with a lib reporter that argued seriously that 1+1 did not have to =2. He went into Quantum mechanics to ‘prove’ it. This was not a Quantum mechanical discussion.
He did this in a filled newsroom and got real upset being challenged. Long story short, he went on to work for an east cost state pol...dem of course. The above was the most sane thing I think I ever heard him say. And that’s not an exaggeration.
They are literally clinically insane. And ultimately their insanity will start killing people openly and freely.
The Khmer Rouge were greens.
Question begging alert.
In a sane world, Theodore Roosevelt was correct when he stated that"It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds . . .But of course journalism consists of people who never enter the arena themselves, but only criticize and second guess those who do “strive to do the deeds” which are necessary for the public. Since they are critics only, not doers - and since they are free from internal competition because all major journalists are (ahem) associated via the AP - journalists take the opposite view to TR. They take, that is, the utterly cynical view that NOTHING ACTUALLY MATTERS except PR. If it isn’t in the papers or on TV - and they are in denial of the fact that Fox News is actually TV - that is, if they don’t say it, it isn’t real.And of course, THEY SAY that people who are 100% committed to the cult of PR are “liberal” or “progressive” or “moderate” or “centrist” - even though those labels are utter nonsense. “Liberals” aren’t liberal, and don’t promote liberty. “Progressives” don’t believe in progress in any sense that would have been recognized by the authors of the Constitution which explicitly empowers Congress “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” And “moderates” and “centrists” are flat-out radicals. Any one of whom could become an “objective” journalist without changing his/her attitude one iota. Just as George Stephanopolis did.
Oh...ANOTHER lib reporter I worked with often said he had no problem with old people dying off ASAP, including his grandparents because they cost too much and wreck the lives of their children.
He was not kidding either. I have rarely seen anyone so self centered.
“Liberals” aren’t liberal, and don’t promote liberty. “
I’d say you pretty much nailed it.
The only thing Global Warming seems unable to do is warm the planet.
Yup. Have refereed people to it often ;)
It pretty much describes the liberal leadership perfectly, but the Beta useful idiots all have it to one degree or another as well. But like I said, people refuse to believe their online friend, their next door neighbor or their brother/sister/father/mother is ‘really’ like that.
Some are EXACTLY like that. And until we admit the truth of it (as with all things really) we are going to suffer the effects of it eventually. Because if we keep committing category error with them, we are going to pay dearly.
If the environmental NAZIs are right about global warming, and they are not right. The only way to stop their envisioned cataclysm would be a massive depopulation of the earth via starvation and disease. If you look at the core of the environmentalists this is what they want but will not say it.
If you look at the geologic history of the earth, it flourished in times of global warming. In times of great glaciation life was hard and many species died. Global warming is good. Ice Ages are bad.
Geologically speaking the normal climate of earth is an Ice Age with brief inter glacial periods of warming which we now enjoy.
Pray for global warming but if geologic history is correct we are on the brink of a new but very normal cooling that will result in the new and very normal ice age.
PS According to Murphy, if it can go wrong it will go wrong. Murphy's second law says, if it can go wrong it will go wrong in the worst possible order, as it did with the Chernobly disaster. Most people are not aware of Murphy's corollary, which is "MOTHER NATURE IS A NATURAL BORN BITCH."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.