-
Climate Denial
-
Another copy paste. #16414
-
So? How do make arguments without any information to back up your beliefs?
Or you don’t do that because you can’t find anything to cut-and-paste that agrees with your opinion? -
[link=https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2019/09/05/kamala-harris-of-course-we-must-regulate-how-much-meat-americans-are-eating-n2552644]https://townhall.com/tips…ns-are-eating-n2552644[/link]
Willie Browns lover eating her pork.-
Wait, wait, wait…the article’s headline is that harris is stating that we must REGULATE how much meat we eat yet the text of the article says she is for changing the dietary guidelines. This is actually changing what someone is saying. Normally that’s called a boldfaced LIE!
During a CNN town hall special about climate change Wednesday night, Democrat Senator Kamala Harris was asked if she would be willing to change federal eating guidelines for the sake of saving the planet if she became president. She agreed with a questioner who argued Americans should be eating less meat and that the government should force them into other dietary habits.
Yet the Twitter quote says something very different! Does Townhall assume it[size=”0″]s readers have no reading comprehension?[/size]
Kamala Harris says Americans need to be “educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment,” and says she would change the dietary guidelines to reduce the amount of red meat you can eat.
BTW, pardon the cut-and-paste but you apparently missed the meaning of the points in the article & only believed the headline.
-
Oh they want to regulate what we eat as well? Sign me up!!
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
Oh they want to regulate what we eat as well? Sign me up!!
For you I prescribe a more varied diet of information from more sources than Fox or Townhall or Rush, etc.
“A mind is a terrible thing to waste.”-
False alarm everybody! False alarm. They really are not going to use their “non market measures” to influence the availability of foods. Really… Ain’t gonna happen! You heard it here! “Providing all people of the United States with….(iv)access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature” Does not mean some bureaucrat will be deciding what access you shall have.
-
Anoxia can do funny things to the mind. Get some air.
-
Yes I know, the “details” will be ironed out later won’t they. I trust you Frum, you have only the best intentions at heart.
-
What “details?” The article lied in the headline vs the actual truth in the same article. One has to assume Republican media assumes its consumers are lacking in reading comprehension. Or did you understand something different?
I will be happy to help your reading skills. PM me.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
Anoxia can do funny things to the mind. Get some air.
Remind me, Frumious – have you ever apologized for your lie about Trump supporting Nazis?
-
Trump hits back hard
Makes fun of a 16 yr old girl on Twitter
Man he one tough mfer
-
Quote from kpack123
Trump hits back hard
Makes fun of a 16 yr old girl on Twitter
Man he one tough mfer
[image]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFO_uh9UcAQxxze.jpg[/image]
-
Hey knob
See thats the point
I never said a word about
Why do you have repeat the mistakes
2 wrongs do not make a right
-
Knob
Hahahaha
-
So Murdoch’s son & daughter-in-law, James & Kathryn, are breaking with family over climate saying family has been part of disinformation campaign over decades
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/climate/kathryn-murdoch-climate-change-voting.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ate-change-voting.html[/link]
James Murdoch recently [link=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/09/23/no-james-murdoch-doesnt-watch-succession]spoke with The New Yorker for a brief article[/link] in which he acknowledged that There are views I really disagree with on Fox.
In a series of interviews with The New York Times beginning in May, Ms. Murdoch has stepped out further, in order to bring attention to the fight against climate change. That means countering the efforts of those who block progress by stoking partisan rancor or by attempting to muddy the scientific consensus that climate change is happening now, and it is driven by human activity.
The Murdoch empire and Fox News have long had a substantial role in that muddying and stoking.
Ms. Murdoch said that she actually got the inspiration to take on climate change from that Al Gore talk at the Fox retreat in 2006. The former vice president presented a version of the slide show that had just been turned into the documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
In particular, the urgency of the climate crisis jolted her. I decided to switch everything I was doing, she said. I wanted to be able to look my children in the eye and say I did everything I could.
Ms. Murdochs public comments confirm what many who closely watch the intricacies and intrigues of the Murdoch empire have long believed: that she is more progressive than many other members of the family. ([b]She calls herself a radical centrist[/b].)
Her approach is bipartisan, but it is also clear that one party has been more resistant to action. There hasnt been a Republican answer on climate change, Ms. Murdoch said. Theres just been denial and walking away from the problem. There needs to be one.
To those who defend climate science and warn of the risks that global warming poses, her emergence and use of her fortune and network of powerful friends and her famous name which she describes as a double-edged sword is welcome. Murdoch media are notorious amongst climate scientists for their constant stream of misinformation on climate change, said Stefan Rahmstorf of the[link=https://www.pik-potsdam.de/pik-frontpage] Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.[/link]I can see how a thinking person who marries into that family might feel an urge to counter at least a little bit of the damage they do.
-
Ooh a “radical centrist” was that highlight for me? Why I do blush.
OK, yeah I can agree with her view it would be great if both parties were involved and talking and tried to find some common ground. That doesn’t change my concerns about the Green New Deal. So I guess a centrists choices are go with the Green New Deal or the no-deal GOP. Well, I think the New Green Deal is too radical for me. So, the lefts choices are push the Green New Deal and hope it flies (in my opinion it won’t) or bring that plan a little closer to the middle (how about just a Green Deal and dump the New Deal) and hope enough centrist can jump on to get enough support. -
So what is it that’s etched in stone about the GND? Phasing off of fossil fuels onto renewables is impossible? The timeline is highly optimistic? “Impossible hamburgers?” Distributed power and smart grids? Improving energy efficiency, generation and use (think led lightbulbs vs tungsten) and EVs?
Clean air and water?
The fact that the GND is proposed by liberals & not Conservatives?
What else? What is so impossible about the GND? -
Start off by carving out EVERYTHING that clearly isn’t about “fixing the environment”
affordable housing- how is that fixing the environment?
Universal health care- how is that fixing the environment?
“paid vacations, medical leave, living wages. free education, etc”- how is that fixing the environment?
You are not going to get all of these things, you will be lucky to even get one of these things in the next term (assuming you win). Dump the extraneous stuff. If it’s not about fixing the environment then it’s not a “green deal” to me, you can push your NEW New Deal stuff elsewhere or later. Set some realistic goals/timelines.
-
There is a problem with goals? You think AOC is going to click her ruby slippers & overnight these things will happen?
The agenda is, to put it mildly, ambitious. But there is nothing bad about wanting to improve the goals of the ACA for example. So many other industrialized countries have it & they are doing quite well.
Improve middle class wages back to a better equality? What’s wrong with that? Does Bezos really need his billions while his employees make $10/hour? Or Walmart? Or McDonalds? What’s evil about improving the living wage standards for the middle class? We used to have a better distribution and a healthier middle class. We weren’t the worse off for it. In fact we were better off. Isn’t that a primary message of MAGA? Jobs and wages for the middle class?
Paid vacations? You have paid vacations. What’s wrong with that?
Here, read FactCheck. I believe it was Chaney’s favorite factcheck site at one time.
[link=https://www.factcheck.org/2019/02/the-facts-on-the-green-new-deal/]https://www.factcheck.org…on-the-green-new-deal/[/link]
[h5][/h5][h5]Goals of the Legislation[/h5] The Green New Deal is modeled in part after Franklin D. Roosevelts [link=https://www.britannica.com/event/New-Deal]New Deal[/link], which was a large federal program designed to stabilize the economy and recover from the Great Depression. The Green New Deal focuses on tackling climate change, but isnt concerned just with reducing emissions.
There are [link=https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text]five goals[/link], which the resolution says should be accomplished in a 10-year mobilization effort:
[ul][*]Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers[*]Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States[*]Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century[*]Secure for all people of the United States for generations to come: clean air and water; climate and community resiliency; healthy food; access to nature; and a sustainable environment[*]Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (frontline and vulnerable communities) [/ul]
None of this sounds particularly evil or dangerous to me. Please explain why the GND is bad in itself.
-
Listen, I am not really interested in debating every little item OK. I am not even saying I would completely disagree with you on your lesser priority items. Some of them likely will be needed during the whole process just to keep the economy from tanking. But, if it’s really about “saving the world” then put together a “saving the world” package I can wrap my head around and dump all the extra goodies. Or don’t dump them, just separate them. I am just a simple minded centrist, OK right-winger just to avoid another argument, can’t we just agree that yes I would be willing to go along with certain things that would obviously make the environment better without having to give additional thought to all the other progressive wants?
-
-
-
No because he believes there are good Nazis and has said so.
There is no such flucking thing as a “Good” Nazi. Nazis are evil.
And what does that have to do with anthropogenic climate warming?
Get your own thread to bitch about defending Nazis.
-
Quote from Frumious
[u][b]No because he believes there are good Nazis and has said so. [/b][/u]
There is no such flucking thing as a “Good” Nazi. Nazis are evil.
And what does that have to do with anthropogenic climate warming?
Get your own thread to **** about defending Nazis.
[emphasis added]
I’m almost impressed by how brazenly you double down on your lie.-
I am inevitable.
Actually, I will take the compliment of being impressive.
Thank you.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Oh Frum you wound me. I am sorry , yes you are soo right. I am not worthy to be questioning such a person. My reading comprehension does suck and I just need to trust you. I will sit here and await your teachings.
-
You are being sarcastic and defensive because you, like xrayu, did not understand the contents of the article.
I think you just need remedial courses in reading comprehension.
Stop blaming others for your personal failings.-
Oh yes, I am such a louse. Yes Frumi. I quake in the presence of such a towering intellect. Chastise me again, please don’t stop.
-
-
-
Hahahaha
Knob
Hahahaha
-
Well OK. It’s just a laundry list of priorities with an ambitious timeline. Any ambitious plan will always be modified as needed.
If today was May 25, 1961 and the liberal Democrat John F. Kennedy announced that we would commit us to landing on the Moon within the decade, wouldn’t that be a foolish plan for a liberal to announce.
And yet we did it. That’s my generation. We landed on the Moon because we just wanted to and the men and women who did it had the courage to try. At the time Kennedy made the announcement we had just started poking the atmosphere with holes trying to send a few satellites up, often failing. Only that month Yuri Gagarin and 1 day later, Alan Shepard each flew a parabola out of our atmosphere into space. 3 weeks later Kennedy is proposing a manned Moon landing!
I see nothing evil or just simply bad in trying. Our climate is deteriorating due to our lack of ambition as CO2 has been known to be a greenhouse gas since before the 1970’s; our infrastructure is deteriorating for decades as we have defunded government from at least repairing infrastructure; we have created laws creating inequality in middle class wages and sending jobs overseas because it is cheaper for the companies while we gave tax breaks to the unemployed and let them shop at Walmart for cheaper Chinese goods they used to make and the new “associates” still needed government assistance to earn enough for a living income which Walmart was happy to assist them apply for; healthcare became more unaffordable, today even employer provided insurance is more and more unaffordable for employees; Johnson gave us the War on Poverty to bring West Virginians and other Americans up and out of poverty and poor education; Nixon gave us the EPA and the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts that are today being gutted. I remember many rivers were unswimmable and even caught fire due to pollution and the air burned your eyes on some days.
Ah, the good old days.
What’s wrong with working to improving things? Nothing wrong with dreaming. MLK had a dream, still working on it. RFK had a dream but we seemed to stop dreaming after the 1960’s
America’s children should dream big again. So I’m in support of trying to accomplish GND as much as possible. As a start…
[link=https://www.space.com/11772-president-kennedy-historic-speech-moon-space.html]https://www.space.com/117…speech-moon-space.html[/link]
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the [link=https://www.space.com/11643-photos-jfk-kennedy-nasa-space-race.html]dramatic achievements in space[/link] which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take…
I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment…
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of [link=https://www.space.com/11751-nasa-american-presidential-visions-space-exploration.html]landing a man on the moon[/link] and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations–explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one [link=https://www.space.com/11762-nasa-kennedy-moon-speech-logsdon-interview.html]man going to the moon[/link]–if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
[b]Some men see things as they are, and ask why. I dream of things that never were, and ask why not[/b]. – Robert F Kennedy
Lecture over…
-
Excellent article on collecting climate data in the Arctic.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/mosaic-expedition-arctic.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…expedition-arctic.html[/link]-
“Natural causes” are specifically NOT the reason for climate warming these past few decades.
