Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
To: NormsRevenge
I have fortunately lived long enough to call this for what it is. Baloney.
27 posted on
11/25/2007 8:50:19 PM PST by
Kirkwood
To: NormsRevenge
Oxfam is really making good use of that $25,000 that Chris McBrainless, er, McCandless gave them before heading off to Alaska.
To: Beowulf; Defendingliberty
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ~~
To: NormsRevenge
early 1980s....
So the proper headline should read
“Oxfam Acknowledges That Life Under Reagan and Thatcher Was Paradise!”
I don’t trust leftist activists to make any honest and careful comparisons. Did they review centuries of data or just the past 25 years? Oh, you say that we have no good data for a lot of this stuff before 1980? So this trend, even if it were real (big if) could be a short-term cycle.
Did they compare exact specs of every kind of flood and disaster in every locale, or simply how many “disaster declarations” were issued by governments and/or media?
Did they take account of the added 2 billion in populations and where those people might be living, the greatly increased numbers living on coastlines and in vulnerable areas, etc.? A big flood is just as bad for anyone caught in it, but it would be worthwhile to know whether they are describing any serious climate changes or rather the press of human populations into more vulnerable areas???
I doubt that Oxfam bothered with any serious analysis. Anyone know?
31 posted on
11/25/2007 10:21:45 PM PST by
Enchante
(Democrat terror-fighting motto: "BLEAT - CHEAT - RETREAT - DEFEAT")
To: NormsRevenge
"She added..."
nuf said. estrogen overload alert!
To: NormsRevenge
"Oxfam study largely blames global warming"
Surpised they didn't blame the guns...
33 posted on
11/25/2007 11:55:21 PM PST by
endthematrix
(He was shouting 'Allah!' but I didn't hear that. It just sounded like a lot of crap to me.)
To: NormsRevenge
If the worlds population is an ever increasing number would’nt the number of those affected buy any event also increase? To put it this way if my Wife and I have no children and our house gets flooded only 2 people are affected, then ten years later my wife and I have 3 Children and the same house get flooded then 5 People have now affected. Using just those statistics thats over a 100% increase in those affected but that doesn’t prove the cause is global warming, but just an increase in those affected. It also doesn’t take in to account any other factors such as poor drainage systems, the timing of the storm that caused the flooding (tides are generally higher during full moons, or rental stores where one could buy or rent a pump could be closed at the time of the storm), it doesn't even account for too many people living in area thats too small for them.
To: NormsRevenge
BTW if global warming is true then there is need to worry about the cost of heating fuel there won’t be any need for it.
To: NormsRevenge
Reminds me of crime statistics, which are really reported crime.
36 posted on
11/26/2007 12:51:24 AM PST by
LZ_Bayonet
(There's Always Something.............And there's always something worse!)
To: NormsRevenge
More than four times the number of natural disasters are occurring now than did two decades ago, British charity Oxfam said in a study Sunday that largely blamed global warming.
Busy creating another teat to milk.
37 posted on
11/26/2007 1:50:51 AM PST by
aruanan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-30 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson