| Normchacho said: 1. Oh, you actually don't give a shit about what happens after you die..alright...Anyways! Stronger and more aren't the same thing. "In 2005, he showed that Atlantic hurricanes are about 60 percent more powerful than they were in the 1970s. Storms lasted longer and their top wind speeds had increased by 25 percent. " Storms are stronger than they used to be. Oh, and for the bold part: Duh. All water is conserved. All matter is conserved. But where it's distributed is key. If you live in a place that stops getting water, it doesn't matter if somewhere else is getting more rain. 2. Care to share a source saying that making changes to have a smaller effect on the enviornment would hurt the economy? Oh, and Americans at least, have just started holding on to their cars for a long time. It wasn't long ago that the average person replaced their car every 4 years anyways. Did you even read your source for the heating thing? First off, it talks about cooling your house, not heating it. Secondly, cooling systems only require electricity. So, just find a cleaner way to create electricity (hint: Solar power http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulrodgers/2014/09/30/the-rise-of-solar/#e9fb89f1b9ab). 3. Yes, it is. In the car world, 5 years is pretty much as short as a itteration is ever going to be. The current Ford Focus EV has an MSRP that is lower than the average price of a new car in the U.S. even before incentives.
Oh, and check your sources for gods sake. 1. James Taylor is a lawyer who works at a liberitarian think tank, not a scientist. He studied atmostpheric science while in college, but holds no degree and has to experience in any climate related field. He's no more qualified to speak on the subject in a professional sense than I am. 2. The Daily Caller article is written by a right wing website about a paper that a right wing think tank published that was authoured by an accountant who's closest relationship to climate science is a chemisty degree. Mind you, neither of these sources would be issues if they were mearly reporting news. But they aren't. They are writting pieces that make arguments about a scientific field that they have no expertise in. |
1. Just because there are stronger storms doesn't necessarily mean it will do more damage than having more storms. Where water is distributed is indeed the key but because there is more rain going elsewhere means that there's LESS droughts in that area which would mean that the number of droughts remain approximately the same, not more like you said ...
2. I don't need a source to have a common sense that plumping down over $20000 or more is expensive for just about anyone and people replace their cars every decade now. By the time I get into the work force, I'll have a gas powered car because electric cars still won't be good enough for me ...
Cooling or heating it doesn't matter as long as there is some form of temperature control going on. Cool, so I have to wait for a decade for solar energy to become viable ... 
3. Your getting a horrible deal with the Ford Focus EV since it has a rated 76 mile range which is just awful for long distance travel since there's hardly any electric charging stations, congratulations for discouraging me in getting an electric car in the forseeable future ... 
I don't care if their scientists or not, what I care about are their cited sources ...