[link=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-is-not-part-of-natural-climate-variability/]https://www.scientificame…l-climate-variability/[/link]People who dismiss climate change often claim that the earth’s warm-up is simply part of natural climate variability. A paper published in July in [i]Nature[/i] puts that argument to rest. The authors show that warm and cold years were regularly interspersed during the past 2,000 years [b]A[/b] and that even the warmest and coldest periods were experienced only by isolated regions at a given timenever across the entire globe simultaneously [b]B[/b]. For example, the so-called Little Ice Age occurred in the 1400s across the central Pacific Ocean, in the 1600s across northwestern Europe and in the mid-1800s in other places. The warm Medieval Climate Anomaly occurred in the Pacific in the 900s, in North America in the 1000s and in central South America in the 1200s. [b]But the current warm-up has taken place across 98 percent of the globe at the same time, from about 1900 through today. It’s completely different, states lead researcher Raphael Neukom of the University of Bern in Switzerland. All regions have heated up relentlessly, in unison.[/b]
-
To those who are interested in what is really going on.
[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=308&v=8455KEDitpU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=308&v=8455KEDitpU[/link]
There are always manufactured crises, there are always alarms, a cool head always see through them. And then, there are of course statistics, and appropriate to this topic, “models” or “projections.”
I would be interested in a counter to this information, hopefully not an emotional reaction, rather a real response.-
Ah, Tony Heller, AKA Stephen Goddard, Climate Warming Denier.
What articles has Tony/Stephen submitted to actual scientific journals about science?
[link=https://tonyhellerakastevengoddard.com/who-is-tony-heller/]https://tonyhellerakastev…om/who-is-tony-heller/[/link]
[link=https://skepticalscience.com/agw-denial-explained.html]https://skepticalscience….-denial-explained.html[/link]The tiny minority of credentialed contrarians are propped up by an enormous web of denial blogs written by non-climate scientists and non-scientists, such as ClimateDepot (by the Washington DC conservative outfit CFACT), the conservative Heartland Institute, WattsUpWithThat (headed by conservative TV meteorologist Anthony Watts), RealClimateScience (not to be confused with [link=http://www.realclimate.org/]RealClimate.org[/link], a blog by real climatescientists), NoTricksZone (with writers such as Kenneth Richard who I [link=https://medium.com/@qwertie/1970s-agw-consensus-3123a34e5105]have examined before[/link]), Tony Heller (a longtime conspiracy theorist who used to go by the alias Steve Goddard),
I would expect nothing else from someone whose name is a video game with vampires.-
I don’t see where you point out how the graphs aren’t cherry picked. Do you deny that there was warmer weather in the 1920s-40s and that there were more fires, more extreme weather events, etc?
What we are told now is the opposite. I’m just saying, something doesn’t jibe.-
Warmer weather where? More fires where? More extreme weather events where?
“Newly found” records?
Yes, it’s obvious you can’t tell the difference between local weather and global climate, cigar. Or the horse Dr. F@ger or IM & now the vampire game.
Why so many name changes?-
The tundra is melting.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-alaska]https://www.washingtonpos…/climate-change-alaska[/link]
The varnished wooden cross stands amid a cluster of grave markers tilted at odd angles in the cemetery, because the ground beneath them is sinking. Rising temperatures are thawing the once-frozen earth, forming pools of water that run through the graveyard.
Sea ice cover in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas hit a record low of 270,000 square miles at the end of October, [link=http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/]half of what it averaged between 1981 and 2010[/link].
As a result, winters are warming. In nearby Utqiagvik, (oot-key-AH-vik) formerly known as Barrow, the average daily temperature this year was 5.1 degrees Celsius higher than usual. By Dec. 12, only 32 days had been at or below normal in a year that so far ranks as Alaskas warmest on record.
Even the oil companies are being affected by the rising temperatures. Several, including ConocoPhillips, have begun to bury long metal tubes filled with refrigerants sometimes the length of a football field. The liquid inside these tubes, known as thermosiphons, draws heat away from the permafrost so that it remains rigid enough to support equipment.
-
[link=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/big-oil-congress-climate-change]Big oil is the new big tobacco[/link]
{T}odays climate chaos is big oils legacy, not ours. Unlike the rest of us, the fossil fuel industry saw this climate chaos coming, then literally and figuratively added fuel to the fire, doubling down on a business model incompatible with the science of stopping global warming; buying political inaction; and building a global climate denial and delay machine that has confused the public and fomented distrust of science, media and government.
…
The historical record is incontrovertible. As we summarize in a [link=http://bit.ly/americamisled]recent report[/link], the fossil fuel industrys own internal documents reveal that it has been studying CO2 pollution for more than 60 years. As early as the 1950s, it [link=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0349-9]knew[/link] its products had the [link=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jan/01/on-its-hundredth-birthday-in-1959-edward-teller-warned-the-oil-industry-about-global-warming]potential[/link] to change the climate. By the late 1970s and early 80s, Exxon scientists were explicitly [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming]aware[/link] that burning fossil fuels could lead to what they called catastrophic global warming. In 1986, an internal greenhouse effect working group at Shell [link=http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/]concluded[/link]: The changes in climate may be the greatest in recorded history.
But instead of taking action or warning the public, fossil fuel interests stayed quiet. Then, in the late 1980s and early 90s, when global warming finally caught the worlds attention, the carbon majors sprang to action and took the [link=https://www.sheredling.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-09-03-95-Center-for-Climate-Integrity-et-al-Amicus.pdf#page=28]low road[/link], spending [link=https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-companies-climate-crisis-pr-spending]billions of dollars[/link] over the next 30 years on advertising and lobbying challenging science, slandering scientists and attacking policies to protect their profits. In so doing, they have undermined and continue to undermine Americans chances of a just and stable future.Today, the case for subterfuge is so strong that New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and 14 US cities and counties have variously [link=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04042018/climate-change-fossil-fuel-company-lawsuits-timeline-exxon-children-california-cities-attorney-general]sued[/link] ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel companies for fraud, damages or denial. Maui and Honolulu have recently [link=https://heated.world/p/why-hawaii-is-taking-big-oil-to-court]added[/link] their intentions to file lawsuits. In Australia, there are mounting [link=https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/07/should-fossil-fuels-pay-for-australias-new-bushfire-reality-it-is-the-industry-most-responsible]calls[/link] to [link=https://heated.world/p/celebrities-are-donating-more-than]make polluters[/link], not just taxpayers, pay for wildfire relief and climate mitigation.
…
For all the skeletons we have already found in big oils closet, however, we are still only looking through the keyhole. Tracking down a few hundred documents has allowed us to uncover some key cogs in the climate denial [link=https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Riley_Dunlap/publication/284261736_Organized_Climate_Change_Denial/links/5652077b08aeafc2aaba80c3/Organized-Climate-Change-Denial.pdf#page=3]machine[/link]. Yet it is a sprawling, well-funded, well-oiled network that stretches far beyond ExxonMobil and the Kochs: a labyrinth of people and money connecting fossil fuel companies, utilities, ancillary manufacturers, trade associations, PR firms, advertising agencies, libertarian foundations, thinktanks, legal firms and individuals, all feeding an echo chamber of pundits, astroturf groups, blogs, media and, yes, politicians. Network analysis has [link=https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2875]identified[/link] at least 4,556 individuals and 164 organizations in the global web of denial. We believe the American public deserve to know the truth and see the receipts of these dealings that have already led to deaths, destruction and the injustices of a collapsing climate.
…
We are not politicians or political strategists, so we do not presume to dictate how Congress exercises its investigatory powers. But as experts in the history of climate denial and global warming politics, it is our opinion that holding the fossil fuel industry accountable would be one of the most impactful ways for Congress and governments around the world to combat the climate crisis. Impeachment investigations understandably occupy much attention. Unfortunately, irreversible global warming and the fossil fuel regime underwriting it will be even harder to unseat than a president, and time is not on our side.
[/QUOTE]
-
Quote from dergon
[link=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/big-oil-congress-climate-change]Big oil is the new big tobacco[/link]
True in that we always need a devil to excuse our own actions. The Saklers didn’t cause the opioid crisis and everyone knew that cigarette smoking is going to kill you. The only exception to that is the asbestos mafia. There were some evil f#### at work who concealed the risks involved and pushed the stuff for applications that didn’t call for it. -
Quote from dergon
[link=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/20/big-oil-congress-climate-change]Big oil is the new big tobacco[/link]
Oil and climate deniers have been using tobacco industries’ tactics for a very long time now.
Like tobacco’s defenders from the past, someday, today’s deniers will claim that “everyone knew” that climate warming was anthropogenic caused by the burning of fossil fuels releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, as if there was no concerted effort at denial.
[link=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/truth-isnt-truth-giuliani-borrows-from-the-climate-denial-tobacco-company-playbook/]https://blogs.scientifica…acco-company-playbook/[/link]
What are the parallels behind these seemingly different events? The strategy widely used by climate change deniers, and now adopted by the Trump administration, of casting doubt on truth as a way of promoting their political agenda.
A [link=http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002/meta]widespread consensus[/link] among climate scientists exists on the reality of substantial human-caused climate change. Unfortunately, [link=https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/7/6/15924444/global-warming-consensus-survey]fewer than 20 percent[/link] of Americans are aware of this consensus, despite extensive communication about this consensus by scientists.
Why? [link=https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-65058-6_2]Research shows[/link] this low level of awareness comes from economically and politically motivated challenges to the reality of climate change from groups with substantial access to resources that influence public opinions. Most notably, the fossil fuel industry [link=https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/367000]has funded[/link] the research of a tiny minority of scientists in order to cast doubt on human-caused global climate change.
Read,
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming published in 2010.
People “knew” that CO2 was a greenhouse gas and the planet was warming long before George H. W. Bush claimed that required “more study.” That was in the late 1980’s.
[link=https://e360.yale.edu/features/global_warming_deniers_and_their_proven_strategy_of_doubt]https://e360.yale.edu/fea…oven_strategy_of_doubt[/link]
Through legislation he signed in 1990, Bush started the National Climate Assessment, a sweeping study documenting climate changes impacts on the United States. The Trump administration released the latest iteration on Black Friday and has since downplayed its definitive body of research, making false claims about its accuracy and inadvertently drawing more attention to the clear science that shows Americans will be increasingly at risk as a result of climate change.
It was during Bushs presidency that the federal government stepped up its work on global warming and established an ongoing account of the latest research into how the country would be affected by climate change. Bush was also president during the development of the Montreal Protocol, which drastically cut the chlorofluorocarbons that were destroying the ozone layer.
Through a 1989 presidential initiative, Bush established the U.S. Global Change Research Program, a program encompassing 13 federal agencies that seeks to understand the changing Earth system. The following year, he signed into law the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which mandated that the National Climate Assessment come out every four years.
Top Bush aides recognized that climate change was a serious issue that would require a policy response, according to a series of formerly classified memos released to [i]The Washington Post[/i]in 2015 by the National Security Archive.
Bush did everything anyone could have asked of on him on climate except commit to stabilization, he said. He committed to very substantial research budget to major investments by NASA on upper atmospheric ozone monitoring and on climate monitoring. NOAA was well-funded.
The latest National Climate Assessment shows that climate change will kill more Americans, displace thousands and cost tens of billions of dollars annually. Democrats have touted the findings as evidence that the government needs to craft significant climate policy and have promised to use its revelations in court cases challenging the administration. Some Republicans have acknowledged that the report requires action from Washington, as well, but most have questioned its findings without presenting any evidence to the contrary.
Trump has said he doesnt believe the report.
-
Each little step moves us towards solutions. Several years ago conservatives predicted disaster moving towards alternate energy in solar, wind, etc. Instead of global disaster & global depression moving from fossil fuels to alternate energy as conservatives predicted, we have a substantial fraction of energy being generated by renewable sources and a strong economy that is moving us further into alternate energy.
The Chicken Little Luddites however are not silent doing any mea culpas. They are still predicting a return to the stone age.
Now if we can just get to carbon zero.
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/replacing-the-wisdom-of-crowds-with-the-wisdom-of-fink-11579429800]https://www.wsj.com/artic…om-of-fink-11579429800[/link]
Climate change poses two distinct risks for investors, and a special one for fund managers.
Whatever you think of Mr. Finks view, his letter highlights the power he wields over the direction of corporate America, thanks to the votes of BlackRocks extensive holdings. Shareholders used to have diverse views, with individual managers even within the same organization often disagreeing on what companies should do.
