Looks like we got a new truther.
Thats really funny. I know of several islands around here that are RISING. Don't they share the same water as the rest?
U.S. summer a global warming preview, scientists say
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Looks like we got a new truther.
Thats really funny. I know of several islands around here that are RISING. Don't they share the same water as the rest?
Any reason that I should check it? It is entirely as expected with the mechanisms and shifting systems caused by the warming. It is also merely local on the big picture.
No! Not necessarily. And you do not know of any islands that are rising because of water lowering.. The whole island of Greenland is rising, btw, It is called isostatic rebound and is a consequence of the melting icecap.
Let me tell you about Lil sacrifices.
I happen to be part of a design team that made Green Housing. It was insisted upon and everyone was so very excited... until they moved in.
"It's too dark in public areas"
Well the lighting is "green" lighting... nothing we can do about it.
"Something is wrong with the water pressure... it barely comes out no matter how high you turn the handle"
Well... that is the new way. There is nothing wrong with the pressure. You will get wet in the shower but the water isn't going to blast out... not ever. The pressure is set for everyone.
"We can't change the temps"
You can, the temps can be set between 67 and 72... no more no less.
Saving the environment is a little tougher than they thought.
And in my VERY Liberal state of Massachusetts the Beautiful People who are always telling other's how to live are flipping out because of Cape Wind. Cape Wind is a proposed windmill farm of Hyannis... where the wealthy go to yacht. The Kennedy's have been fighting it from Day 1. They want to save the world and fight Global Warming... but not when their yachting views are affected. Not in their back yard.
ON Sunday, the best climate policy in the world got even better: British Columbia’s carbon tax — a tax on the carbon content of all fossil fuels burned in the province — increased from $25 to $30 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, making it more expensive to pollute.
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.
The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1
Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
This was good news not only for the environment but for nearly everyone who pays taxes in British Columbia, because the carbon tax is used to reduce taxes for individuals and businesses. Thanks to this tax swap, British Columbia has lowered its corporate income tax rate to 10 percent from 12 percent, a rate that is among the lowest in the Group of 8 wealthy nations. Personal income taxes for people earning less than $119,000 per year are now the lowest in Canada, and there are targeted rebates for low-income and rural households.
The only bad news is that this is the last increase scheduled in British Columbia. In our view, the reason is simple: the province is waiting for the rest of North America to catch up so that its tax system will not become unbalanced or put energy-intensive industries at a competitive disadvantage.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-for-all.html?_r=1
I'd still like to know how your one-sided condemnations of all that is not to your liking - without alternate recommendations for the folk your "help" will obviously hurt - makes you "better informed". Who are you? Stephen Harper?
...and why do you and Reb keep answering for each other?
I find it difficult to understand how anyone cannot be concerned about the environment. Is it not in our own self-interest to see that we do not pollute the air and water - the very elements upon which all life depends - and preserve the land and sea that provides for our existence? Can there be anything more important? And, what about the future? - Can we be so selfish as not to be concerned about the quality of life of our own children and grandchildren? What will be their inheritance? Will they see us as good stewards of that which we only hold in trust? - Or will they curse us for wasting their birthright? Can we be so short-sighted as not to foresee the consequences of our actions - or so callous as not to care? Apparently so.
It's only considered confusion when that angle is used to question the almighty proponents of AGW.
"When will man know what birds know?"
- Karl Sandburg
Pollution and climate change are directly connected. The environment does have the capacity to heal itself; and the rate of recovery will depend on the type of damage being done to it. In this case, the earth can replenish the ozone depleted by man-made pollutants; however it cannot be restored while we continue to spew chemical emissions into the atmosphere. Unless we reduce the pollution, the water temperature will continue to rise, which will have inevitable consequences. Still, we refuse to act, and go about oblivious to what is happening. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for refusing to see the cause of his own destruction.
- Karl Sandburg
Pollution and climate change are directly connected. The environment does have the capacity to heal itself; and the rate of recovery will depend on the type of damage being done to it. In this case, the earth can replenish the ozone depleted by man-made pollutants; however it cannot be restored while we continue to spew chemical emissions into the atmosphere. Unless we reduce the pollution, the water temperature will continue to rise, which will have inevitable consequences. Still, we refuse to act, and go about oblivious to what is happening. Indeed, one would think that man had but small brains for refusing to see the cause of his own destruction.
Carbon dioxide emissions are out of balance due to pollution of the atmosphere. For example, a little mentioned aspect of global warming is the decline of Antarctic krill (estimated at 80% since 1970); which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to ozone depletion caused by pollution of the atmosphere that has resulted in the dramatic decrease in krill populations. This, in turn, will increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. It is a vicious cycle; and one that will have profound consequences.
