BBO Discussion Forums: Climate change - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 177 Pages +
  • « First
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Climate change a different take on what to do about it.

#2441 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-10, 06:04

Climate justice?

Meaning payback for all that nasty CO2 that has been "spewed" into the atmosphere?

As in, the biosphere is greening and crop yields are increasing thanks, in part, to warmer, wetter temperatures and MORE CO2, a VITAL plant nutrient.

So when and where should all those benefiting from this largesse send their cheques? :blink:
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2442 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2015-September-10, 15:07

And now a word from our sponsor:

Quote

Exxon Mobil Corp. (ExxonMobil) is an American multinational oil and gas corporation headquartered in Irving, Texas. It is the largest direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil Company,[3] and was formed on November 30, 1999 by the merger of Exxon (originally the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey) and Mobil (originally the Standard Oil Company of New York).

The world's 5th largest company by revenue, ExxonMobil is also the second largest publicly traded company by market capitalization.[4][5] The company was ranked No. 6 globally in Forbes Global 2000 list in 2014. ExxonMobil's reserves were 25.2 billion BOE (barrels of oil equivalent) at the end of 2013 and the 2007 rates of production were expected to last more than 14 years.[7] With 37 oil refineries in 21 countries constituting a combined daily refining capacity of 6.3 million barrels (1,000,000 m3), ExxonMobil is the largest refiner in the world,[8][9] a title that was also associated with Standard Oil since its incorporation in 1870.


We return you now to your regularly scheduled denial.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#2443 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-11, 07:46

Yes, they do sponsor all kinds of green activities, movements and eco-friendly, energy producing industries...thanks for bringing that up!
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2444 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-September-19, 09:10

What Megablazes Tell Us About the Fiery Future of Climate Change by Tim Dickinson in Rolling Stone.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#2445 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-September-19, 09:16

From As Presidential Debaters Dodge Climate, 10 House Republicans Resolve to Pursue ‘Environmental Stewardship’ (Sept 17, 2015):

Quote

“[The] House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.”

So read the brief, vague, but welcome resolution on “environmental stewardship” introduced today by Representative Chris Gibson, a Republican representing New York’s 19th Congressional District who has long had to woo Democrats to keep his seat, and has said human-driven climate change is real and needs to be addressed. He was joined by nine other House Republicans in seats with similar political contexts, with more slated to sign on.

It’s hardly new for some Republicans to acknowledge the basics of global warming science (see Newt Gingrich in 2007) and call for steps to limit heat-trapping gases and cut vulnerability.

But this modest resolution is a welcome reminder that moderate and environment-minded Republicans exist behind the haze of unscientific sound bites dominating political news this year, particularly after the second set of Republican presidential debates last night.

It’s important to emphasize just how bland this statement is. E & E Daily did a great job of laying out the context here, showing where the pinch points were to get even this level of buy-in:

The resolution goes further than a set of amendments the Senate voted on in January that affirmed that human emissions were driving climate change by calling for action to address the problem (E&E Daily, Jan. 28).

The Gibson text doesn’t emphasize people’s influence on the climate, but it embraces the impacts that scientists say are already occurring or are likely to in the future. The document doesn’t mention humans except in the last sentence, when it asserts that Congress should “balance” the impacts of our species through mitigation and other undefined policies.

That statement was softened over the summer. An earlier draft of the resolution obtained by E&E Daily stated that Congress should seek to “proactively reverse or balance human activities that have been found to be contributing factors.”

Can this movement spread? Past experiences of lawmakers in more conservative regions don’t bode well. But if the focus is on climate-smart energy and pollution steps more than fighting that vague and politicized thing called “global warming,” it’s conceivable.