Mr. Fink is surely right that investors should worry about climate risks leading to big shifts of capital, and therefore big price moves.
Whatever your views on the merits of ESG investing, BlackRock will now be nudging clients toward ESG funds and pushing companies to act. The chances are that this will be marginal in the efforts to do more to tackle climate change, at best. But by sending a signal that serious money is not just prepared for government action on carbon but might even welcome it, it is just possible it will make that government action more likely.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
When exactly did people know cigarettes were bad for you & actually caused cancer? The tobacco companies were denying that right up to the end, in the 1990’s. It’s not that long ago. And once physicians pimped cigarettes.
[attachment=0]
[link=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2563590/]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih….c/articles/PMC2563590/[/link]Background[/h3] In the late 1990s and the early part of this decade, the major US cigarette manufacturers admitted, to varying degrees, that smoking causes cancer and other diseases.
Objective[/h3] To examine how tobacco manufacturers have defended themselves against charges that their products caused cancer in plaintiffs in 34 personal injury lawsuits, all but one of which were litigated between the years 1986 and 2003.
Methods[/h3] Defence opening and closing statements, trial testimony, and depositions for these cases were obtained from the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive ([link=http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta/]http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta/[/link]). All available defencerelated transcripts from these cases were reviewed and a content analysis was conducted to identify common themes in the defendants’ arguments.
Results[/h3] After review of the transcripts, defendants’ arguments were grouped into seven categories: (1) there is no scientific proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer; (2) the plaintiff did not have lung cancer as claimed; (3) the plaintiff had a type of lung cancer not associated with cigarette smoking; (4) the plaintiff had cancer that may have been associated with cigarette smoking or smokeless tobacco use, but tobacco products were not to blame in this particular case; (5) the plaintiff had cancer that may have been associated with cigarette smoking, but the defendant’s cigarette brands were not to blame; (6) the defendant’s cigarettes (or smokeless tobacco) may have played a role in the plaintiff’s illness/death, but other risk factors were present that negate or mitigate the defendant’s responsibility; and (7) the defendant’s cigarettes may have been a factor in the plaintiff’s illness/death, but the plaintiff knew of the health risks and exercised free will in choosing to smoke and declining to quit. Use of the argument that smoking is not a proven cause of lung cancer declined in frequency during and after the period when tobacco companies began to publicly admit that smoking causes disease. Corresponding increases occurred over time in the use of other arguments (namely, presence of other risk factors and free will).
Conclusions[/h3] Despite the vast body of literature showing that cigarette smoking causes cancer, and despite tobacco companies’ recent admissions that smoking causes cancer, defendants used numerous arguments in these cases to deny that their products had caused cancer in plaintiffs. The cigarette companies, through their public admissions and courtroom arguments, seem to be saying, Yes, smoking causes lung cancer, but not in people who sue us.
-
Quote from Frumious
When exactly did people know cigarettes were bad for you & actually caused cancer? The tobacco companies were denying that right up to the end, in the 1990’s. It’s not that long ago. And once physicians pimped cigarettes.
Yeah, sure, that ad from the 40s is super relevant.
The cases of lung cancer we are seeing now are not caused by cigarettes smoked in the 1950s. What the industry said in 1991 is wholly irrelevant when at that point we had:
– clear scientific consensus that smoking is harmful,
– statements from the US surgeon general to that smoking is harmful (since 1964),
– public education campaigns to reduce smoking,
– warning labels on every damn box that the stuff is gonna kill you.
Everyone knew. Outside of those with mental health issues, anyone who smoked since the 1970s knew that it was harmful and did so knowing the risk. By 2001, 82% answered a gallup poll that smoking is a cause of cancer, 16% were ‘unsure’ and those who denied it were down to 2%.-
Your argument begs the questions, if “everyone knew,” how come smoking was so prevalent during those decades of “knowledge” and 2nd, how could the tobacco industry’s tactics of denial have worked so well for all those decades? Don’t you recall the court cases where tobacco argued that patient A’s lung cancer could not be proven to have been caused by his/her smoking?
Yeah, and today “everyone knows” burning fossil fuels is causing the warming of the global climate by 2+ degrees Celsius. Maybe you can explain to the deniers on AM that they are mistaken as “everyone knows” the climate has warmed in the past few decades due to an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of fossil fuels.-
Joe Camel knew
He knew quite well
-
Quote from Frumious
Your argument begs the questions, if “everyone knew,” how come smoking was so prevalent during those decades of “knowledge”
Because people will do things that are harmful to them, like stuff their face with donuts or refuse to walk even the most trivial distances.
and 2nd, how could the tobacco industry’s tactics of denial have worked so well for all those decades?
Their tactics didn’t work. Everyone knew smoking was harmful.
Don’t you recall the court cases where tobacco argued that patient A’s lung cancer could not be proven to have been caused by his/her smoking?
Again, what they claimed, either in advertising or court cases is wholly irrelevant to the question whether an overwhelming majority of people knew that smoking is harmful.-
It really is simple, but a legalistic and obsessed society that rewards lawyers and judges will always cause more problems than good. I would argue cause more problems that smoking itself. Do all people know that smoking, as opposed to not smoking, increases some type of risk for worse health outcomes, morbidity or mortality? Yes.
As fw indicates, thus, the patient “caused” his own cancer. Just like when he ate all those donuts, or drank all that kool aid, or failed to ever exercise, or engage in countless other activities that increase risk health wise. None of these can be disentangled, and that’s why all smoking does is increase risk, which may be minimal for some, and large for others.
The fat lady knows the dessert at the end of the meal is why she got that way. But she still eats it.
Why should others be blamed for someone’s choice in choosing short term benefits over perceived long term outcomes? We should just ban desserts at this point, then, too.-
Well cigar-of-the-many-names, the “fat lady” also knows that buying that Hummer or Suburban and their ilk that get 10 MPG and less are putting more CO2 in the air and warming the climate. Nevertheless, they do it.
Conspicuous consumption and image more important than clean air?
I don’t care if she wants to brag about her income via an expensive truck but her rights interfere with my and my children’s climate and air quality. So employers have “wellness’ campaigns now to discourage unhealthy lifestyles with penalties for not following the guidelines, we need a climate campaign for the same reason.-
[b][i]buying that Suburban and their ilk that get 10 MPG[/i][/b]
10 MPG? Where did you come up with that or are you making it up to prove a point? Have you ever owned one? I did. Best vehicle we ever owned. Problem free. I consistently averaged 16 – 17 MPG combined w mostly city driving. Flex fuel engine worked great – shut off 4 cylinders when not needed. You couldn’t even tell you were operating 4 cylinders.
As for SUV’s – walk through a hospital parking lot in hilly snow country. Those SUV’s is what gets the staff in to take care of the sick.-
Quote from Ixrayu
[b][i]buying that Suburban and their ilk that get 10 MPG[/i][/b]
10 MPG? Where did you come up with that or are you making it up to prove a point? Have you ever owned one? I did. Best vehicle we ever owned. Problem free. I consistently averaged 16 – 17 MPG combined w mostly city driving. Flex fuel engine worked great – shut off 4 cylinders when not needed. You couldn’t even tell you were operating 4 cylinders.
As for SUV’s – walk through a hospital parking lot in hilly snow country. Those SUV’s is what gets the staff in to take care of the sick.
Suburban. One of the most fuel efficient cars on the market.
….if you consistently fill all the seats and calculate fuel on a per passenger mile metric. Beats every single occupied prius and has much lower smug emissions.-
It’s really not if you go by MPG which is pretty much the standard. It seems kind of obvious that it’s more efficient to drive more people than just yourself. How many people are car pooling in the Suburban or even in general? That’s not to say you might not need a suburban for whatever your driving situation might be. My Jeeps only been pulling about 15-16 in the snow.
-
.[b][i]..if you consistently fill all the seats[/i][/b]
Exactly why we owned one. Needed the space for the kids and dogs to go back and forth to the summer lake house. W/o it we would have been driving two cars to the summer place. As family gets smaller so did our SUV’s. -
warming is better than cooling and human emissions do ZERO to change what the climate is, or will be, already
this propaganda movement is the most obvious hoax globally we’ve seen, and there have been a lot — one that is so important none of the people who complain about it have skin in the game, that is, unless you count getting the gov’t money to not look at all contrary evidence as that “skin”
all the models have been totally wrong and are an absolute joke
you need to have a 12 year old girl with her dad fake tweeting to try to make the world believe this crap, it’s so funny yet so sad this religion afflicts the diseased and delusional
-
-
Quote from fw
Suburban. One of the most fuel efficient cars on the market.
….if you consistently fill all the seats and calculate fuel on a per passenger mile metric. Beats every single occupied prius and has much lower smug emissions.
[size=”0″]Your math is a bit off, fw. Have you worked it out? Assuming you always fill your Suburban with 9 passengers at 16 MPG, you get 144 “Passenger” Miles Per Gallon. A Prius gets about 50 MPG and seats 5 for a passenger MPG of 250. That beats out the Suburban by almost twice. [/size]
[size=”0″]If you want passenger MPG efficiency, buy one of these:[/size]
[size=”0″][link=https://findtruecar.com/2019-ford-transit-15-passenger/]https://findtruecar.com/2…-transit-15-passenger/[/link][/size]
[size=”0″]AND it costs a fraction of what a Suburban costs. Then again, if you want fuel efficiency, but that electric car like the Tesla. As shown, even hybrids, car or SUVs do better than the Suburban, filled or with only a single passenger – the driver. And are still cheaper to purchase.[/size]-
Quote from Frumious
Quote from fw
Suburban. One of the most fuel efficient cars on the market.
….if you consistently fill all the seats and calculate fuel on a per passenger mile metric. Beats every single occupied prius and has much lower smug emissions.
[size=”0″]Your math is a bit off, fw. Have you worked it out? Assuming you always fill your Suburban with 9 passengers at 16 MPG, you get 144 “Passenger” Miles Per Gallon. A Prius gets about 50 MPG and seats 5 for a passenger MPG of 250. That beats out the Suburban by almost twice. [/size]
[size=”0″]If you want passenger MPG efficiency, buy one of these:[/size]
[size=”0″][link=https://findtruecar.com/2019-ford-transit-15-passenger/]https://findtruecar.com/2…-transit-15-passenger/[/link][/size]
[size=”0″]AND it costs a fraction of what a Suburban costs. Then again, if you want fuel efficiency, but that electric car like the Tesla. As shown, even hybrids, car or SUVs do better than the Suburban, filled or with only a single passenger – the driver. And are still cheaper to purchase.[/size]
True on those numbers Frumi the only exception is… Everyone in the Prius will look like a dweeb with a nose ring and if you hit a squirrel head on… everyone dies.
-
The Prius was fw’s choice of subject so speak to him.
As for crash test, you might be the dummy Cuda.
[link=https://www.cars.com/articles/crash-test-credentials-come-standard-on-2019-toyota-prius-prius-prime-1420757737821/]https://www.cars.com/arti…s-prime-1420757737821/[/link]The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today that two Toyota models the 2019 Prius hybrid and the Prius Prime plug-in hybrid qualified for the institutes second-highest award, Top Safety Pick. Notably, both vehicles received the award with only standard equipment, unlike other models that only qualify with optional safety systems.
-
Billion$ to Red States for disaster relief, just don’t call it “climate change” or “warming.” Gubmint is good when it comes to State welfare, just don’t insist we do something to fix the problem. We’ll be back.
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/climate/climate-change-funding-states.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2…ge-funding-states.html[/link]
The Trump administration is about to distribute billions of dollars to coastal states mainly in the South to help steel them against natural disasters worsened by climate change.
But states that qualify must first explain why they need the money. That has triggered linguistic acrobatics as some conservative states submit lengthy, detailed proposals on how they will use the money, while mostly not mentioning climate change.
A 306-page draft proposal from Texas doesnt use the terms climate change or global warming, nor does South Carolinas proposal. Instead, Texas refers to changing coastal conditions and South Carolina talks about the destabilizing effects and unpredictability of being hit by three major storms in four years, while being barely missed by three other hurricanes.
The money is distributed according to a formula benefiting states most affected by disasters in 2015, 2016 and 2017. That formula favors Republican-leaning states along the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, which were hit particularly hard during that period.
