keepthefaith Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 It's sad really because some of the people making arguments against global warming are just as bad as those making the argument for it. IMHO even if it doesn't exist, i still think the environment is important. I have friends who live/have been to Shanghai who talk about how intolerable the smog is. No doubt the environment is important and sensible changes toward that goal should be widely supported and over the past several decades, many things have been done to that end.
3rdnlng Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 (edited) It's sad really because some of the people making arguments against global warming are just as bad as those making the argument for it. IMHO even if it doesn't exist, i still think the environment is important. I have friends who live/have been to Shanghai who talk about how intolerable the smog is. Think what if all the money dedicated to global warming was diverted to actually cleaning up the environment in a tangible way. As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eire Each day, Detroit, Cleveland and 120 other municipalities fill Erie with 1.5 billion gallons of "inadequately treated wastes, including nitrates and phosphates ... These chemicals act as fertilizer for growths of algae that suck oxygen from the lower depths and rise to the surface as odoriferous green scum ... Commercial and game fish—blue pike, whitefish, sturgeon, northern pike—have nearly vanished, yielding the waters to trash fish that need less oxygen. Weeds proliferate, turning water frontage into swamp. In short, Lake Erie is in danger of dying by suffocation. —Time Magazine, August 1969[46] These events embarrassed officials and spurred local officials, including Cleveland's director of public utilities, Ben Stefanski, to pursue a massive effort to "scrub the Cuyahoga"; the effort cost $100 million in bonds, according to one estimate.[46] New sewer lines were built.[46] Clevelanders approved a bond issue by 2 to 1 to seriously upgrade Cleveland's sewage system.[46] Federal officials acted as well; the United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972.[83][84] In that year, the United States and Canada establishedwater pollution limits in an International Water Quality Agreement. The controls were effective, but it took several decades to take effect; by 1999, there were signs that large numbers of mayflies were spotted on the lake after a forty-year absence signalling a return to health.[16][76] The clearing of the water column is also partly due to the introduction and rapid spread of zebra mussels from Europe, which had the effect of covering "the basin floor like shag carpeting" with each creature filtering "a liter of fresh water a day," helping to restore the lake to a cleaner state.[16] The 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement also significantly reduced the dumping and runoff of phosphorus into the lake. The lake has since become clean enough to allow sunlight to infiltrate its water and produce algae and sea weed, but a dead zone persists in the central Lake Erie Basin during the late summer. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has studied this cyclic phenomenon since 2005.[85] There have been instances of beach closings at Presque Isle off the coast of northwestern Pennsylvania because of unexplained E. Coli contaminations,[86] possibly caused by storm water overflows after heavy downpours. Since the 1970s environmental regulation has led to a great increase in water quality and the return of economically important fish species such as walleye and other biological life.[87] There was substantial evidence that the new controls had substantially reduced levels of DDT in the water by 1979.[26] Cleanup efforts were described in 1979 as a notable environmental success story, suggesting that the cumulative effect of legislation, studies, and bans had reversed the effects of pollution:[26] The globs of oil, the multicolored industrial discharges, the flotsam from shoreline cities, the fecal and bacterial wastes are no longer dumped in the lakes in vast quantities. —Time Magazine, 1979[26] Joint U.S.–Canadian agreements pushed 600 of 864 major industrial dischargers to meet requirements for keeping the water clean.[26]One estimate was that $5 billion was spent to upgrade plants to treat sewage.[26] The change toward cleaner water has been in a positive direction since the 1970s. Edited February 16, 2014 by 3rdnlng