Here is the full resolution:

Quote

Whereas it is a conservative principle to protect, conserve, and be good stewards of our environment, responsibly plan for all market factors, and base our policy decisions in science and quantifiable facts on the ground;

Whereas prudent, fact-based stewardship of our economy and our environment is a critical responsibility for all Americans in order to ensure that we preserve our great Nation for future generations;

Whereas there has been a marked increase in extreme weather events across the United States, including more frequent heat waves, extreme precipitation, wildfires, and water scarcity;

Whereas this has had noticeable, negative impacts that are expected to worsen in every region of the United States and its territories, including, among other significant weather events and environmental disruptions, longer and hotter heat waves, more severe storms, worsening flood and drought cycles, growing invasive species and insect problems, threatened native plant and wildlife populations, rising sea levels, and, when combined with a lack of proper forest management, increased wildfire risk;

Whereas increased pollutants and other factors contribute to local, regional, and national environmental and human health impacts, including increased mercury in the fish we eat, elevated asthma attacks in our children, acid rain, smog, degraded water quality, urban heat islands, and rapid storm water runoff that leads to costly infrastructure projects;

Whereas the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review states that the effects of a changing climate are ‘‘threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions’’;

Whereas, if left unaddressed, the consequences of a changing climate have the potential to adversely impact all Americans, hitting vulnerable populations hardest, harming productivity in key economic sectors such as construction, agriculture, and tourism, saddling future generations with costly economic and environmental burdens, and imposing additional costs on State and Federal budgets that will further add to the long-term fiscal challenges that we face as a Nation;

Whereas any efforts to mitigate the risks of, prepare for, or otherwise address our changing climate and its effects should not constrain the United States economy, especially in regards to global competitiveness; and Whereas there is increasing recognition that we can and must take meaningful and responsible action now to address this issue: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives commits to working constructively, using our tradition of American ingenuity, innovation, and exceptionalism, to create and support economically viable, and broadly supported private and public solutions to study and address the causes and effects of measured changes to our global and regional climates, including mitigation efforts and efforts to balance human activities that have been found to have an impact.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#2446 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-19, 13:48

 y66, on 2015-September-19, 09:10, said:


An interesting article about a specific climatic condition. Many areas of the world undergo periodic or sustained drought on a regular basis. California's recent drought is not exceptional but it is severe. To their north, a somewhat more unusual situation but hardly the result of 0.7 C global temperature increase. El Nino and the Pacific SST in that region are more responsible and just as "unusual". Look at overall US wildfires and you will see that the actual trend is decreasing in duration and severity.

Interestingly, past instances of extreme drought are most often associated with cooler regional temperatures. (Warmer is wetter and usually better for humanity.)

Science is about observation, evaluation and estimation. Climate science is about fabulation, obfuscation and vilification. Models are unfit for anything but inciting fear of the future without draconian restrictions to our lifestyles. Just go to actual facts and figures to see that the climate is not, at present or in the immediate future, in danger by our hand
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2447 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2015-September-22, 08:27

From Senate Democrats to Unveil Climate Change Bill by Coral Davenport:

Quote

WASHINGTON — Senate Democratic leaders on Tuesday plan to unveil a measure intended to signal their full-throated support of President Obama’s aggressive climate change agenda to 2016 voters and to the rest of the world.

The Democrats hope that the bill, sponsored by Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Energy Committee, will demonstrate a new unity for the party on energy and climate change, and define Democrats’ approach to global warming policy in the coming years.

The measure would establish as United States policy a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2 percent each year through 2025 — a cut even larger than the target set by the Obama administration.

The bill has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress, but Democrats say they believe that forcefully pushing for climate change policies could help them win control of the Senate in 2016. And if they regain the majority, they will move to enact climate legislation along the lines of the Cantwell bill.

“This is the kind of thing I’d embrace,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, who is expected to become the Senate Democratic leader after the current leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, retires next year. “A plan that looks something like this is going to be high on the next Congress’s agenda.”

Senate Democrats timed the release of the bill to coincide with a push this week at the United Nations General Assembly toward reaching a sweeping climate accord this fall at a summit meeting in Paris. They hope to indicate to world leaders that despite Republican opposition to the plan, they stand ready to back Mr. Obama’s policies.

The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, has opened an all-fronts campaign to block the president’s climate initiatives. Mr. McConnell has sought to undercut Mr. Obama’s efforts to enact tough new regulations on greenhouse gas pollution and his bid to forge the global climate change pact in Paris.

