|
Post by Leftylarry on Nov 20, 2015 15:24:19 GMT -5
OB you are a patient man. My 2 cents: I read peer-reviewed papers written by those who study climate or by those who have surveyed those climate scientists, and I think it is clear that the earth is warming at a pace faster than any other yet observed. As one who is (or was until retirement) a scientist, I find it ludicrous to think that climate scientists would collude to perpetuate a hoax for all that grant money.
My 2 cents: you are full of sh-t.
Fact of the matter is, if fossil fuels were suddenly going to end the world, the focus wouldn't be on the U.S, Canada, Australia and Europe ending their use while the third World picks up the slack (and jobs and wealth created by those jobs) and continues to pollute, even at higher levels for 20-30 years. That's what your treaties are about, no net gain for the planet, income redistribution by the Left and more power for the left. Guess what?
Your plausible tragedies ain't happening even your own leftists liars admit it and yes, the ice age is over, so what? www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 20, 2015 16:40:57 GMT -5
See linky, while Obama attributed some of his reasoning to reject the Keystone Pipeline was climate change it turns out that the alternative to the pipeline is what is being used now - trains. And the State Department reported that this will lead to the release of more greenhouse gases then if the pipeline had gone forward - cnsnews.com/news/article/penny-starr/obama-nixes-keystone-fight-climate-change-state-dept-report-shows“During operation of all No Action rail scenarios, the increased number of unit trains along the scenario routes would result in GHG emissions from both diesel fuel combustion and electricity generation to support rail terminal operations (as well as for pump station operations for the Rail/Pipeline Scenario),” the statement stated. “The total annual GHG emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the proposed Project.”
You realize this has been well-known all along, right? The whole pipeline issue was strictly symbolic, a "who's side are you on" debate. As noted somewhere above, the environmental effects of building it or not bare reached the measurable stage.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 20, 2015 16:43:27 GMT -5
My 2 cents: you are full of sh-t.
Fact of the matter is, if fossil fuels were suddenly going to end the world, the focus wouldn't be on the U.S, Canada, Australia and Europe ending their use while the third World picks up the slack (and jobs and wealth created by those jobs) and continues to pollute, even at higher levels for 20-30 years.
I know you don't actually follow the issue, but if you did you'd know that much of the effort has been directed precisely at getting China and India to reduce their use of fossil fuels; the North American and European countries have been moving in this direction for some years. Also, there's more growth/wealth creation to be had from developing alternative energy sources than from mining and drilling; in fact, there's a Second Industrial Revolution underway right now that relies on these fuels.
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Nov 20, 2015 20:56:15 GMT -5
All of the chatter about coal, fossil fuels and emission standards is worthless. All of the data about 'warming' is worthless.
Boo! - Bigfoot! Nessie! Skunk Ape!
Do you people really think you can have any meaningful impact on this planet!?
Sorry to destroy your egomaniacal Socialist fantasy for a One World Government, but all of human history can't even come close to having any planetary impact...
The planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Great colonies of creatures (large & small) have both flourished and perished. Continuous planetary upheaval involving volcanoes, comets, platonic shifts, oceanic disturbances and other violent events has occurred. A simple radiation incident / event with the Sun could kill nearly everything for 25,000 years...
Worried? More Government Please?
Thinking people would say please stop the hoax. Our life on the globe is meaningless - the planet lives on another scale.
One million years means nothing, yet radical religious zealots study floating buoys (strategically placed by their drones) in the ocean for a few years?
Get over yourself!
It is a hoax to advance Socialism. That is all is ever was and all it ever will be...
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 20, 2015 23:14:41 GMT -5
It is a hoax to advance Socialism. That is all is ever was and all it ever will be...
