Sadly much of the new development is driven by programs that encourage business and gov't offices to be built using green standards, so it becomes more economic advantages to build new rather than restoring.
I think if we take all this snow to the sun and shovel it on it would cool it down and whatever melts on the way we can store it in tanks and take it back to Africa for their crops to put an end to their hunger. Nobel Peace Prize caliber idea there folks. Who's with me?
I'm not against people moving into the area, I'm against building in fields and cutting down a forest to build a building or subdivision when there's thousands upon thousands of vacant buildings and houses already available in the general area.
My oldest son just scored a summer internship at Glacier National Park studying Ptarmigan. It is a long running study that is using Ptarmigan and their nesting sites as a barometer of climate change. Apparently that species is extremely sensitive to climate change. I will be interested to learn more on the subject from him. What an awesome way for a kid to spend a summer. I will let you know this fall what the birds told him.
Damn. That sounds awesome fletch. Maybe this fall we will learn if Ptarmigan are liberal or conservative.
The scientific fact that burning fossil fuels has done damage to the ozone layer is irrefutable. Do you want the Chinese and the people's of India and Southeast Asia to burn coal and oil like we've done for the last 100yrs?
Bush would go to war with them. W does not screw around and wait for facts. So before the birds can tell us about climate change, they're dead Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't know if I believe that as a "fact" or that it is irrefutable. Just because you post it in a forum does not make it a fact any more than me posting the opposite statement as a fact. 99% of scientists did not agree on man made global warming or more accurately as was espoused 97%. The organization that compiled and published this statistic again manipulated the data to present the desired outcome. The organization reviewed scientific journals and published papers and did word associations and if any of the papers had the key words such as "man made" "global warming" "climate change", etc. then they assumed positively that the scientists had agreed that global warming was man made when in actuality they may have actually been neutral, needed more study to make a determination or disagreed with the premise. The fact is that much less than 97% of "scientists" agree and this is not as, many would have us believe, "settled science".
So what your saying in essence is that because scientists can't agree 100% of the time on global warming and climate change, human beings have had no deleterious effect on the earth whatsoever?
Science called and pointed out how wrong you are, burning fossil fuels has no effect on the ozone layer at all. you missed the crisis by 10 years it was aresol used as a propellant in spray cans that was destroying the ozone layer and we all supposed to be sunburned and dead by now.
"The same radiative forcing that produces global warming is expected to cool the atmosphere. This cooling, in turn, is expected to produce a relative increase in ozone(O3) depletion in polar areas and the frequency of ozone holes." The burning of fossil fuels and the depletion of the ozone layer are linked. What the hell! Eat meat! Drive a big truck! Smoke tobacco! Drink whiskey! Live in oblivious disregard for the planet and the people on it!
Global warming is going to cause global cooling, I can prevent this by being a bike riding vegetarian that quit chewing skoal and drinking whiskey.
Don't believe that I said that at all, just pointed out that you made a blanket statement that probably is a misrepresentation of fact. My opinion, notice that I said "my opinion" from the research that I have done on this subject is that man is not impacting climate change in any material fashion at the present time and that all the gloom and doom predictions that have been made and the catastrophe scenarios and changing narratives have been proven false not once or twice but every single time. My opinion is this line of "scientific" proof is completely unsubstantiated and has been promulgated for the financial gain of the green energy contingent. Think about GE for instance, a massive proponent for emissions controls and a massive Obama supporter. GE sells almost all the equipment to outfit a power plant, boilers, control systems, etc. etc. Once a power plant is built it will usually stay in service with only repairs and retrofits for 30 - 50 years. GE has the ultimate business model though, they help get legislation through that gets plants decommissioned in the US and new plants constructed or at the least expensive retrofits prior to the anticipated service dates for the plants and in addition sells their old technology to developing nations like India and China. They will work to have emissions standards changed in those countries also which will then generate additional sales to retrofit or build newer plants. You have to take your hat off to them as far as their business development but the cost to our society is outrageous and a fraud that is being perpetrated on a scale unlike anything we have ever seen and we as the populace are not even aware that it is occurring. The old adage applies here "Follow the money"