Texas is in line for more than $4 billion, the most of any state. The next largest sums go to Louisiana ($1.2 billion), Florida ($633 million), North Carolina ($168 million) and South Carolina ($158 million), all of which voted Republican in the 2016 presidential election.
The other states getting funding are West Virginia, Missouri, Georgia and California, the only state getting money that voted Democratic in the presidential race of 2016. California hasnt yet submitted its proposal, but in the past the state has [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/us/california-engages-world-and-fights-washington-on-climate-change.html]spoken forcefully[/link] about the threat of climate change, in addition to [link=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/20/climate/california-auto-emissions-lawsuit.html]fighting[/link]with the Trump administration to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars.
-
natural disasters [s]worsened by climate change[/s]
you don’t even know what editorials are, or editorialization, let alone news, science or facts
hack hack hackity hack, what’s new -
Quote from CudaRad
True on those numbers Frumi the only exception is… Everyone in the Prius will look like a dweeb with a nose ring and if you hit a squirrel head on… everyone dies.
She is off on the numbers. Gotta read the scenario. ‘Single occupied Prius’ was the comparison.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A lot of this moot
10-15 years most new vehicles will be electric
-
Quote from Frumious
The Prius was fw’s choice of subject so speak to him.
As for crash test, you might be the dummy Cuda.
[link=https://www.cars.com/articles/crash-test-credentials-come-standard-on-2019-toyota-prius-prius-prime-1420757737821/]https://www.cars.com/arti…s-prime-1420757737821/[/link]
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced today that two Toyota models the 2019 Prius hybrid and the Prius Prime plug-in hybrid qualified for the institutes second-highest award, Top Safety Pick. Notably, both vehicles received the award with only standard equipment, unlike other models that only qualify with optional safety systems.
I tell you what Fumi, you drive PeeUs and I’ll drive my F250 and let’s have a head on Collison; or you T-Bone me, or I T-Bone you and lets see who walks away. You follow to much Government. In addition, put 5 fat people in a PeeUs and see how energy efficient it is when you battery drops quick. It’s all relevant to the situation, I know…. I had Smart Car in my life and loved it but never drove in it Heavy Highway Traffic even though… It was rated one of the safest cars in the industry for it’s size.
-
I think you’ve acted the crash test dummy too many times – it’s affected your brain.
-
Greta Thunberg nominated for Nobel Peace Prize
-
Orange man very jealous!
-
-
-
Quote from CudaRad
I tell you what Fumi, you drive PeeUs and I’ll drive my F250 and let’s have a head on Collison; or you T-Bone me, or I T-Bone you and lets see who walks away. You follow to much Government. In addition, put 5 fat people in a PeeUs and see how energy efficient it is when you battery drops quick. It’s all relevant to the situation, I know…. I had Smart Car in my life and loved it but never drove in it Heavy Highway Traffic even though… It was rated one of the safest cars in the industry for it’s size.
Those ratings are based on ‘vehicle class’. The tallest dwarf is still a dwarf.
While some of the small cars have come a long way, compared with larger sedans, large SUVs and modern pickups they are still death-traps.
Unfortunately IIHS has taken the absolute numbers off their site, now its all relative. A F250 supercab is 71% below average on losses for ‘Personal Injury’, a 4 door Prius is right at average, a Ford Fiasco or Chevy Spark is 62 and 48% above.
-
Quote from fw
Quote from CudaRad
I tell you what Fumi, you drive PeeUs and I’ll drive my F250 and let’s have a head on Collison; or you T-Bone me, or I T-Bone you and lets see who walks away. You follow to much Government. In addition, put 5 fat people in a PeeUs and see how energy efficient it is when you battery drops quick. It’s all relevant to the situation, I know…. I had Smart Car in my life and loved it but never drove in it Heavy Highway Traffic even though… It was rated one of the safest cars in the industry for it’s size.
Those ratings are based on ‘vehicle class’. The tallest dwarf is still a dwarf.
While some of the small cars have come a long way, compared with larger sedans, large SUVs and modern pickups they are still death-traps.
Unfortunately IIHS has taken the absolute numbers off their site, now its all relative. A F250 supercab is 71% below average on losses for ‘Personal Injury’, a 4 door Prius is right at average, a Ford Fiasco or Chevy Spark is 62 and 48% above.You should be careful about declaring your opinions, fw. I’ve already shown that your claim that a fully loaded Suburban is the most fuel efficient vehicle is bogus BS ignorance.
And I think maybe you 2 need to read up on crash tests for large SUVs and Pickup trucks, especially for overlap crashes to passenger. Sure, if you intend to hit a small passenger vehicle with a vehicle that not only weighs 2x or more than the car, it’s likely the car will suffer more. For the same speed a truck already has at least 2x the force of a car as a passenger car weighs around 3,000 lbs while say an F-250 comes in at around 6,000 lbs and more. And a truck’s bumper also stands over the car’s bumper, so sure, you can do a lot of damage to the car. Rather like running that pickup or SUV under the rear bumper of a semi of under the trailer from the side.
Trucks are just big and heavy. So yes, if you are going to run that truck into a smaller car, the car is at a disadvantage. That just the physics of mass. Like I said, run your truck into a semi & see who has the advantage. There are a lot of semis out there and a lot of semi accidents.
[link=https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/crash-tests-show-some-pickup-trucks-lag-in-passenger-protection/]https://www.consumerrepor…-passenger-protection/[/link]In terms of the passenger-side small-overlap front crash test, I would say that the pickup truck class has further to go in terms of improving protection for drivers and occupants than other classes of vehicles like SUVs and cars, says David Zuby, the chief research officer for the IIHS. For instance, in the most recent results, only about half of the pickup trucks have an Acceptable or better rating for structure holding up in this kind of a crash, and only three of them earn a Good rating overall.
[link=https://www.trucks.com/2017/03/15/pickup-trucks-struggle-safety-ratings/]https://www.trucks.com/20…ruggle-safety-ratings/[/link]
However, despite the [link=https://www.trucks.com/2017/03/03/review-gmc-sierra-2500-denali/]flashy appeal[/link] and almost unlimited capability they provide, the vehicles unlike many passenger sedans, crossovers and SUVs dont always have the latest safety equipment or highest ratings.
Most pickups will always be at a crash test disadvantage because of the way theyre built, said Jack Gillis of the Center for Auto Safety and publisher of The Car Book.
Trucks have often tended to be more rigid and stronger than passenger cars and as a result do not collapse as easily in the event of a frontal collision, Gillis said. They end up transferring that energy back into the passenger compartment.
-
probably need a vehicle crash test thread.
-
Nah, stupid tangent.
-
“Trucks are just big and heavy. So yes, if you are going to run that truck into a smaller car, the car is at a disadvantage. That just the physics of mass. Like I said, run your truck into a semi & see who has the advantage. There are a lot of semis out there and a lot of semi accidents.”
Yes… Mass wins every time. Semis and trains… always win. But there are more average car and personal truck accidents than Car / Semi. Parts of this Pick up truck theory is skewed. Majority of them are family trucks, 4 door Super Crew or Super Cab. Same platforms as Expeditions or Suburban’s. Its the smaller trucks that actually have the issues of decreased safety. No matter what, the topic was Climate Denial. I look forward to an electric truck. More torque to pull my Yacht out of the water for storage. -
Andrew Zimmerman changes his format form being just about food to abour how climate change and other issues affect food.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/andrew-zimmern-moves-from-entertainer-to-advocate-on-his-new-msnbc-food-show/2020/02/13/26b0e456-4d2d-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…5043eb3918a_story.html[/link]
Over the course of the first few episodes of Whats Eating America (The Post was able to screen three of the five in advance), Zimmern uses the information that he and his [link=https://intuitivecontent.com/team/]Intuitive Content[/link] crew unearth not as a traditional journalist would merely to inform the public but to shape public opinion. He has a point of view on each of the subjects he covers: immigration, climate change, addiction, voter suppression and health care.
Regardless, Zimmern is prepared for the blowback. In fact, hell be encouraging it: Hes live-tweeting the debut episode. Just the other night, Zimmern says, people were hating on a particular post on his [link=https://twitter.com/andrewzimmern]Twitter feed[/link], a timeline generally filled with progressive thought and commentary. His approach to the haters, he says, is to pose questions. I ask lots of Help me understand this from my followers who support the president.
Of course, Im going to engage because I remember the [link=https://www.loyolapress.com/our-catholic-faith/prayer/traditional-catholic-prayers/saints-prayers/peace-prayer-of-saint-francis]prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi[/link], who said, seek to understand rather than be understood.
-
Florida politicians actually using climate change in documents and talks.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2020/02/11/the-energy-202-florida-republicans-have-added-the-words-climate-change-to-their-vocabularies-and-to-legislation/5e417ef888e0fa0a47d9d875/]https://www.washingtonpos…17ef888e0fa0a47d9d875/[/link]
[b][/b][b]Florida Rep. Chris Sprowls, a Republican, declared it so in September 2019 at a speech designating him the next speaker of the House: We need to stop being afraid of words like climate change and sea level rise. [/b]And Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has used the term repeatedly since his campaign for the job in 2018, even saying it three times in a news release that announced a new statewide job, chief resilience officer, tasked with preparing Florida for sea level rise.
[b]After years of the GOP dismissing scientists who say the planet is warming, Republicans in Florida, one of the states vulnerable to rising seas and extreme weather events such as hurricanes, are becoming increasingly comfortable with talking about the changing climate.[/b]
The rhetorical shift by Florida Republicans on climate change[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/can-republicans-turn-over-a-new-leaf-on-climate-change/2020/02/03/6a6a6bd8-4155-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html] mirrors one happening in Washington[/link], where top GOP officials are preparing their own climate legislation in response to concerns from young Republicans the party is ignoring the issue. But Republicans who want to tackle climate change are at odds with the Trump administration, which has backpedaled on the issue as the president has withdrawn the country from the Paris climate accords after calling climate change a hoax, and rolling back regulations to reduce carbon emissions that contribute to a warming planet.
In Florida, the GOPs apparent new openness in acknowledging the Earth is getting hotter is a sea change from just a few years ago.[b][/b]
And other Republicans admitting anthropogenic climate change is NOT a hoax?
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/can-republicans-turn-over-a-new-leaf-on-climate-change/2020/02/03/6a6a6bd8-4155-11ea-aa6a-083d01b3ed18_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…83d01b3ed18_story.html[/link]After years of denying that the planet was growing hotter because of human activity, an increasing number of Republicans say they need to acknowledge the problem and offer solutions if they have any hope of retaking the House.
In poll after poll, large numbers of young and suburban Republican voters are registering their desire for climate action and say the issue is a priority. And their concern about climate change is spreading to older GOP supporters, too.
Almost 7 in 10 Republican adults under 45 said that human activity is causing the climate to change, according to a [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washington-post-kaiser-family-foundation-climate-change-survey-july-9-aug-5-2019/601ed8ff-a7c6-4839-b57e-3f5eaa8ed09f/?tid=lk_inline_manual_8&itid=lk_inline_manual_8]poll last summer[/link] by The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Republicans cant win the majority back [in the House] without winning suburban districts, and you cant win suburban districts with a retro position on climate change, said former South Carolina congressman Bob Inglis, a Republican who is pushing his party to craft a climate plan.
-
Florida should be concerned. Ive seen pictures of flooding in Miami. It seems more like a matter of time before its under water.
-
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
-
Quote from Castlevania
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
Cigar, I think you need to inform the Republicans in Florida and other Red State coastal areas that they are fools as they see Miami and the Keys and Charlestown flooding during bright and sunny days. They will appreciate your vast knowledge that they are seeing a nothingBurger mirage & don’t need to wear those galoshes. It’s nothing but a hallucination caused by a Left-wing and Chinese conspiracy. I mean that was the point of the articles I linked as reality has a way of asserting itself even to Denial idiots, no matter how much Kool-Aide you drink.
I still wonder why you find it necessary to create new AM identities to hide behind.
-
Quote from Castlevania
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
Cigar, I think you need to inform the Republicans in Florida and other Red State coastal areas that they are fools as they see Miami and the Keys and Charlestown flooding during bright and sunny days. They will appreciate your vast knowledge that they are seeing a nothingBurger mirage & don’t need to wear those galoshes. It’s nothing but a hallucination caused by a Left-wing and Chinese conspiracy. I mean that was the point of the articles I linked as reality has a way of asserting itself even to Denial idiots, no matter how much Kool-Aide you drink.