Yeah, it'd have to be that, lol!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 23, 2015 22:03:01 GMT -5
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX),Chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has been in a running feud with the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration over their June paper that showed there was no "pause" in global warming, as previously reported. Recently, the feud has exploded
"Smith has subpoenaed four top NOAA officials seeking internal e-mails and documents relating to the study, which he alleged last week in a letter to Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker was “rushed to publication” and may have violated the agency’s scientific integrity standards. The chairman also has threatened to subpoena Pritzker, whose department includes NOAA, if she does not turn over the internal deliberations. What makes this feud so difficult to referee is not just the complexity of climate science. Smith and his committee have yet to offer details of the allegations that the research was rushed." link
According to Smith and committee staff, their information comes from unnamed NOAA employees, whom the can't name. Indeed, they can't even say what the allegations are because, they claim, that would out the informants. Today, the journal that published the paper weighed in:
"But a spokeswoman for Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal that in June published the paper by climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said in an interview that their research was subject to a longer, more intensive review than is customary. This paper went through as rigorous a review as it could have received,' said Ginger Pinholster, chief of communications for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science. 'Any suggestion that the review was "rushed" is baseless and without merit.'
"She said the paper, submitted to the journal in December, went through two rounds of peer review by other scientists in the field before it was accepted in May. The number of outside reviewers was larger than usual, and the time from submission to online publication was about 50 percent longer than the journal’s average of 109 days, Pinholster said. During the review, the research was sent back to NOAA for revision and clarification, she said. And because it was based on such an 'intensive' examination of global temperature data, the reviewed was handled by one of the journal’s senior editors, she said, 'so it could be more carefully assessed.'”
Basically, Smith didn't like the results, so now he wants to intimidate the scientists. This is what the former A-G of Virginia tried to do, and it got him nowhere. Smith isn't going to get far, either.
|
|
|
Post by taxidiatom on Nov 24, 2015 13:54:04 GMT -5
My 2 cents: you are full of sh-t.
Fact of the matter is, if fossil fuels were suddenly going to end the world, the focus wouldn't be on the U.S, Canada, Australia and Europe ending their use while the third World picks up the slack (and jobs and wealth created by those jobs) and continues to pollute, even at higher levels for 20-30 years. That's what your treaties are about, no net gain for the planet, income redistribution by the Left and more power for the left. Guess what?
Your plausible tragedies ain't happening even your own leftists liars admit it and yes, the ice age is over, so what? www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34859398
I love what the neoconartists have done to traditional Conservative thought. Name-calling, yelling, flailing of arms, and little in the way of rational talk. What we need is a return to the days of Victorian England. There might be another Charles Dickens out there who needs more inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 25, 2015 12:44:06 GMT -5
"Because of man-made global warming and a strong El Nino, Earth's wild weather this year is bursting the annual heat record, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Wednesday. The United Nations weather agency's early bird report on 2015 says it is the hottest year on record, surpassing last year's record heat. It made the proclamation without waiting for the end of the year because it has been so extraordinarily hot, forecast to stay that way and unlikely to cool down enough to not set a record...it is likely that the world has now warmed by 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, over pre-industrial times. That's a symbolic milestone: International leaders have set a goal of keeping global warming within 2 degrees C, 3.6 F, of pre-industrial times." link
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Nov 25, 2015 20:38:36 GMT -5
Merchants of Doubt - an absolute MUST SEE for anyone discussing climate change.
Proves that Climate change deniers are paid propagandists.
Talk on it.
Amazing how great the deniers are at telling lies.
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Nov 28, 2015 10:41:41 GMT -5
See linky for an interesting rebuke of Obama's approach from an unlikely source - arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/prominent-climate-scientist-offers-scathing-critique-of-obamas-paris-plans/"Three days before the beginning of a critical international climate conference in Paris, one of the world's most famous climate scientists, James Hansen, has written a withering criticism of President Obama's approach. The Paris meeting will be attended by the heads of state of more than 130 countries, including Obama. Heading in, the United States has adopted a policy of calling for each country to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions, and will push for the adoption of technology to capture and store carbon dioxide. That approach, Hansen wrote in a new letter posted on his web site, "is so gross, it is best described as unadulterated 100 percent pure bullshit." In his "communication" published on Friday, Hansen argued that world leaders are eager to avoid the embarrassment of the last major climate meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, which was largely ineffectual. This time, world leaders will reach a deal, Hansen says, and pat themselves on the back. This deal will likely include pledges to cut emissions by 2025. For example, the United States is expected to aim for cuts of 25 percent based on 2005 carbon levels. "Watch what happens in Paris carefully to see if all that the leaders do is sign off on the pap that UN bureaucrats are putting together, indulgences and promises to reduce future emissions, and then clap each other on the back and declare success," Hansen writes. "In that case President Obama will have sold our children, and theirs, down the river." However, Hansen says, that approach will fail as it has in the past. The only way to meaningfully address carbon emissions is to put a tax on carbon-based fuels, and to refund the entire amount as a dividend to consumers. The net effect of this will be to spur research and development of renewable fuels, Hansen believes. The document also makes clear that Hansen believes that conservatives in the US and elsewhere would eventually be receptive a tax-based approach."