B-Man Posted February 16, 2014 Posted February 16, 2014 FTA: Of particular concern are the warnings from solar scientists that over the next three decades, we are headed toward significant global cooling as the sun weakens into a grand minimum. The last time the sun was as weak as solar experts predict will occur starting after 2030, the Earth was in a particularly cold phase of the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1350-1850, a period when there was great misery around the world. Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov of Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg warns: After the maximum of solar Cycle 24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11 years. History shows that such cold times are far more dangerous than warm periods. That is why geologists call past warm epochs “optimums,” and cold times “dark ages.” While not accepting that a 2°C rise in temperature is likely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) explains: Multiple lines of evidence suggest a 2°C rise in temperature would not be harmful to the biosphere. The period termed the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c. 8,000 ybp) was 2–3°C warmer than today (Alley, 2000), and the planet attained similar temperatures for several million years during the Miocene and Pliocene (Zachos et al., 2001). Biodiversity is encouraged by warmer rather than colder temperatures (Idso and Idso, 2009), and higher temperatures and elevated CO2 greatly stimulate the growth of most plants (Idso and Idso, 2011). The climate change debate should move away from unsubstantiated warming fears and focus instead on determining if the extreme cold of recent years is a precursor to significant global cooling. If it is, then reliable and inexpensive energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation will become crucially important for our survival. The last thing we should be doing is closing down these stations in the questionable belief that we are helping to prevent global warming, a phenomenon that has already stopped all on its own. http://pjmedia.com/blog/cooling-kills-governments-must-shift-to-cold-preparation/?singlepage=true
Wacka Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Obama was in Fresno and Los Banos for a total of 3 hours (including travel), He played golf on both Saturday and Sunday.Spent at least 2x as long on golf rather than the problems he claimed to come here for. It was a golf trip with a short visit to the Central Valley thrown in. We have had 1.85 " since last spring where the normal is about 12.5" at this time of year.
boyst Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Obama was in Fresno and Los Banos for a total of 3 hours (including travel), He played golf on both Saturday and Sunday.Spent at least 2x as long on golf rather than the problems he claimed to come here for. It was a golf trip with a short visit to the Central Valley thrown in. We have had 1.85 " since last spring where the normal is about 12.5" at this time of year. and instead of working to get water sent from other sources he wants to just pass out money. How will the money you pay the farmer feed the customer? The farmer can't simply put that money in the ground and expect any change. California Ag is a mess right now and no one cares. Stocker prices are way up, corn is doing well and seemingly steady on the futures market (from what I remember back in Dec) and the supply on stockers is way down. Beef prices are going to rise and corn will, too unless we dry up in the Midwest.
Jim in Anchorage Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Think what if all the money dedicated to global warming was diverted to actually cleaning up the environment in a tangible way. As an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Eire Each day, Detroit, Cleveland and 120 other municipalities fill Erie with 1.5 billion gallons of "inadequately treated wastes, including nitrates and phosphates ... These chemicals act as fertilizer for growths of algae that suck oxygen from the lower depths and rise to the surface as odoriferous green scum ... Commercial and game fish—blue pike, whitefish, sturgeon, northern pike—have nearly vanished, yielding the waters to trash fish that need less oxygen. Weeds proliferate, turning water frontage into swamp. In short, Lake Erie is in danger of dying by suffocation. —Time Magazine, August 1969[46] These events embarrassed officials and spurred local officials, including Cleveland's director of public utilities, Ben Stefanski, to pursue a massive effort to "scrub the Cuyahoga"; the effort cost $100 million in bonds, according to one estimate.[46] New sewer lines were built.[46] Clevelanders approved a bond issue by 2 to 1 to seriously upgrade Cleveland's sewage system.[46] Federal officials acted as well; the United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act of 1972.[83][84] In that year, the United States and Canada establishedwater pollution limits in an International Water Quality Agreement. The controls were effective, but it took several decades to take effect; by 1999, there were signs that large numbers of mayflies were spotted on the lake after a forty-year absence signalling a return to health.[16][76] The clearing of the water column is also partly due to the introduction and rapid spread of zebra mussels from Europe, which had the effect of covering "the basin floor like shag carpeting" with each creature filtering "a liter of fresh water a day," helping to restore the lake to a cleaner state.