I still wonder why you find it necessary to create new AM identities to hide behind.
-
Quote from Castlevania
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
the timing may not have been right but that doesn’t mean rising sea levels aren’t affecting coastal cities. Look at New Orleans, Miami, New York city. Here’s something from the local Miami paper. Higher sea levels have left them much more susceptible to high tides. As it keeps raising, they’ll simply be under water.
[link=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239486308.html]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239486308.html[/link] -
Bernie atleast correctly mentioned that the lions share of co2 going forward is coming out of India/China, but he didnt mention any practical ideas for how to get them to fall in line.
Im all for the US to step up on emissions controls but its like pissing in the wind if the developing world doesnt change -
Funny how republicans want to disown California…….. and now florida
FYI…… combined florida and California is 23% of the US Economy and 29% of federal government tax receipts
Now Fox News wont tell you that but if the smart ones get what they want there will be no money to support the takers from red states
-
…… PS
Someone has a dumb fng wife
-
Quote from rozakk
Bernie atleast correctly mentioned that the lions share of co2 going forward is coming out of India/China, but he didnt mention any practical ideas for how to get them to fall in line.
Im all for the US to step up on emissions controls but its like pissing in the wind if the developing world doesnt change
Because he’s an idiot. Not only is global warming a farce, the people that huck the snake oil also know practically speaking it is irrelevant, and in funny moments such as that, the Communist admits it. Even if you don’t want to believe it is a farce, you have to admit that in all practicality it is a total farce. Which by the way is exactly how Gore/DiCaprio/you guys live your lives regarding the issue. Always other people having to do things you don’t, and threatening the heavy hand of less freedom and more taxes, to boot. If you really think about it, people who spin this garbage are not only dishonest, they are really, truly sick. But you can say you “care” or are “virtuous” — have a little self insight into this silly vanity and lies; at least we who tell the truth are aware of this human frailty and don’t lie to ourselves about all manner of things. -
“Which by the way is exactly how Gore/DiCaprio/you guys live your lives regarding the issue.”
But, but, but Al Gore has 33 solar panels on his 10,000 sq foot mansion. Stunning and brave!! He is totally setting the finest example for high level of concern of imminent doom. -
Deep. Very deep.
-
I have solar panels for heating my pool and my landscape/outdoor lights
I sell the excess back to the power company
Since 2014 they have paid for themselves and basically zero maintenance
Best most cost effective form of energy Ive ever purchased
Actually its paying me now
Darn shame it has to be a cut off your nose to spite your face political argument
-
And I got a couple years of a tax credit for it too
-
How very virtuous of you kpack, and at the taxpayer expense no less. Alas, I don’t own a pool.
-
Virtuous actions by others provide all the perks you enjoy as an American.
-
Indeed. I am sorry for not standing up and applauding, such poor manners. Indeed, what is the point of being virtuous at all if not to signal to others what a wonderful person you are. Kpack, your sacrifice for the greater good is hereby recognized! I am indeed happy my taxpayer dollars are being used by wealthy pool owning customers to heat their pools.
*golf clap* -
Ah, you & little Dick Chaney and the silliness of virtue.
“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” April 30, 2001
And you will by happy to know that our tax dollars ARE in fact paying to keep pools warm. And hotels and golf courses open that otherwise might not do so well. President Trump thanks you. -
No virtue
Its just cost effective
And I sell my excess power back to the electric company
-
“No virtue
Its just cost effective
And I sell my excess power back to the electric company”
I guess “Thanks for sharing” is in order. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from Castlevania
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
the timing may not have been right but that doesn’t mean rising sea levels aren’t affecting coastal cities. Look at New Orleans, Miami, New York city. Here’s something from the local Miami paper. Higher sea levels have left them much more susceptible to high tides. As it keeps raising, they’ll simply be under water.
[link=https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239486308.html]https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/environment/article239486308.html[/link]
Yes, and that has zero to do with the crazy alarmism you guys sell constantly, and are wrong about over and over, constantly.
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1862[/link]
You would have been saying the end of the world was there in 1862 too, even though there were no CO2 emissions anywhere in sight, or comparatively to now at least. Still, it went away, cycled, and droughts came on in the early part of the 20th century. The point is, I can give you thousands of way worse weather throughout recent human and the Earth’s history. We always see this. It pains me greatly to see how easily manipulated educated people like you guys are, how you refuse to critically think at all. There is way more evidence that nothing you guys huck is even remotely evidence based or could even fathom a model or prediction, which also have all been wrong. The ability to manipulate you all moving forward is a much more dangerous sign than any climate event seen, or thought of. Sad, and true.
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Florida should be concerned. Ive seen pictures of flooding in Miami. It seems more like a matter of time before its under water.
My wife is fervently hoping that Florida floods out or drifts off the american continent so it can be declared its own country. Addition by subtraction…..
-
Quote from fw
My wife is fervently hoping that Florida floods out or drifts off the american continent so it can be declared its own country. Addition by subtraction…..
Add Texas to that list?
[link=https://www.texasobserver.org/sinking-land-and-climate-change-are-worsening-tidal-floods-on-texas-coast/]https://www.texasobserver…floods-on-texas-coast/[/link] -
Not everyone has their heads in the sand, or up somewhere else even in Texas in spite of Republican Denials.
[link=https://www.dallasnews.com/news/environment/2020/02/14/heres-a-peek-at-how-a-new-climate-action-plan-could-change-life-in-dallas/]https://www.dallasnews.co…change-life-in-dallas/[/link]
As Dallas tackles climate change, the city could try to change how North Texans get to work, how they power their homes, and how much shade they have.
A year after the City Council unanimously voted to create its first climate action plan, a draft is ready.
The plan includes 90 proposals, many of them focusing on reducing greenhouse gases to meet the citys boldest goal: eliminating such emissions by 2050.
The plan is expected to launch April 22, which is Earth Day. Residents can review and comment on the plan at [link=https://www.dallasclimateaction.com/]dallasclimateaction.com[/link] through March 3.
But since the drafts release Feb. 4, some Dallas residents have said it doesnt adequately address all the problems the city will face.
[link=https://www.vims.edu/newsandevents/topstories/2020/slrc_2019.php]https://www.vims.edu/news…ies/2020/slrc_2019.php[/link]
The annual update of their sea level report cards by researchers at William & Marys Virginia Institute of Marine Science adds evidence of an accelerating rate of sea-level rise at nearly all tidal stations along the U.S. coastline.
[size=”0″]The teams web-based report cards project sea level to the year 2050 based on an ongoing analysis of tide-gauge records for 32 localities along the U.S. coast from Maine to Alaska. The analysis now includes 51 years of water-level observations, from January 1969 through December 2019. The interactive charts are available online at [/size][link=https://www.vims.edu/sealevelreportcards/index.php]www.vims.edu/sealevelreportcards[/link][size=”0″].[/size]
-
Quote from fw
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Florida should be concerned. Ive seen pictures of flooding in Miami. It seems more like a matter of time before its under water.
My wife is fervently hoping that Florida floods out or drifts off the american continent so it can be declared its own country. Addition by subtraction…..
I don’t think of it so much as Florida somehow becoming an Island. The highest points in the state are around the North and panhandle. It’s the places that are like 0-3 above sea level. Which is basically a whole lot of popular coast line and south Florida like Miami. I would certainly be concerned about flooding and losing property if I lived there.
[link=https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3047/downloads/SIM3047.pdf]https://pubs.usgs.gov/sim/3047/downloads/SIM3047.pdf[/link]
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
No one advised the Fiat 500 or the Smart Car or Prius to be a work truck. That’s inane.
Now a Tesla Model X makes a work “truck” that outpulls a F-150 4X. It will pull your yacht out of the water and to anywhere. So maybe Tesla’s Cybertruck is the way to go. And it has zero emissions compared to any gas or diesels.
[link=https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-cybertruck-ford-f150-model-x-tug-of-war-video/]https://www.cnet.com/road…el-x-tug-of-war-video/[/link]
-
“Climate denial”
Dumbest thread title ever.
“Solar denial” makes just as much sense. It’s hard to be this disingenuous, or alternatively, this stupid. I’m sad to say it’s the latter. No critical thinking here, but hey, we already knew that. -
Quote from Frumious
No one advised the Fiat 500 or the Smart Car or Prius to be a work truck. That’s inane.
Now a Tesla Model X makes a work “truck” that outpulls a F-150 4X. It will pull your yacht out of the water and to anywhere. So maybe Tesla’s Cybertruck is the way to go. And it has zero emissions compared to any gas or diesels.
[link=https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-cybertruck-ford-f150-model-x-tug-of-war-video/]https://www.cnet.com/road…el-x-tug-of-war-video/[/link]
Ehhhh. Nikola makes a better looking truck and Ford will becoming out with one soon as well. Just like the E-Stang. The issue will become distance in the future. The term Work Truck has be at least a 200 mile radius with a Charge and a full Load. I believe the wording in Tesla is wrong, I don’t see a work truck I see a Mondernized Honda Ridgeline copy with an electric motor. However, electric will provide a better, smoother pull performance as torque always wins with an E motor. That’s common electrical mechanics however E-Trucks will have to have mass to pull trailers and push front shovels. I don’t see them as work trucks as I bet the Trailer pulling capacity (for long distances) will be way underrated. My F250 Pulls 6.1 tons right from factory and can go 500 miles (30 gallon tank) with close to a full load. At this time no E-Truck can do that distance. Future? sure.. no doubt but not now.
But I will still build… Cuda’s, Stangs and other Muscle Cars with Friends that go Vrooooom. Because, it’s Americana and gets chicks over 40!-
Well my favorite car was a 1964 Gran Prix back in 1969 or so.
But would not drive it as my everyday car for many reasons.
-
-
-
Quote from Castlevania
Check out the alarmism dating back to June 1989:
[link=https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0]https://apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0[/link]
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of eco- refugees, threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
[i][b]He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control[/b][/i].”
Sound famiilar?
The left is full of nothing burgers. Has been for decades now.
Cigar, I think you need to inform the Republicans in Florida and other Red State coastal areas that they are fools as they see Miami and the Keys and Charlestown flooding during bright and sunny days. They will appreciate your vast knowledge that they are seeing a nothingBurger mirage & don’t need to wear those galoshes. It’s nothing but a hallucination caused by a Left-wing and Chinese conspiracy. I mean that was the point of the articles I linked as reality has a way of asserting itself even to Denial idiots, no matter how much Kool-Aide you drink.
[link=https://www.businessinsider.com/sea-level-rise-high-tides-sunny-day-flooding-coastal-cities-2018-4]https://www.businessinsid…-coastal-cities-2018-4[/link]
I still wonder why you find it necessary to create new AM identities to hide behind.
-
Quote from rozakk
Bernie atleast correctly mentioned that the lions share of co2 going forward is coming out of India/China, but he didnt mention any practical ideas for how to get them to fall in line.
Im all for the US to step up on emissions controls but its like pissing in the wind if the developing world doesnt changeThe end of America as world leader. Our new international policy –
“You first, we’ll follow. Wayyyy behind you.” -
“Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.” April 30, 2001
Wow, he was ahead of his time, if only California had listened.
-
Theyd be what? As poor as Red states? Like maybe West Virginia or Kentucky?
-
“Theyd be what? As poor as Red states? Like maybe West Virginia or Kentucky?”
Forgive me, I assumed you were up to speed on California. No, I think I was going for they wouldn’t have random blackouts and a strained power grid starting electrical fires whenever the wind blows.
-
Climate change has gotten weird as a topic. Discussions about it veer towards the religious in level of fervor.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why not just invest a few billion bucks into making carbon scrubbing technology really good, set up some massive plants in Nevada, sell or even give the tech to developing nations and then go about scrubbing the excess carbon from the atmosphere?
That way we could leave the economy alone and actually use economic windfalls to fuel advances in scrubbing tech. We could even siphon off some of that extra solar power to run the plants.
Heck, improve the tech enough and you could miniaturize it and everyone could slap a carbon scrubber on their roof next to their solar panels.
I mean…can we just do this? Especially for smoggy areas?