|
|
|
Post by brisco0317 on Nov 28, 2015 11:38:15 GMT -5
See linky for a different perspective on climate change - www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/"The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time. This “lukewarm” option has been boosted by recent climate research, and if it is right, current policies may do more harm than good. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other bodies agree that the rush to grow biofuels, justified as a decarbonization measure, has raised food prices and contributed to rainforest destruction. Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without it and the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires. In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose in a “business as usual” way, which they have done, then global average temperature would rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5 degree C per decade). In the 25 years since, temperature has risen at about 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, depending on whether surface or satellite data is used. The IPCC, in its most recent assessment report, lowered its near-term forecast for the global mean surface temperature over the period 2016 to 2035 to just 0.3 to 0.7 degree C above the 1986–2005 level. That is a warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, in all scenarios, including the high-emissions ones. At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C. Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models. The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.” As the upcoming Paris climate conference shows, the world is awash with plans, promises and policies to tackle climate change. But they are having little effect. Ten years ago the world derived 87 percent of its primary energy from fossil fuels; today, according the widely respected BP statistical review of world energy, the figure is still 87 percent. The decline in nuclear power has been matched by the rise in renewables but the proportion coming from wind and solar is still only 1 percent. Getting the price of low-carbon energy much lower will do the trick. So we should spend the coming decades stepping up research and development of new energy technologies. Many people may reply that we don’t have time to wait for that to bear fruit, but given the latest lukewarm science of climate change, I think we probably do."
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 28, 2015 13:25:11 GMT -5
However, Hansen says, that approach will fail as it has in the past. The only way to meaningfully address carbon emissions is to put a tax on carbon-based fuels, and to refund the entire amount as a dividend to consumers. The net effect of this will be to spur research and development of renewable fuels, Hansen believes. The document also makes clear that Hansen believes that conservatives in the US and elsewhere would eventually be receptive a tax-based approach."
All Hansen has to do is run for Congress, then once elected push through a carbon tax. ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 28, 2015 13:30:47 GMT -5
Getting the price of low-carbon energy much lower will do the trick. So we should spend the coming decades stepping up research and development of new energy technologies.
Yes, this is exactly right. Please write to your own Member of Congress to support such R&D and its implementation. Also, most economists agree that Hansen's carbon tax idea would help speed the transition. So, why not use the revenues from a carbon tax to pay for R&D into alternatives? The fossil fuel companies could be involved in such research, which will keep them in business once the age of fossil fuels ends, as it will inevitably. Win-win-win.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 29, 2015 22:07:19 GMT -5
"Government and business leaders are banking on clean energy technology to fight global warming, kicking off this week's high-stakes climate change negotiations by pledging billions of dollars to research and develop a technical fix to the planet's climate woes. Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates, President Barack Obama and French President Francois Hollande will launch a joint initiative on Monday after a diplomatic push in recent weeks ahead of the Paris climate conference. A key goal is to bring down the cost of cleaner energy. At least 19 governments and 28 leading world investors, including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, billionaires George Soros and Saudi Prince Alaweed bin Talal, and Jack Ma of China's Alibaba, have signed on so far...The money would focus on research and development of technologies such as energy storage, which could make better use of clean power from wind and solar regardless of the vagaries of weather. It will also look at farming and transport." link
This news will come as a bit of a shock to some posters who have been declaring for years that the climate "hoax" finally has been exposed, and no one is interested in it any longer except fringe crazies who want to impose statist socialism on the rest of us. Sure. I mean, what do guys like Zuckerberg, Gates, and Ma know about the private sector and making money, right?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 1, 2015 22:44:50 GMT -5
"As President Barack Obama worked to hammer out a global climate agreement in Paris, Republicans in Congress moved to block his plan to force steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants. The House passed two resolutions Tuesday disapproving Obama's power-plant rules and rendering them inoperative. A measure blocking an Environmental Protection Agency rule for existing power plants was approved 242-180, while a measure blocking a rule on future power plants was approved 235-188.