If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
0

#2448 User is offline   Daniel1960 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 439
  • Joined: 2011-December-05

Posted 2015-September-23, 08:18

 y66, on 2015-September-22, 08:27, said:



If this is the Democrats plan to retake the Senate, they may want to rethink their strategy. This issue continues to rank very low on the voter's priority lists:

http://www.gallup.co...nt-problem.aspx

http://www.pollingre...om/prioriti.htm

http://www.people-pr...ome-and-abroad/
0

#2449 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,676
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2015-September-23, 08:25

The pope has a bully pulpit too: Pope Francis, in White House Ceremony, Praises Obama’s Action on Climate Change

Quote

During brief remarks, the pope waded into two of America’s most highly charged political debates, praising the United States as a nation of immigrants and offering a strikingly forceful and explicit endorsement of Mr. Obama’s regulatory program to fight climate change. By contrast, he skirted lightly past disagreements over moral issues like abortion and same-sex marriage as well as the excesses of capitalism.

“Mr. President,” Francis said, speaking in English despite his discomfort with the language, “I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to a future generation. When it comes to the care of our common home, we are living at a critical moment of history.”

Devoting more of his address to that issue than to any other topic, the pope said there was still time to heal the planet for its children. “To use a telling phrase of the Rev. Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note and now is the time to honor it,” he said.

We do indeed.

Not that any one voice will convince everyone, but every voice helps some. And the pope's voice carries more credibility than most.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#2450 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-23, 08:37

With true believers....that is why it fits in so well with the new religion of climastrology....climatism...climation.
Credibility needs be built on facts not faith unless, like them, you are in the belief business.
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2451 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-September-24, 05:57

TRUE BELIEVERS AVERT YOUR EYES! Interested parties may continue to read...


There is an fascinating series of posts explaining climate models, how they work and what may be a fundamental flaw in their use.
The author is Dr. David Evans, an ex climate modeler for the Australian gov. and husband of Joanne Nova whose definitely skeptical site is hosting the series. Dr. Evans has also been formulating his own climate model to help predict future climate trends.

The posts are technical but not terribly mathematical and accessible to anyone with some inkling as to how science applies theory to practice. Well-known climate (among other things) skeptic Christopher Monckton said this in the comments:

"David’s post is an excellent summary of the main points of the IPCC’s understanding of the climate sensitivity equation where temperature feedbacks are absent or net-zero. However, some caution is advisable. One-third of the anthropogenic influence on climate since 1750 has occurred in the past 18 years 8 months, since January 1997, and yet the RSS satellites show no global warming at all throughout that period. That raises the question whether, even in the absence of temperature feedbacks, one would expect as much as 1 degree of global warming per doubling of CO2 concentration. At the World Federation of Scientists last month, a leading physicist gave a paper revealing that an error in the computer models has led to an exaggeration of the CO2 radiative forcing by 40%. That would reduce the zero-feedback climate response from 1.16 C to just 0.8 C at equilibrium.

What is more, the CMIP5 models have made a hitherto-unremarked reduction in their central estimate of feedback amplification. They’ve cut it from 2 Watts per square meter of additional radiative forcing per degree of direct warming to just 1.5 W/m2/C. And that, combined with the news that the CO2 forcing has been exaggerated, cuts the central estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity, after all feedbacks, from 3.3 to just 1.5 C, right at the bottom of the long-standing “official” interval of estimates, and far, far too low to be any sort of a problem. Add to that the argument that David is about to unfold – and it’s a doozy – and there’ll be nothing left of the official storyline."

Read them as they appear, this is no.2 in the series
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2452 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-02, 08:56

First there was the Grivalja inquisition for climate heretics.
Then there was the "RICO-20" asking the gov to "look into" climate change skepticism as a racketeering criminal operation.
Cui bono? Just follow the money, which seems to lead to "Shukla's gold" and has initiated a congressional investigation.
Read all about it at Climate Audit and maybe even news outlets near you sometime soon (hopefully).
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2453 User is online   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,826
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-03, 01:05

 PassedOut, on 2015-September-23, 08:25, said:

The pope has a bully pulpit too: Pope Francis, in White House Ceremony, Praises Obama’s Action on Climate Change


We do indeed.