-
I’m ok with whatever groups/states want to do. Lead by example. I don’t know why my buying into global warming or not should have any effect on you, or Al Gore, or a big uber-wealthy and Democrat controlled state like California, doing something about it.
“Climate change has gotten weird as a topic.”
Yeah agreed. Personally I would vote that any thread greater than 4 or 5 pages or over 1 year without activity should be allowed to die a natural death. I mean who the heck is going to reread 20 pages to see who said what or resurrect a 2+ year old thread. Happens all the time here (there is not even a dead horse left it was picked clean by vultures). Folks on the spectrum probably LOL. (I ain’t pointing fingers here) -
Quote from radgrinder
Climate change has gotten weird as a topic. Discussions about it veer towards the religious in level of fervor.
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why not just invest a few billion bucks into making carbon scrubbing technology really good, set up some massive plants in Nevada, sell or even give the tech to developing nations and then go about scrubbing the excess carbon from the atmosphere?
That way we could leave the economy alone and actually use economic windfalls to fuel advances in scrubbing tech. We could even siphon off some of that extra solar power to run the plants.
Heck, improve the tech enough and you could miniaturize it and everyone could slap a carbon scrubber on their roof next to their solar panels.
I mean…can we just do this? Especially for smoggy areas?
Carbon scrubbing? And the cost and effectiveness of THAT? And who pays for household scrubbers? Caffeinated already thought it quite funny about tax breaks to encourage the use non-fossil fuel energy sources, now perhaps tax breaks to remove carbon?
So spend money to keep fossil fuels cheap. Seems counter-productive. Why not just develop non-fossil fuel energy?
Magical thinking will not solve the rapidly warming climate problem.
[link=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/516166/what-carbon-capture-cant-do/]https://www.technologyrev…arbon-capture-cant-do/[/link]
Ive recently reported on a handful of ways that researchers are trying to lower the cost of capturing carbon dioxide, with the view to storing it underground or using it for something useful (see [link=http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515881/cheaper-ways-to-capture-carbon-dioxide/]Cheaper Ways to Capture Carbon Dioxide[/link], [link=http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515301/grasping-for-ways-to-capture-carbon-dioxide-on-the-cheap/]Grasping for Ways to Capture Carbon Dioxide on the Cheap[/link], and [link=http://www.technologyreview.com/news/515026/fuel-cells-could-offer-cheap-carbon-dioxide-storage/]Fuel Cells Could Offer Cheap Carbon Dioxide Storage[/link]).
All of these improvements shouldnt obscure the fact that the potential of carbon capture is limited. Carbon capture and storage will never be able to accommodate all of the carbon dioxide we emit now.
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide will always make electricity more expensive.
Even if costs are made far lower than they are today, the impact of carbon capture will be limited by the sheer scale of infrastructure needed to store carbon dioxide. During combustion, each carbon atom from coal combines with two atoms of oxygen from the air, and this creates a huge amount of stuff. Even once the gas has been compressed into a liquid that can be piped to storage sites, the volume is immense.
Vaclav Smil, a professor at University of Manitoba and master of sobering energy-related numbers, calculates that if we were to bury just one-fifth of the global carbon dioxide emissions, we would need to build an industry capable of handling twice the volume of stuff as the entire oil industry, an industry that took 100 years to develop, driven by a large and mostly expanding market.
[size=”0″][/size]
-
-
Quote from over-caffeinated
“Theyd be what? As poor as Red states? Like maybe West Virginia or Kentucky?”
Forgive me, I assumed you were up to speed on California. No, I think I was going for they wouldn’t have random blackouts and a strained power grid starting electrical fires whenever the wind blows.
I though maybe you actually read/watched something outside of Fox News. If you did you’d know why the blackouts which are directly related to global warming climate.
Oh well, try to give benefit to the Right-wingers to “think” beyond their propaganda beliefs & resentments & they always show why that effort is wasted.-
I though maybe you actually read/watched something outside of Fox News. If you did you’d know why the blackouts which are directly related to global warming climate.
Since it is obvious to me you are only interested in spewing asinine environmentalist/political propaganda, because even hard core lefties living in Cali know that the environmentalism line here is a blatant cover for decades of political and business mismanagement, and making up straw-man arguments of everything said I am not going to waste additional time attempting to converse here with you. Good day.-
You need to know facts before you can engage in a discussion. I mean, you raised California first as if it had something to do with the topic at hand.
If you can’t make an intelligent argument blame only yourself.
And BTW, the rolling blackouts were the decision of the private utility, NOT California’s government. Blame capitalism and the free market for putting profits over everything, including customer service.
-
“And BTW, the rolling blackouts were the decision of the private utility, NOT California’s government. Blame capitalism and the free market for putting profits over everything, including customer service.”
Please just stop pretending you know much beyond a quick Google search about California and it’s energy suppliers and the California PUC. This has been a known train wreck coming for years.
[link=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2019-09-06/cpuc-pge-scandal-peevey-picker-poor-oversight]https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/2019-09-06/cpuc-pge-scandal-peevey-picker-poor-oversight[/link]-
Similarities to ENRON. According to your link it looks like the state has gone after the utility for some years. Not to mention Erin Brockovich’s history with the company.
It also underlines the importance of regulation of corporate businesses and how government must enforce regulation, an anathema to some. The free market is a failure to self-regulate.
A Wall Street Journal [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-cat-and-mouse-game-pg-es-long-record-of-run-ins-with-regulators-and-courts-11567707731?mod=hp_lead_pos5]account[/link] of a quarter-century of reckless behavior by Pacific Gas & Electric officials isnt just an indictment of Californias largest utility. Its details of how PG&E played a cat and mouse game in which it hid severe problems from the California Public Utilities Commission also amount to an indictment of the utilities regulator which a former CPUC offical admitted was not a particularly adroit cat. Thats being kind.
The Journal [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-penalties-and-settlements-through-the-years-11567706508]chronicled[/link] how PG&E has paid more than $2.6 billion in the past 23 years in state and federal penalties and lawsuit settlements. Yet for most of this era especially when Michael Peevey was CPUC president from 2002-2014 PG&E was treated not as a scofflaw but as akin to the utilities commissions corporate partner. It was only last December when Peeveys successor, Michael Picker, finally grasped how devious PG&E was after evidence emerged that the utility had pressured workers to[link=https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/editorials/sd-pge-gas-inspections-san-bruno-falsify-20181221-story.html] falsify data [/link]related to the safety of natural gas pipelines from 2012-2017 after a PG&E pipeline disaster [link=https://www.latimes.com/local/la-xpm-2011-aug-30-la-me-0831-san-bruno-20110831-story.html]killed eight [/link]in 2010.
Gov. Gavin Newsoms choice to succeed Picker veteran executive Marybel Batjer must change her agencys culture. Theres nowhere to go but up.
The WSJ article is long and you should read it. The company is at fault. The reality is that the country is engaged in an argument about de-regulation being the solution fro freeing companies form government. This company proves, like ENRON before it, that more regulation with teeth is required. This is the company Erin Brockovich went after.
[link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-cat-and-mouse-game-pg-es-long-record-of-run-ins-with-regulators-and-courts-11567707731]https://www.wsj.com/artic…and-courts-11567707731[/link]
In-house audits at [link=https://quotes.wsj.com/PCG]PG&E[/link] Corp. as early as 2010 said workers were falsifying records of ground-marking at excavation sites intended to protect buried electricity cables and gas pipelines. The workers made it appear they were keeping up with their workload when they were not.
Midlevel managers told higher-ups by 2014 that an ambitious program director was pressuring people to burnish on-time results, according to sworn testimony from utility employees to a California regulator.
Confronted by state regulators, who plan hearings on the episode this fall, [link=https://quotes.wsj.com/PCG]PG&E[/link] said it had provided the best information it had. It said employee conduct fell short of the high standards of integrity and the ethical action to which the company is committed.
It was no anomaly. The Wall Street Journal identified repeated instances over 25 years in which PG&E misled regulatory authorities, withheld required information, didnt follow through on promised improvements, engaged in improper back-channel communications with regulators or obstructed an investigation.
The company has paid more than $2.6 billion in state and federal penalties and lawsuit settlements in such cases.
For years, he said, PG&E seemed to play a cat and mouse game with regulators of doing what it wanted and waiting to see if it got caught, which he said was unfortunate because the utilities commission is not a particularly adroit cat.
Catherine J.K. Sandoval, another former utilities commissioner and now a Santa Clara University law professor, said PG&E has a trust issue and a conduct issue, and it violates rules of conduct so often it amounts to a pattern. They are definitely the worst among the utilities she oversaw, she said.
A federal judge, William Alsup, referred in a January order to what he called PG&Es history of falsification of inspection reports.
Mr. Johnson and the new directors arrived not long after Pacific Gas & Electric Co., the operating unit of [link=https://quotes.wsj.com/PCG]PG&E[/link] Corp., [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-files-for-bankruptcy-following-california-wildfires-11548750142?mod=article_inline]filed for bankruptcy protection[/link] in January for the second time in two decades, citing fire liabilities.
On July 10, Judge Alsup, overseeing PG&Es federal probation, [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-orders-pg-e-to-respond-to-journal-article-11562799414?mod=article_inline]ordered the company to respond, paragraph by paragraph[/link], to a Journal article saying PG&E long knew it had power lines that could spark fires but [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-knew-for-years-its-lines-could-spark-wildfires-and-didnt-fix-them-11562768885?mod=article_inline]failed to perform necessary upgrades[/link] to towers [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pg-e-delayed-safety-work-on-power-line-that-is-prime-suspect-in-california-wildfire-11551292977?mod=hp_lead_pos5&mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline]and other equipment[/link]. The judge told the company to give him a clear answer and not bury him in thousands of pages of records, which he said it had done in the past.
In its response, PG&E acknowledged it had long known its aged high-voltage lines could fail and trigger fires, and had delayed some upgrades to the line that broke in November and sparked the Camp Fire [link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-paradise-fire-a-hunt-for-human-remains-among-the-ashes-1542370791?mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline]that [/link][link=https://www.wsj.com/articles/after-paradise-fire-a-hunt-for-human-remains-among-the-ashes-1542370791?mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline&mod=article_inline]ravaged the town of Paradise[/link].
[b]In 1996 and 2006, PG&E settled lawsuits alleging it contaminated drinking-water sources in and around Hinkley and Kettleman City, Calif., with a carcinogenic form of chromium and deceived residentsagreeing to pay about $628 million in the cases that made legal clerk Erin Brockovich famous. Ms. Brockovich now is helping victims of the Camp Fire sue the utility.[/b]
-
See, had you just dug into google a little deeper at the start we could have just avoided the whole “It’s directly related to global warming” discussion. It isn’t, not to any significant degree anyway. It is related to piss poor management on the utilities part, piss poor supervision on the governments part, and as I alluded to earlier an over-reliance on importing “green” power from out of state which of course is again bad government management in mandating a percentage of power be “green” without any plan on where that “green” electricity was going to come from. None of that garbage management has anything to do with global warming unless you count enacting hysteria-driven legislation without taking into account the downside costs an “effect” of global warming.
-
If you support the Party and president who believe deregulation is the answer and government and regulation are the problems, how do you actually complain about government not doing enough?
That’s a contradiction.
The company is responsible for infrastructure as it owns the lines. The weather was a major contributing factor outside of the poor infrastructure for spreading the fire once it started and trying to prevent more fires. You cannot deny that.
And confusing nd conflating various issues into 1 big spaghetti mess does nothing to solve anything except to stoke confusion and resentment. Importing green power is bad? I dunno, many states are importing green power & I am invested in a couple of green power companies. I see them as the solution, not the problem.
-
“That’s a contradiction.”
My “side” supports many things, some I agree with, some I do not, some I partially agree with. It’s only a contradiction to people who view voters a monolithic. Where have I espoused complete deregulation? Never. Are you arguing with me or some straw-man you have built in your head to represent me? -
Well deregulation is definitely a big deal, a major part of the platform with both Trump and the Republican party for decades. Not to mention anti-government. After all that’s part of what made Reagan so lovable to Republicans.
This is not some minor part of the GOP’s platform, it’s a core belief. So if you support Trump & the GOP it is hardly unreasonable for me to assume you are anti-regulation and not antithetical to believing government plays an important part in protecting the public.
And like climate change and alternate energy generation, your comedy about the virtuousness of erecting solar panels fits you right in with Republican ideas.