"The votes come after the Senate approved identical motions last month under a little-used law that allows Congress to block executive actions it considers onerous. The measures now go to the White House, where they face almost-certain vetoes. Just four Democrats sided with Republicans to support the measures, which fell far short of the numbers needed to override a veto in both the House and Senate." link
Of course he's going to veto this bill, and of course the rules will take effect. So, just why are the congressional Republicans wasting time with this? "Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., said GOP lawmakers were forcing a vote on the climate rule to 'send a message to the climate conference in Paris that in America, there's serious disagreement with the policies of this president.'"
Yes, to embarrass the President of the United States while he's attending an international summit. In the late 1940s, Arthur Vandenberg, Republican Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, declared vis-à-vis Harry S Truman's foreign policy that "politics ends at the water's edge." Today, Republicans go out of their way to upstage the President and highlight internal political divisions. I guess the lack of another superpower leaves them feeling that the cost of such boorishness is low, or perhaps many of them really do not consider Obama a legitimate President. Whatever it is, the "message" they're sending is that they're basically jerks with more ego than patriotism.
|
|
|
Post by jon on Dec 6, 2015 22:23:02 GMT -5
Yeah, right.
The current President of the US needs no help to embarrass himself on th international stage. It is becoming painfully obvious, though desperately hidden by the US press that elected the fool, that the rest of the world clearly recognizes just how weak and stupid is Obama.
I honestly can not determine whether his AGW Jihad is due to incredible ignorance or incredible deceit. Does it matter, at this point? So Soros thinks he can make money on it---what else need we know?
Meantime---anyone notice the obvious correlation between sun output (not controlled by Republicans) and Earths' temp.?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 6, 2015 22:43:47 GMT -5
Yeah, right. The current President of the US needs no help to embarrass himself on th international stage. It is becoming painfully obvious, though desperately hidden by the US press that elected the fool, that the rest of the world clearly recognizes just how weak and stupid is Obama. I honestly can not determine whether his AGW Jihad is due to incredible ignorance or incredible deceit. Does it matter, at this point? So Soros thinks he can make money on it---what else need we know? Meantime---anyone notice the obvious correlation between sun output (not controlled by Republicans) and Earths' temp.?
Everyone you disagree with is crazy, stupid, or both. You always are the smart one. Sure, you deny factual evidence on pretty much every topic, but when you're an all-knowing genius facts just get in the way. Amusing, really. But I do hope you live up in the hills and not down at the coast where the water is rising. Just be thankful you don't live in the Marshall Islands, which soon will disappear under the Pacific because some people want to protect the coal, oil, and gas industries--hey, they're just a bunch of primitives, right jon?
At least you're not completely denying global warming, the way you were not long ago. It certainly is true that rising solar activity can contribute to global warming (link). Unfortunately for your claim, however, solar activity has been declining since around 1960, while global warming has increased (link). A basic rule of science is that a hypothesis that fails to conform to the data is false. Sorry, jon.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 6, 2015 23:27:08 GMT -5
"To understand how dangerously extreme the Republican Party has become on climate change, compare its stance to that of ExxonMobil...With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by...5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible." link
Yes, ExxonMobil believes in AGW. It even has proposals to deal with it, such as: “A properly designed carbon tax can be predictable, transparent, and comparatively simple to understand and implement.” Yeah, just change the incentive structure in the market and you get different results--Econ 101. So, how does this compare with the GOP's policies?
Donald Trump: “I don’t believe in climate change.”
Ted Cruz: “Climate change is not science, it’s religion.”
You get the idea. One hypothesis about this disconnect: "Some [Republicans] see scientists as part of a left-wing cabal; many of them doubt government’s ability to do anything, let alone something as big as redirecting the economy’s energy use. Almost all of them, along with quite a few Democrats, would rather not tell voters that energy prices need to rise for the sake of the environment."