[16] The 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement also significantly reduced the dumping and runoff of phosphorus into the lake. The lake has since become clean enough to allow sunlight to infiltrate its water and produce algae and sea weed, but a dead zone persists in the central Lake Erie Basin during the late summer. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has studied this cyclic phenomenon since 2005.[85] There have been instances of beach closings at Presque Isle off the coast of northwestern Pennsylvania because of unexplained E. Coli contaminations,[86] possibly caused by storm water overflows after heavy downpours. Since the 1970s environmental regulation has led to a great increase in water quality and the return of economically important fish species such as walleye and other biological life.[87] There was substantial evidence that the new controls had substantially reduced levels of DDT in the water by 1979.[26] Cleanup efforts were described in 1979 as a notable environmental success story, suggesting that the cumulative effect of legislation, studies, and bans had reversed the effects of pollution:[26] The globs of oil, the multicolored industrial discharges, the flotsam from shoreline cities, the fecal and bacterial wastes are no longer dumped in the lakes in vast quantities. —Time Magazine, 1979[26] Joint U.S.–Canadian agreements pushed 600 of 864 major industrial dischargers to meet requirements for keeping the water clean.[26]One estimate was that $5 billion was spent to upgrade plants to treat sewage.[26] The change toward cleaner water has been in a positive direction since the 1970s. Zebra mussels are now a good thing? They where considered a plague when I lived there.
....lybob Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Zebra mussels are now a good thing? They where considered a plague when I lived there. no still a scourge - they are like having tenants running a meth lab in your rental but they mow the lawn on Sundays
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 And this did not happen because of fracking: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-coal-ash-investigation-20140214,0,6158217.story#axzz2tVMQJoCC Coal mining is far and away more polluting than fracking ever will be. Having spent time in West Virginia I learned that the biggest anti- fracking "activists" are the coal companies.
Joe Miner Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 And this did not happen because of fracking: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-coal-ash-investigation-20140214,0,6158217.story#axzz2tVMQJoCC Coal mining is far and away more polluting than fracking ever will be. Having spent time in West Virginia I learned that the biggest anti- fracking "activists" are the coal companies. How did West Virginia get you to leave?
TH3 Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 “dark ages.” While not accepting that a 2°C rise in temperature is likely, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) explains: Multiple lines of evidence suggest a 2°C rise in temperature would not be harmful to the biosphere. The period termed the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c. 8,000 ybp) was 2–3°C warmer than today (Alley, 2000), and the planet attained similar temperatures for several million years during the Miocene and Pliocene (Zachos et al., 2001). Biodiversity is encouraged by warmer rather than colder temperatures (Idso and Idso, 2009), and higher temperatures and elevated CO2 greatly stimulate the growth of most plants (Idso and Idso, 2011). The climate change debate should move away from unsubstantiated warming fears and focus instead on determining if the extreme cold of recent years is a precursor to significant global cooling. If it is, then reliable and inexpensive energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation will become crucially important for our survival. The last thing we should be doing is closing down these stations in the questionable belief that we are helping to prevent global warming, a phenomenon that has already stopped all on its own. http://pjmedia.com/b...singlepage=true So - When a single Russian astrophysicist (not even...gasp....a climate expert ) publishes a paper calling for global cooling it is taken as proven fact....are you sure that he is not simply part of a complex conspiracy involving his quest for further funding working in concert with the carbon industrial political complex?
B-Man Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 So - When a single Russian astrophysicist (not even...gasp....a climate expert ) publishes a paper calling for global cooling it is taken as proven fact....are you sure that he is not simply part of a complex conspiracy involving his quest for further funding working in concert with the carbon industrial political complex? Hilarious response. .
Tiberius Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 Hilarious response. . What, couldnt find a cartoon or a picture with a stupid caption on it for a reply? So you don't like people questioning your cut and paste jobs from far right wing web sites? You are truly the PPP right wing propaganda puppet.