It’s not as if I am inventing stories like invading hordes at the southern border and then asking how someone should feel about that.
-
So you are arguing with your own head. Figures.
“It’s not as if I am inventing stories like invading hordes at the southern border and then asking how someone should feel about that.”
Are you even capable of rational discussion any more? I mean what the flying-F do illegal immigrants have to do with our discussion right now? Or do you just insist on throwing up a smoke screen of off-topic talking points like some NPC?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hahaha…Wait a second Frumious, I thought you were up for the Green New Deal, Paris Accord, we are all gonna die in 6-8 years like in that scene in 2012 when a tsunami swamped Mt Everest unless we destroyed the economy, stopped all carbon emissions immediately, kill all the cows and only eat various lichens and mosses plan? But a couple dozen billion dollars on carbon scrubbing is too expensive? Were all going to die in a massive global hurricane sponsored by Exxon and California is going to tip into the ocean, and youre worried about a few billion dollars? How dare you?
[link=https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/9/4/20829431/climate-change-carbon-capture-utilization-sequestration-ccu-ccs]https://www.vox.com/energ…-sequestration-ccu-ccs[/link]
Its a math problem, isnt it? X amount of carbon/other materials in the atmosphere yields Y increase in degrees Celsius over Z timeframe. Cost of adjusting X is $A dollars, cost of not adjusting X is $B dollars. There are a multitude of existing and developing options for reducing X. Implement those low hanging fruit options with the least economic impact first, develop and add the others over time to make them more effective and less expensive.
Keep the cows alive.
-
Shows you what you know.
Dying in 6-8 years? Other than on Red Wingnut sites, who said the Earth’s life would all go extinct in 6-8 years and about killing all cows? Can you show me a real post that says what you claim? You are basing your science beliefs on a movie? About a Tsunami engulfing Mt Everest?
Other tha X & Y BS, what are you saying? What solutions? What are $B dollars or $A dollars? What amounts are these supposed to represent?
Do you have any evidence you can post at all? Even a single one? Or are you just posting Kool-Aide hallucinations? Any facts there at all?
I mean, was this pic from your VOX link the personal rooftop CO2 sequestration device you were talking about?-
Quote from Frumious
Shows you what you know.
Dying in 6-8 years? Other than on Red Wingnut sites, who said the Earth’s life would all go extinct in 6-8 years and about killing all cows? Can you show me a real post that says what you claim? You are basing your science beliefs on a movie? About a Tsunami engulfing Mt Everest?
Other tha X & Y BS, what are you saying? What solutions? What are $B dollars or $A dollars? What amounts are these supposed to represent?
Do you have any evidence you can post at all? Even a single one? Or are you just posting Kool-Aide hallucinations? Any facts there at all?
I mean, was this pic from your VOX link the personal rooftop CO2 sequestration device you were talking about?
Well…it was a red wing nut who said it, but red in the communist sense, not the one youre using. Bernie said during the November debate that in 8 or 9 years major cities are going to be underwater.
The cow reference came from the Green New Deals documents. Heres a summary, which references the farting cows.
[link=https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/5729035/Green-New-Deal-FAQ.pdf[/link]
I have no evidence to support the Democratic claims, which veer consistently into hyperbole. I actually think that humanity is excellent in managing crises when we can see them coming and have a relatively long period of time (as in decades) to adapt and invent our way out of them. I am extremely optimistic about it.
Also, Im going to have to hammer you on the size thing regarding CO2 scrubbers, my friend. Its a silly argument, and you know better. Look at the phone, tablet or computer that youre reading this on, or at the flat screen TV in front of you. A couple of decades ago the computing power housed in your phone would have required a suburban home to hold all the servers. The 60 inch screen would have required a 300 pound casing and tube behind it before LCD technology arose. Now it weighs 30 pounds and you can buy it on special for a few hundred bucks at Best Buy.
Once a technology exists, miniaturization or otherwise fitting it into a particular space is a matter of engineering. If there is enough incentive to do so, it can and will be done.
As for your question as to what numbers to plug into the A or B dollars…hmm, Im a bit disappointed. Ok, if the economic cost of implementing a proposal addressing climate change (A) is $10 trillion dollars over the next century, and the economic cost of NOT implementing a particular proposal results in the seas rising by an inch over the next century and the various costs associated with that (levees, moving people, etc. etc. etc.) are $5 trillion dollars (B), then which option should we choose? Or reverse it, saying that the cost of the proposal is $5 trillion but the long term economic benefit is $10 trillion. Or the cost of implementation is $10.0001 trillion and the cost of doing nothing is $10 trillion.
The important thing is the difference between overall economic impact between doing something and not doing something, and figuring out a way to get as much good done for the environment with the least economic damage.-
All models have been wrong. All spokesmen have been wrong, fradulent in the worst way. The theory never made sense to begin with (warming should never stop) and they cherry picked data, it’s so honest if you just look even at just the 20th century. If you know anything about the Earth’s history, it’s been much hotter and colder for millions of years
It really is the dumbest, most obvious hoax going, and that’s saying a lot over the last couple hundred years, in the world.-
IB,
I disagree about the hoax aspect. I think there are and have been climate changes related to human activity and that serious consequences can and will occur unless interventions are made.
I do think the climate field gets into trouble when individual scientists make specific predictions that then dont occur. The underlying science is valid; extrapolating it to predictions on relatively specific timeframes (i.e., in 8 years this or that city will be underwater) is most likely not and I wish they wouldnt do it because it fuels hoax allegations.
As a comparison in messaging: Washing hands saves lives/prevents disease. True. Doubt anyone here would argue it. But if I told you that if you dont wash your hands then you will die of E.coli in 30 days, you would say, well that seems unlikely. Its way too specific. You could certainly get sick, but it could also be a cold or the flu or a variety of other germs and levels of illness. But you would still agree that you should wash your hands.
Similar thing to climate change. Should certainly wash our hands, but its unnecessary and likely counterproductive to make very specific predictions on the consequences of not washing our hands.
-
[b]The Great Climate Migration[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/07/23/magazine/climate-migration.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage]New York Times[/link]: Today, 1% of the world is a barely livable hot zone. By 2070, that portion could go up to 19%.
Scientists have learned to project such changes around the world with surprising precision, but until recently little has been known about the human consequences of those changes. As their land fails them, hundreds of millions of people from Central America to Sudan to the Mekong Delta will be forced to choose between flight or death. The result will almost certainly be the greatest wave of global migration the world has seen.-
Ive read something on the long term thinking that this is what the next big wars will be over. Resources. People are going to fight for them in places like Africa or Antarctica.
-
Yes, wars are easier than addressing climate change.
-
[h1]Exchange of the Day[/h1]
During President Trumps briefing on the west coast wildfires, California Natural Resources chief Wade Crowfoot emphasized that [link=https://twitter.com/DannyEFreeman/status/1305583063599124482?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1305583063599124482%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fus-news%2Flive%2F2020%2Fsep%2F14%2Fdonald-trump-california-wildfires-coronavirus-covid-19-joe-biden-kamala-harris-us-election-politics-live-updates]climate change was exacerbating the crisis[/link]:
TRUMP: Itll start getting cooler, you just watch.
CROWFOOT: I wish science agreed with you.
TRUMP: I dont think science knows actually.
…
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/14/president-who-says-coronavirus-will-go-away-makes-same-prediction-about-global-warming/]Philip Bump[/link]: The president who says the coronavirus will go away makes the same prediction about global warming.[/QUOTE]
"It'll start getting cooler, you just watch." - President Trump.
"I wish science agreed with you" - CA Natural Resources Secretary.
"I don't think science knows actually."- President Trump.#NBC7. pic.twitter.com/0tMvYX3IUN
— Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) September 14, 2020
-
That’s pretty silly.
In all seriousness though, if you had to ballpark it… What % of the blame do you think goes with each: 1. the people who started them 2. forest mismanagement (not doing prescribed burns, clearing brush, etc.) 3. Climate change 4. Trump
Something like 50-48-2-0?
The temp has risen across NA a degree or so. Hard to find rain/drought data but Cali has dealt with this forever. Here’s a graph of LA rain which is the best I could find and is essentially stable.[link=http://www.laalmanac.com/images/chart_rainfall_LA_1887_2018.jpg]http://www.laalmanac.com/…nfall_LA_1887_2018.jpg[/link]
The effects of fires are felt more now due to the increase in housing, population, etc.
And, the best part which no journalist has even attempted to ask because they don’t care apparently, “Hey, Gov. Newsom, since you’re such a believer in climate change and think that it causes an increase risk of fires, why hasn’t your government taken additional steps to ensure better forest management and prevention?”
Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me. -
Quote from Cubsfan10
That’s pretty silly.
In all seriousness though, if you had to ballpark it… What % of the blame do you think goes with each: 1. the people who started them 2. forest mismanagement (not doing prescribed burns, clearing brush, etc.) 3. Climate change 4. Trump
Something like 50-48-2-0?
So how much of California’s forests are under state control?
only 3 percent of land in California is under state control while 57 percent is federal forest land, meaning under the presidents management as governed by federal law.
If you are going to fault forest management as a primary cause of fires, start with the national Forest Service, not the state of California. -
That’s fine. I’m happy to blame any and all forms of government.
-
Quote from Cubsfan10
That’s pretty silly.
In all seriousness though, if you had to ballpark it… What % of the blame do you think goes with each: 1. the people who started them 2. forest mismanagement (not doing prescribed burns, clearing brush, etc.) 3. Climate change 4. Trump
Something like 50-48-2-0?
Seems like a reasonable question to ask to me.
Per NASA:
[link=https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2912/satellite-data-record-shows-climate-changes-impact-on-fires/]https://climate.nasa.gov/…anges-impact-on-fires/[/link]
[b]Satellite Data Record Shows Climate Change’s Impact on Fires[/b]
[b] [/b]
Combined with data collected and analyzed by scientists and forest managers on the ground, researchers at NASA, other U.S. agencies and universities are beginning to draw into focus the interplay between fires, climate and humans.
“Our ability to track fires in a concerted way over the last 20 years with satellite data has captured large-scale trends, such as increased fire activity, consistent with a warming climate in places like the western U.S., Canada and other parts of Northern Hemisphere forests where fuels are abundant,” said Doug Morton, chief of the Biospheric Sciences Laboratory at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “Where warming and drying climate has increased the risk of fires, weve seen an increase in burning.”
…
Lightning strikes are the main natural cause of fires. The researchers found an unusually high number of lightning strikes occurred, generated by the warmer temperatures that cause the atmosphere to create more convective systems thunderstorms which ultimately contributed to more burned area that year.
Hotter and drier conditions also set the stage for human-ignited fires. “In the Western U.S., people are accidentally igniting fires all the time,” Randerson said. “But when we have a period of extreme weather, high temperatures, low humidity, then its more likely that typical outdoor activity might lead to an accidental fire that quickly gets out of control and becomes a large wildfire.”
…
“As climate warms, we have an increasing frequency of extreme events. Its critical to monitor and understand extreme fires using satellite data so that we have the tools to successfully manage them in a warmer world,”
They cite the importance of human land management as a factor as well.
There’s no scientific data to back your speculated numbers, but I would wager that the vast majority of climate scientists would assign a *much* higher significance to climate change. -
I’ll go up to 5 for CC then. Certainly still not more of a cause that the people who start them or the bad forest management.
The point was that Cali liberals are blaming CC 100% and that it’s somehow Republicans/Trumps fault.
-
[link=https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/a-century-of-fire-suppression-is-why-california-is-in-flames/]https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/a-century-of-fire-suppression-is-why-california-is-in-flames/[/link]
They were teaching this stuff in college 30+ years ago in west coast universities that fire suppression and lack of controlled burns would lead to this exact problem. And here it is. -
Yes and no. Even your 3 yr old articles states that global warming is making things worse.
No one is making even a tiny claim that global warming is solely to blame.
And 30 years ago, people were predicting that global warming would lead to magnifying and multiplying events like fires.
And yet here we are.Remember Bush I was told warming was eminent due to fossil fuels but as an oil man he decided more study was needed.
And here we are.
-
If you believe that global warming is going to cause more fires or bigger fires then the thing to do is lessen the chance of big fires. Deal with the variables you can most easily fix.