So, denial, and kick the problem off to the kids, grandkids, and those unfortunate Marshall Islanders.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 8, 2015 11:45:55 GMT -5
"Emissions of man-made greenhouse gases appear to have declined slightly in 2015, scientists said Monday, reflecting what experts say is an encouraging, though likely temporary, pause in the steady rise in pollutants blamed for climate change. The projected dip of 0.6 percent over 2014 levels, if confirmed, marks the first decline in heat-trapping pollutants in a year when the world economy was not in recession, a new analysis shows. Scientists say the drop is tangible evidence of changing behavior as more countries invest in renewable energy such as solar and wind power.
"The single biggest factor appears to be a marked reduction in China’s use of coal to make electricity. But other countries, from North America to Europe, also emitted less carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning as governments and consumers shifted to cleaner fuels and more fuel-efficient vehicles, according to a report published Monday in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change." link
So, basically, it turns out that we can both reduce CO2 emissions AND have economic growth (no surprise). And those excuses that nothing will work unless China helps? Well, China's begun to do its part. So, when do we agree to take the lead and actually do something besides talk?
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 11, 2015 12:05:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 11, 2015 13:20:24 GMT -5
Just save me... Please, please, please save me from Global Warming!
It's not so funny for many countries, and parts of our own:
Washington DC, June 19, 2013—Bangladesh will be among the most affected countries in South Asia by an expected 2°C rise in the world’s average temperatures in the next decades, with rising sea levels and more extreme heat and more intense cyclones threatening food production, livelihoods, and infrastructure as well as slowing the reduction on poverty, according to a new scientific report released today by the World Bank Group. link
A newly released National Climate Assessment report shows that Miami is one of the cities most at risk from global warming, The New York Times reports. Climate change has already caused unprecedented sea level rises, and an increase in "frequency, intensity and duration" of extreme heat is predicted to "affect public health, natural and built environments, energy, agriculture, and forestry" while "decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts," according to the report, which is based on input from more than 300 experts and a 60-member Federal Advisory Committee. www.newsmax.com/US/climate-Miami-global-warming-sea-level/2014/05/08/id/570290/#ixzz3u2OKDevS (Note the publication link.)
So, just how many refugee Floridians and Bangladeshis are you prepared to take in when their lands get inundated by the oceans?
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 11, 2015 19:19:30 GMT -5
You're right OB - it is not very funny...
It is not funny for 80 year old folks to have their power bills increase for no reason...
It is not funny for a power plant to lay off hard working Americans to comply with a radical religion...
It is not funny for taxpayers to fund radical freaks flying around to discuss witchcraft...
If you want a truly clear picture of Global Warming - here is the stabilized Patterson film.
This is all you ever need to know about Global Warming. This is all your charts & graphs in one film.
Give me just 1 billion years of hard & verifiable global temperature data and then we are only 1/4 towards even beginning a discussion...
Oh wait - please tell me what the radical leftist professors in the Universities think! I am so curious - I look up to them!
I'll be waiting for your numbers for the 1 billion year mark...
Otherwise - just say you're right Basser.
>O
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 11, 2015 21:30:19 GMT -5
You're right OB - it is not very funny...
It is not funny for 80 year old folks to have their power bills increase for no reason...
It is not funny for a power plant to lay off hard working Americans to comply with a radical religion...
It is not funny for taxpayers to fund radical freaks flying around to discuss witchcraft...
LOL! Basically, you have a position, the data refute that position, but you're sticking to it by simply calling everyone else names. C'mon: that's Lefty Larry's kind of argument. You're smarter than that.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 12, 2015 13:14:44 GMT -5
Good news from Paris:
"Diplomats from 196 countries prepared to vote Saturday on a far-reaching climate accord that seeks to halt the rapid growth of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and prevent a dangerous warming of the planet...The apparent breakthrough came during an unscheduled 13th day of U.N.-sponsored climate negotiations that involve representatives from nearly every country, from the industrialized West to tiny island nations that are seen at risk of being swamped by rising sea levels if global temperatures continue to climb...