Not that any one voice will convince everyone, but every voice helps some. And the pope's voice carries more credibility than most.


yes
0

#2454 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2015-October-03, 05:08

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-September-24, 05:57, said:


The author is Dr. David Evans, an ex climate modeler for the Australian gov. and husband of Joanne Nova whose definitely skeptical site is hosting the series. Dr. Evans has also been formulating his own climate model to help predict future climate trends.

The posts are technical but not terribly mathematical and accessible to anyone with some inkling as to how science applies theory to practice.


Here's a couple other choice quotes from Dr Evan's paper “Manufacturing money, and global warming”

Quote

There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard.

The paper aristocracy has overwhelming wealth. They own or influence all the media – if only because every media organization borrows from banks. They influence almost all the institutions that employ professional economists, by supplying the money for PhDs and providing most of the lucrative consulting jobs for economists. They buy politicians by the truckload. The banksters have even killed the occasional thorn in their side—including, probably, two US presidents, Lincoln and Garfield…


At least Al and I are in agreement about one thing.

"Jews control the money supply" isn't terribly mathematical.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#2455 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2015-October-03, 05:53

 hrothgar, on 2015-October-03, 05:08, said:


At least Al and I are in agreement about one thing.
"Jews control the money supply" isn't terribly mathematical.



FWIW, I am thankful that we can now establish a clear linkage between Al's 911 Trutherism and his preoccupation with global warming...
Alderaan delenda est
0

#2456 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,696
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-October-04, 04:42

 hrothgar, on 2015-October-03, 05:53, said:

FWIW, I am thankful that we can now establish a clear linkage between Al's 911 Trutherism and his preoccupation with global warming...

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.
(-: Zel :-)
0

#2457 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,488
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2015-October-04, 07:18

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-04, 04:42, said:

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.


I spent YEARS pointing out the flaws in the various pieces of crap that Al posts, with nary a constructive response.
He simply ignores the criticism and posts some new piece of drivel.

The reason that I pointed out that Al's last font of wisdom is an anti-Semitic nut case is to illustrate how little care that Al takes in vetting the crap that he is constantly spewing. If he can't be bothered to invest any time or effort researching his sources, why should the rest of us invests hours of time reading the ***** in order to disprove it.

As I said, I played this game for years, but some times, the only way to win is not to play.
Alderaan delenda est
2

#2458 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,284
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2015-October-04, 14:58

 Zelandakh, on 2015-October-04, 04:42, said:

Rather than picking nits and following a completely specious argument, why not address the points made about climate sensitivity? We all know that much of what AI posts is rubbish but if you only make attacks of this nature I, for one, am inclined to think you have no counter-argument to offer.


Why would you bother to respond to someone who has demonstrated an interest only in disparaging information that does not conform to his political beliefs? He used to post this kind of conspiracy nonsense as a reason to reject climate change:

Quote

Posted 2011-March-09, 10:39
Well, a new crack has appeared. Eugene Wahl has admitted to receiving an e-mail from Michael Mann requesting that he delete e-mails. The mainstream media is still asleep but the blogoshpere is coming alive. It is only a matter of time


Responding only grants a degree of credibility where none is deserved.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
0

#2459 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2015-October-04, 16:44

The "science" associated with climate catastrophism is so far away from real science as to be nonsense. The CoP in Paris is coming soon and every effort to bolster support is undermined by the continuing eroding of the "science" behind the scam. As further analysis reduces the effect of [CO2] to unalarming levels, the cries of doom and gloom mean less and less. Look at the data and away from the "projections" and see just how little we can do about the weather let alone the global climate.

Or you can send them all your money and let them tell you what they are going to do with it (other than line their pockets...).

Shukla is just the tip of the funding iceberg. Might just as well be the PTL club... :ph34r:
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#2460 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,696
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2015-October-05, 08:20

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-October-04, 16:44, said:

The "science" associated with climate catastrophism is so far away from real science as to be nonsense.

Saying it is so does not make it true. Provide evidence that the underlying science projecting future warming is untrue, then respond to criticism when those arguments are challenged.
(-: Zel :-)
0

  • 177 Pages +
  • « First
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

67 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 67 guests, 0 anonymous users