-
[link=https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060108785]https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060108785[/link]
At the start of the George H.W. Bush presidency, the Republican Party fretted about the dangers of climate change. By the end, it was focused on doubt and inaction.
Since then, the party has drifted further away from the conclusion of scientists and from policies to address global warming.
Bush embraced climate science in the 1980s and campaigned on protecting Americans from its dangers.
“Those who think we are powerless to do anything about the greenhouse effect forget about the ‘White House effect,'” Bush said in a 1988 campaign speech. “As president, I intend to do something about it.”
But as soon as Bush got into office, the administration started to work against meaningful policy on climate change, observers say, even as it crafted strong positions on air pollution to defeat the threat of acid rain.
Conservatives around the world, including former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, were worried about climate change and looking for policy solutions. Instead, skeptical forces grew stronger, pushed by Washington-based think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While Bush ignored those groups on acid rain, he acquiesced on climate change.
“The GOP during the Bush presidency pivoted from a position of being torn on how to respond to climate change,” Taylor said. “This issue could have gone either way, but we know which way it went. The party could have been on climate change where the party is on acid rain, which is accepting it as a real thing and with some responsibility for a government response and total peace with the decision.”
-
“The real shame is that we saw this coming and we had a chance to get ahead of the impacts of climate change before they manifest themselves, and we just didn’t do it,” Oppenheimer said.
-
[link=https://www.forestunlimited.org/resources/california-forest-statistics/]https://www.forestunlimited.org/resources/california-forest-statistics/[/link]
There are 33 million acres of forest(ed) lands in California.
[b]Federal ownership is 19 million acres = 57%[/b]
[b]
[/b]
[b]State and local agencies (including land trusts) own 3%[/b]
[b]
[/b]
[b]Privately owned forest lands are 13.3 million acres = 40%[/b]
Industrial private owners are 4.7 million acres = 14%
Non-industrial privately owned forest lands are 9 million acres = 26%
Non-corporate private forest lands are 7.9 million acres
REITs and other investment devices are 344,000 acres
90+% of the non-corporate private ownerships are 500 acres or less
-
Regarding TRump’s actions and policies against the environment:
[link=https://rhg.com/research/the-rollback-of-us-climate-policy/]https://rhg.com/research/…-of-us-climate-policy/[/link]President Trump has made dismantling environmental regulations a priority during his time in office. While some of these moves remain mired in legal uncertainty, the Trump administration has successfully unraveled the majority of Obama-era climate policies, including the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles, and efforts to curb potent greenhouse gases (GHGs) from refrigerants and air conditioning. Just last month, the administration eased regulations preventing methane leakage from oil and gas facilities. Rhodium Group has analyzed the isolated implications of each of these regulatory rollbacks on US GHG emissions in previous research. In this note, we examine their aggregate effect. We find that Trumps major climate policy rollbacks have the potential to add 1.8 gigatons of CO2-equivalent to the atmosphere by 2035. This cumulative impact is equivalent to nearly one-third of all US emissions in 2019.
-
Fires not in California but in Siberia.
So what’s their problem? Forest litter? Tundra litter? Spotted owl?
[link]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y[/link]
Nearly half the worlds peatland-stored carbon lies between 60 and 70 degrees north, along the Arctic Circle. The problem with this is that historically frozen carbon-rich soils are expected to thaw as the planet warms, making them even more vulnerable to wildfires and more likely to release large amounts of carbon. Its a feedback loop: as peatlands release more carbon, global warming increases, which thaws more peat and causes more wildfires (see Peatlands burning). A study published last month[link=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02568-y#ref-CR1]1[/link] shows that northern peatlands could eventually shift from being a net sink for carbon to a net source of carbon, further accelerating climate change.
The unprecedented Arctic wildfires of 2019 and 2020 show that transformational shifts are already under way, says Thomas Smith, an environmental geographer at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Alarming is the right term.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Well, so what about climate science then. You write like a denier and Gore hater. Is your denial position directly related to your dislike of Gore or is there something behind denial? Gore seems to be a focus of yours. I mean I had no idea at all that Gore had 33 solar panels. Is that germane to whether anthropomorphic warming exists – or not?
-
We had this discussion already regarding denialism, so I am not up for having it again. I refer you to page 18 of this thread.
As far as Al Gore is concerned. I neither hate nor like the man. He has made himself a spokesman of the environmentalism movement so he is fair game. He has lots of wealth, more than enough to walk-the-walk and he doesn’t.
-
-
This is a climate change thread.
Quote from Cubsfan10
Climate change doesn’t have anything to do with the wildfire problem, hurricanes, or any other flavor of the week Dems try to link to it. And the media just parrots it out like it’s some sort of fact. Just like the 400,000 covid deaths by January. Even you Frumi, can’t believe that one.
There’s been a degree or so warming in NA that really hasn’t affected much of anything.
This isn’t a climate change thread so I won’t go further but happy to talk more about it if someone wants to start one.
So you are arguing that while the earth has warmed between 1-2 degrees Celsius in only the past couple of decades.
But none of that warming has any effect at all on the environment?
Explain how the global average temperature can increase 1-2 degrees Celsius but could never affect weather or rainfall or winds anywhere in the world.
This I gotta hear/read.-
Well, obviously there has been an effect. Climates affect their environments almost by definition. I was saying that it’s been negligible as far as altering our way of life since it’s been such a small amount of warming. It’s much easier and cheaper for us to adapt to the changes.
Climate change is the best device to use to gain money power because you can’t question it since it’s completely fungible and unlimited in scope – aka people can use it to try to erroneously claim anything from a hot summer, to a hurricane, to a wildfire. It goes the other way too, a cold winter and a mild hurricane season doesn’t mean anything either.
The other point was that it’s nowhere near the primary culprit in wildfires in Cali.
My question still stands and I’ll pose it to you then… If you, Newsom, etc. believe climate change is a constant threat to cause wildfires in California, then why doesn’t the government there do everything in its power to try to prevent the fires from starting – aka better forest management? Seems like if you knew it was going to rain heavily every so often, you’d want to build a good roof, no?
-
How much average global temperature do you think is necessary before you personally notice a difference in climate, local, regional, etc? 10 degrees Celsius?
-
What I like about California…burning down because they dont think the Dept of Forestry is a thing and ignore its advice…then they have to do rolling blackouts because they did away with nuclear power and theres not enough electricity to power air conditioning in the summer.
But dont you worry…when it comes time to add the additional power grid burden of plugging in millions more electric cars, everything will totally not go completely off the rails.-
Quote from radgrinder
What I like about California…burning down because they dont think the Dept of Forestry is a thing and ignore its advice…then they have to do rolling blackouts because they did away with nuclear power and theres not enough electricity to power air conditioning in the summer.
But dont you worry…when it comes time to add the additional power grid burden of plugging in millions more electric cars, everything will totally not go completely off the rails.
What’s any of that got to do with climate change?
Nothing. If global warming does not affect weather or climate then WTF does any of your statements have to do with reality?-
Exactly. Perfect Frumi-logic.
-
The troll grinder explains his nothingburger statements that have nothing to do with anything.
Perfectly explains grinder’s contributions to AM.-
Frumi, you asked a good question.
How much temperature change matters? No one is allowed to research it or say because its considering “denier” science.
How much of a rising temp in some places will yield positive benefits such as increasing farmland availability?
What is the net gain or loss by rising temp? Keeping in mind some areas are colder due to the climate change…hence the dropping of the term global warming awhile back.
The important part here is that the rise is slow enough for us to adapt in pretty much any necessary way much more cheaply than tearing down our society….especially when destroying the US economy for green energy would do nothing for the global climate anyway.
-
Colder? What places got a colder regional climate? A few locations in Antarctica? Where else?
-
Its not many places that have gotten colder. That wasnt my main point.
You always ignore the main points and nitpick a small detail.
Even it we could reduce carbon emissions to 0 in the US, it still wouldnt matter. Why do you want to wreck the economy and society for nothing?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Is that your belief? The economy and society will be wrecked if we start addressing anthropogenic global warming?
Explain. That’s another zombie belief by Republicans that been argued for a couple of decades now.
So explain how society and the economy will be wrecked.-
The “Green New Deal” speaks for itself.
If you’re talking about incremental change, switching to more nuclear power, etc. then it would probably be fine.
The things advocated for by the Left currently are extreme and would certainly wreck the economy.
The reason they have been argued for decades is because they’re true and the Republicans are the reason they haven’t come to fruition. Well, and actually some very reasonable Democrats who realized once they were in power that the “big” plans were not feasible (Clinton, Obama).-
The GD Green New Deal will wreck nothing. That’s crazy alarmism. Of course there will be incremental.
Been hearing how “overnight” change to 100% renewable isn’t possible.
As it was the plan as well as possible.
Dueling with windmills to stop progress.-
You think implementing the Green New Deal as written will not wreck the economy?
Wow.-
“As written?”
That’s dumb. It’s a proposal, a goal. But 100% renewable in 9 years?
That’s Kool-aid stuff. We are long past the Kennedy era of a Moon shot landing. But that said, we have advanced renewables much faster than even the criticisms when Mistrad was making your argument that was not about the Green New Deal but about renewables in general while retiring fossil fuels as much as possible. -
2 posts from ’08 to show you how alarmist misinformation has not changed:
Quote from MISTRAD
Here is more dire news; world energy consumption will increase by 50% over the next 20 years; and so will CO2 emissions:
[link=http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/25/news/economy/eia_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2008062509]http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/25/news/economy/eia_outlook/index.htm?postversion=2008062509[/link]
It is amazing how much rhetoric is on both sides of this issue. No one wants to confront the major issues head on:
1. We will need approximately 50% more energy in 25 years than we are using today.
2. At the same time, we need to cut our dependence on foreign sources.
3. And we need to cut our pollutants.How exactly are we going to do that? Neither party is willing to confront these problems, and their solutions solve one, maybe 2 of the above questions, without answering the other.
Quote from Dr. Joseph Mama
Yeah, every ‘solution’ to this problem always seems to lead to 90+% of the human race having to die.
I keep wondering how expensive oil will have to become before nuclear loses its political-third-rail image.
Well here we are with oil cheaper than it’s been since the Recession.
Tesla and other EV vehicles are more popular and solar and wind power have grown more than anyone in 2008 could realize.
The only thing true in the above quotes is Mistrad’s prediction of increased CO[sup]2[/sup]. Our global average is now between 1° and 2° Celsius, up from 2008. Time to address warming.-
Wind and solar can’t run the grid 100%. They also are not “clean” to produce anyway.
Nuclear is really the only chance we have but it seems to be unpopular with Dems/Lefties for some reason.
We have done just fine with fracking, natural gas, and slow growth of wind/solar. Our emissions are flat/slightly down.
Why should we go fast to get to 0 when it won’t matter to the world anyway? Nothing will make a difference unless China and India (and others) also do what we do – and they won’t.-
Quote from Cubsfan10
Wind and solar can’t run the grid 100%. They also are not “clean” to produce anyway.
Right now manufacture is done by fossil fuels, yes. Basically you are arguing that we paint ourselves into a corner of using fossil fuels not being used at all for the manufacture of renewables. Fits in 100% with the denial arguments since Bush I and before.
Quote from Cubsfan10
Nuclear is really the only chance we have but it seems to be unpopular with Dems/Lefties for some reason.
The small problem of safety – see Fukushima and Chernobyl and Three Mile Island – and what to do with the nuclear waste – see Nevada’s Yucca Mountain and ask what every country with nuclear power does with it’s spent rods and the container everything else associated with containing the nuclear material.
Quote from Cubsfan10
We have done just fine with fracking, natural gas, and slow growth of wind/solar. Our emissions are flat/slightly down.
Natural gas is a fossil fuel, less polluting than coal or oil but still adds a lot of CO[sup]2[/sup] to the atmosphere. And right now a lot of methane is leaking into the atmosphere from fracking wells due to industry sloppiness. Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas than is CO[sup]2[/sup].
Quote from Cubsfan10
Why should we go fast to get to 0 when it won’t matter to the world anyway? Nothing will make a difference unless China and India (and others) also do what we do – and they won’t.
So America, the world’s once leader should wait till everyone addresses their CO2 production before we will even try? We used to be the leader and if we develop and advance the technology of renewables other countries will follow.
America, the also-ran leader. Let China take the lead. (They are. And India will buy their technology, not ours.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