"The decision to add an aspirational goal of keeping temperature increases “well below 2 degrees” and “pursuing efforts” to stay below a 1.5-degree warming reflected grave concerns of small island states at risk of disappearing as warming temperatures melt glaciers and polar ice around the world. The proposal also included accountability measures to discourage cheating on reported emissions cuts...
"The basis of the agreement is a series of pledges made earlier in the year by individual nations to reduce or slow their emissions from fossil-fuel burning. The United States committed to reducing emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2030. The draft accord debated by delegates here establishes rules to ensure that countries honor their pledges and also creates a financial mechanism that helps poorer countries adapt to effects of climate change and reduce reliance on fossil fuels." link
The final vote will be taken later today, but it's going to be adopted. The AGW deniers have lost completely, which is just since they have been spreading and/or succumbing to lies for years. Now, with some island countries already being submerged, with Antarctic ice shelves sinking into the oceans, and with agriculture around the world being threatened by rapid temperature change, the international community has told them to go away. As the President of the Natural Resources Defense Council said, “A great tide has turned.”
|
|
|
Post by buckybasser on Dec 12, 2015 18:27:50 GMT -5
We are literally watching insanity on a global scale.
Perhaps the beginning of the end to national sovereignty and a distinct move towards a One World Government.
Yet another step towards abolishing our founding principles and furthering the 'fundamental transformation' of America.
As our Marxist leader addresses the proletariat, I can only imagine how progressive we must all become as we approach our goal of total control of the Sun!
>O
Note to Moderator: If my previous post seemed like name-calling, it was never intended to be personal to any member. While I do think you lefties are absolutely nuts, I enjoy the folks here & the political discourse. I would fully suspect that many here consider me to be batsh*t crazy as well.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 12, 2015 23:36:50 GMT -5
We are literally watching insanity on a global scale. What would be insane would be knowing that we're destroying the world and doing nothing about it. So, what's happened in Paris actually is quite sane.
Perhaps the beginning of the end to national sovereignty and a distinct move towards a One World Government. The world is about as far from this as it has been since the invention of the nation-state in the 17th century.
Yet another step towards abolishing our founding principles and furthering the 'fundamental transformation' of America. Our "founding principles" did not include leaving our kids with an unsustainable economic order.
As our Marxist leader addresses the proletariat, I can only imagine how progressive we must all become as we approach our goal of total control of the Sun! Oh, quit with the "Marxist" stuff; it makes you seem ignorant, and you're not.
>O
Note to Moderator: If my previous post seemed like name-calling, it was never intended to be personal to any member. While I do think you lefties are absolutely nuts, I enjoy the folks here & the political discourse. I would fully suspect that many here consider me to be batsh*t crazy as well. :) No doubt, lol.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 13, 2015 1:08:10 GMT -5
And the Paris agreement was approved, as expected. link :-)
|
|
munertl
State Legislator
Posts: 261
|
Post by munertl on Dec 14, 2015 20:12:22 GMT -5
Just saying...I've lived in Minnesota for 15 years and at a similar latitude in Wisconsin for another 25 or so. Never can I recall actual green grass a week away from Christmas. We've had years with no snow but never anything this weird and our winters are far shorter than they were decades ago.
I know that isn't global warming but overall patterns are abnormal. I think a year or 2 ago we had the most tornadoes in the country. Not Kansas, Iowa, or Oklahoma....MINNESOTA
|
|
|
Post by bigapplebucky on Dec 15, 2015 11:26:49 GMT -5
How to lie with charts. From the National Review Twitter account: Disregarding, of course, the fact that the axis goes from -10 degrees F to 110 degrees F, whereas the global average temperature range capable of supporting life as we know it goes from only about 50 to 65 degrees F. Once you know that, a temperature increase of about 2 degrees F starts to look rather more significant. Misleading graph methods
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 15, 2015 14:45:56 GMT -5
Lies, damn lies, and statistics! Here's what that graph looks like when you focus on the key temperature range, and some other examples, courtesy of the WP's Philip Bump (link):
Bloomberg had the best, most subtle contribution, however (but then, they're data geeks):
|
|