Chef Jim Posted February 17, 2014 Posted February 17, 2014 What, couldnt find a cartoon or a picture with a stupid caption on it for a reply? So you don't like people questioning your cut and paste jobs from far right wing web sites? You are truly the PPP right wing propaganda puppet. Are you the kettle or the pot today?
OCinBuffalo Posted February 17, 2014 Author Posted February 17, 2014 It's sad really because some of the people making arguments against global warming are just as bad as those making the argument for it. IMHO even if it doesn't exist, i still think the environment is important. I have friends who live/have been to Shanghai who talk about how intolerable the smog is. This is the point that Alaska Darin has been making since I've been here. Instead of focusing on clean water/air etc., the Ds and their EPA surrogates have overreached yet again, and now, with the 17 year "pause" in global temperature increase, they have been exposed. This overreach/exposure, as Darin has argued, will inevitably lead to a backlash. My argument: backlash is normally directly proportional to the origination "lash" that creates it. If that is the case here, then, the Ds/EPA/environtologists are in for a whipping they can't even imagine. And, the irony: a whipping that is led by unionized coal and manufacturing workers. In the end, they may very well find themselves behind, in 2018, where they began all this, in 1998. And, that's not a good thing, because that means, per Darin, that the clean water/air is the baby that gets thrown out with the bathwater.
B-Man Posted February 18, 2014 Posted February 18, 2014 "When John Kerry speaks, people wonder: Is he seriously clever or totally oblivious? Profound or void? Detective Columbo or Chance the gardener? Climate Prophets and Profiteers:The most cynical part of John Kerry's climate-change speech.by Bret Stephens The weirdest thing about John Kerry's weekend speech on climate-change—other than the fact that this is the same guy who in 1997 voted to forbid the U.S. from signing the Kyoto Protocol—is that it begins by quoting something Maurice Strong said at the U.N.'s 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: "Every bit of evidence I've seen persuades me that we are on a course leading to tragedy." Maurice who? Mr. Strong, a former oil executive from Canada (he was Pierre Trudeau's pick to run state-owned Petro-Canada in the mid-1970s), was for many years the U.N.'s ultimate mandarin. He organized many of its environmental mega-confabs, including the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the 1992 Rio summit, before rising to become Kofi Annan's right-hand man. At various times Mr. Strong has served as director at the World Economic Forum, chairman of the Earth Council and the World Resources Institute, vice chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange and chairman of the China Carbon Corporation, to name just a few of his many prominent affiliations. {snip} Draw your own conclusions. Ask yourself: Is this a guy who deserves a shout-out from the U.S. Secretary of State? The secretary devoted much of his speech to venting spleen at those in the "Flat Earth Society" who dispute the 97% of climate scientists who believe in man-made global warming. "We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific fact," he said. Once upon a time people understood that skepticism was essential to good science. Now Mr. Kerry is trying to invoke a specious democracy among scientists to shut down democratic debate for everyone else. This is of a piece with the amusing notion that the only thing standing in the way of climate salvation is a shadowy, greedy and powerful conspiracy involving the Koch Brothers, MIT's Dick Lindzen, Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe and this newspaper's editorial page.......... Oh, the power! More at the link: http://online.wsj.co...?mod=hp_opinion
TH3 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 January 2014 fourth warmest on record - Globally of course.
keepthefaith Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Clearly, the republicans are at fault. Since about the time Reagan was elected, the earth's temp began to rise (see first chart). Possibly the cold war was keeping temps down as temps also rise at the time that ended. Looking to the end of the chart, it's clear that electing Obama has help temperatures to stabilize. This makes a good argument for ending term limits so that the world can "stay the course". http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade
B-Man Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 Well, I'm convinced. Clearly the wisest course of action would be to funnel Billions of dollars through the U.N. to poorer countries. .
Koko78 Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 January 2014 fourth warmest on record - Globally of course. Link?
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2014 Posted February 21, 2014 January 2014 fourth warmest on record - Globally of course. Weather is not climate.
Recommended Posts