GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Comments

  1. The Global Warmists still have yet to explain (away) the fact that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were both warmer than what we yet have today.

    I notice that The Hill’s article tries to avoid saying that. The article talks about “climate instability” during Rome’s decline and fall… rather than the fact that at Rome’s height, the world seems to have been having a WARM PERIOD and in the early Dark Ages, a cold period.

  7. Hi all,
    I don’t think that you can draw the conclusion that because Rome suffered from climate change that our current climate issues are not exacerbated by human activity. What I draw from this, and other studies of historical catastrophes is that climate change can be something that has a catastrophic effect on human civilization (as per Key’s thesis or Morris’ great read, Why the West Rules-for Now, http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules—Now-Patterns/dp/0374290024/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295068163&sr=1-1). I don’t think I or anyone else disagrees with that. You want to push it a bit further with a stronger claim, but the article doesn’t support your contention

  9. #8, Cas. It’s probably more fruitful to read the “Science” article yourself (if you haven’t already) than to try to engage the majority of posters here. The general contention is that global warming is an abstruse concept undermined by strongly conflicting views in the scientific community. Global warming is far more amusing as a political talking point to show the stupidity of liberals (or by liberals to demonstrate the foolishness of conservatives). There are but one or two posters who appear to have a discerning scientific evaluation. Regrettably discussing global warming has become like talking about abortion: it makes everyone crazy.

  10. is that climate change can be something that has a catastrophic effect on human civilization

    And the only answer is charging the United States ass loads of cash. Fear monger much?

  11. The Roman Empire failed because it was an empire. That label describes a period in time AFTER the Roman REPUBLIC had been taken over by a dictator.

    The Roman Empire was a CENTRALLY PLANNED society. If “man-caused disaster” (Global Warming) destroyed the Roman Empire, then it was the fault of the Roman Central Planners.

    ————-

    “Why do those who object to tampering with the environment approve of tampering with the economy? Isn’t the economy also a fragile ecosystem where a sudden change can trigger a devastating chain reaction?”

    – Oleg Atbashian (author of Shakedown Socialism)
    .

  12. When will the climate “scientists” go to Antarctica in the middle of winter only in their bathing suits to prove Global Warming is real? When will Katie Couric be sacrificed to Pele as she chokes on noxious fumes from Mother Earth? When will Carol Browner look like a human being instead of a doped-up wax figure from Hell?

  13. #12, gastorgrab. I’ll guess your comments about the Roman Empire’s society being centrally planned are funny. ‘Cause, although there isn’t much known about Roman economics, one can say that centrally planned it was not. A market economy, yes, with emphasis on local and regional bazaars, certainly. The few areas of governmental control through a sort of bureau included salt and grain (wheat). Rome suffered from chronic dislocations in foodstuffs made worse by periodic over-coinage and debasement. During his reign in the mid-late 200’s C.E., Diocletian tried to deal with inflation and deflation by debasing the coins (literally reducing amounts of silver and gold), and to revalue the denarius, but ultimately accepted a permanent debasement after finding too little precious metal to revalue the currency. He also attempted a type of wage and price control to little avail, and he ended by redoing the tax structure to a payment-in-kind system. And, as far as society goes, if one speaks of just Rome the city, there was not much social mobility. Once outside the Urbs, the greatness of Roman citizenship was not lost on “barbarians”, who were happy to receive its benefits. An example America might recall in dealing with its own immigrants.