What about when the carbon was removed from the system millions of years ago in a manner that was 'out of balance'?... It's only a matter of geologic time before it gets injected back in the system... A natural circumstance to be sure, but who will we blame then? What will be the remedial actions be needed to reverse this damage at that point?
Oddly enough there are people here who would read the following linked information and not see the humour.
Judges have gall to use climate change facts | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper
"Last week, three smart-alecky judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency was right to rely on the best available scientific evidence and had the authority to regulate carbon emissions to limit so-called “greenhouse gases.”
The court turned back a noble effort by some state governments (Texas proudly in the lead) and job-creators (chemical companies, coal mines, manufacturers) who had pointed out that the EPA had relied on consensus findings by “scientists” that man-made global warming was real. The states and industry groups said the EPA should have done its own studies instead of relying on outside experts.
“This argument is little more than a semantic trick,” the three-judge panel ruled. “EPA did not delegate, explicitly or otherwise, any decision-making to any of those entities. EPA simply did here what it and other decision-makers often must do to make a science-based judgment: It sought out and reviewed existing scientific evidence to determine whether a particular finding was warranted.”
And then – get this – the judges wrote, “This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”
To which I say, fine. Show me an atom."
......
"Number one, who do these judges think they are, anyway? Judges David B. Sentelle, David S. Tatel and Judith W. Rogers only got their jobs on this podunk bench when their predecessors – Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clarence Thomas – got other gigs. Tatel and Rogers were appointed by President Bill Clinton, a noted Democrat. Sentelle was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, who must have been having a bad day.
Number two, where do these judges get off putting any credence in the 2010 study published by the National Academy of Sciences that found that 97 percent to 98 percent of climate researchers believe in man-made climate change?
What about that 2 percent to 3 percent, huh? “Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one,” said Henry David Thoreau, whom I am going to quote here even though he was an early tree-hugger.
And why didn’t the judges contact physicist Richard Fuller of the University of California-Berkeley? Before last October, he could have told them he was skeptical of all that climate change “science,” so with the help of $150,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation, he did his own study.
So there."
And goes on to explain the difficulty of being right all the time...
What an absurd thing to say. Anything pollutes, damages, if there is too much of it. We are putting carbon into the air faster than it has happened at any time in the past that scientists are aware of. This is causing the warming that is happening faster than it has happened also. Pollution is evident.
How does one do a two sided condemnation? (I would love to play around with that concept.)
However, if you get your assessment accurate, it is not a matter of "to my liking." I condemn the attitude that is condemning my grandchildren and yours to a very scary world. An attitude that is based on greed and power lust and nothing else: the ettitude of Louis XIV when he said "after me the flood."
What recommendations do you want me to make. I have only one and that is the overarching one of "make our political leaders accept their responsibility for ending the emission problem" before catastrophe strikes. It can be done but there is little time left.
I do not answer for Reb and he does not answer for me. We are bothparticipating in a discussion and putting forth our own researched opinions and informations. Is that not what it should be about?
Would you try to expand on this so that we have a clue as to your meaning and what it is has to do with man made AGW.
It's called discussion. I see you preach and talk down to people. Try reaching out as a friend. More flies with honey than vinegar so to speak.
Would that be something akin to what our parents and grandparents handed down to us ... or theirs to them? Or would that be mistaking lack of obsession as disconcern?
The one thing you lack is patience. It's human nature to go the status quo until there is no other recourse but change - and preaching down just puts them off and you into the crackpot box
Historically, that has not been the case in this Forum. You would not be the first preacher to go parading one cause or another through here with ghost friend and invented yes person to cheer you on. It's somewhat difficult to imagine two different posters having the same holier-than-thou attitudes, targets and posting style without choreography or split personality
Where is the preaching and talking down? That seems to me to be just sour grapes on your part. Giving information is NOT preaching. Repeating the myths and lies from denial sites and from industrial interests is preaching.
Our parents and grandparents did not hand anything like this down to us. We have be something that is getting close to a scientific consensus just five or six years left or it will be too late. Try preaching patience (you are preaching) in the face of that and examine your rationale or motives.
The accusations about collusion are not worth response. I do not have the time for such a practise - even with some one who clearly knows a great deal about the matter - since I am active about this and other concerns on an international scale as well as with Canadian politicians.
I do not enjoy devoting what is left of my life to concerns that are the gravest man has ever faced because this generation is too apathetic to inform itself or too stand up against mercenary politicians and business.. I have worked long enough and hard enough that I would appreciate some relaxation