wrong
we were told that climate change would bring more extreme weather, more extreme storms, etc..
back to my question - Here's my question - what is the downside to doing things to attempt to slow down the rising temperatures we've been seeing each year by doing such things are improving green energy sources and reducing the burning of fossil fuels. What's the worst case. We end of with cleaner, sustainable energy?
Yes, but therein lies the inconsistency: Warmer weather ISN'T a necessary ingredient in extreme weather. How the powers-that-be connected those two points and actually went out of their way to present it as if it were an AHA! moment in the history of climatology is beyond me.
I hate to say it but... climate warming TO ME seems to be nothing but a huge campaign on the part of some millionaires and their crony media outlets to shape the public opinion to move toward alternative energies. Presumably because they are waist-deep in alternative energy stocks.
Like I said before, I am an avid weather fanatic, have my own weather station, and can attest to how the media attempts sensationalize cold fronts and other forms of extreme weather (they are making a mountain out of the latest cold weather mole hole, yet, just last week, we were in the teens and they chose to remain mute about it). Like I said before, they now name storms, regardless of intensity or origin, and outlets like the Weather Channel actively OVER-forecast bad weather, especially weather around New England. When we have a snow event like the one we had this past week, The Weather Channel purposely includes the I-95 corridor big cities in forecasts and potential high-accumulation areas just so that they can get more ratings, NOT BETTER WEATHER FORECASTS. They do this ON PURPOSE, and it annoys the shit out of people. They talk about 6' of snow as though it's a historic event for the city of NY. Either that or have than moron Cantore jumping around after thunder-snow.
It's a comedy show.
