Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    I put this here because of the source: Scientific American

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/re...mate-refugees/

    This month's issue includes an article by freelance writer and photojournalist John Wendle titled: Syria's Climate Refugees.

    Now, Scientific American is supposed to be a reasonably authoritative science magazine. To publish an article by a writer "climate change" who has no particular credentials, is rather ludicrous. But, the article is too.

    Mr. Wendle uses as his evidence of this a single article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA along with interviews with Syrian refugee farmers who he purports substantiate his claims that they are "Climate Refugees."

    On the whole, it is a sad indictment of the politicization of science when it comes to this subject.
    If Syrians are climate refugees, so are most of the retirees in Prescott and Scottsdale...
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • You might want to tell Scientific American that... Hint, hint...

      Comment


      • AGW is true. We know it to be true because the Right Wing have been promoting a decent environment long before the Left Wing knew what it was about.

        Traditionally, right wing voters have come from the rural areas, and left wing from the urban. This is simply because Unions were eventually formed when workers were concentrated in one place doing a horrible job. The left wing found its support among heavy industry employees. This meant the left needed heavy industry to produce its political base. The Left has never really been historically linked to the protection of the environment until now.

        OTOH, the Right has been rather smarter. A rural society understands that food relies on sound management of the environment. It's no surprise that until very recently, the right was more likely to produce laws to help the rural society.

        Let's take the Climate Change situation as the example as pertinent to this thread. Who has cared the most? It has been the Right Wing of course. Since AGW is all about clean air, let's look at the actual important legislation in the US.

        In 1955, President Eisenhower introduces clean air legislation. He is Republican.

        In 1970, further clean air legislation is passed, this time by Nixon. Although Nixon is often considered a 'bad apple' by some, he obviously thought this issue important. He is Republican.

        In 1977, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, that was in charge when an amendment was made to the law, almost an abberation to what had happened previously.

        In 1990, a further change was made to the law to make air cleaner, again by the Republicans. George Bush may not usually be seen as pro Green by most, but actions speak louder than words.

        His son, another president of the USA, is often seen as less than green. He did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, but I agree with him. If China and India are not included as part of the pollution problem, then we may as well pack up and suicide ourselves.

        Until Al Gore hijacked the issue, the Right appeared to be more sensible concerning the environment. In actual fact, they were.

        Even when we look at Britain and clean air, the Right wins again. Whether it is clean air by conservative government in 1956, or later by 1993 it's the Right that introduces the legislation.

        The Right is more Green, and more environmentally friendly than the left has ever been.
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment


        • Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            AGW is true. We know it to be true because the Right Wing have been promoting a decent environment long before the Left Wing knew what it was about.

            Traditionally, right wing voters have come from the rural areas, and left wing from the urban. This is simply because Unions were eventually formed when workers were concentrated in one place doing a horrible job. The left wing found its support among heavy industry employees. This meant the left needed heavy industry to produce its political base. The Left has never really been historically linked to the protection of the environment until now.

            OTOH, the Right has been rather smarter. A rural society understands that food relies on sound management of the environment. It's no surprise that until very recently, the right was more likely to produce laws to help the rural society.

            Let's take the Climate Change situation as the example as pertinent to this thread. Who has cared the most? It has been the Right Wing of course. Since AGW is all about clean air, let's look at the actual important legislation in the US.

            In 1955, President Eisenhower introduces clean air legislation. He is Republican.

            In 1970, further clean air legislation is passed, this time by Nixon. Although Nixon is often considered a 'bad apple' by some, he obviously thought this issue important. He is Republican.

            In 1977, it was a Democrat, Jimmy Carter, that was in charge when an amendment was made to the law, almost an abberation to what had happened previously.

            In 1990, a further change was made to the law to make air cleaner, again by the Republicans. George Bush may not usually be seen as pro Green by most, but actions speak louder than words.

            His son, another president of the USA, is often seen as less than green. He did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, but I agree with him. If China and India are not included as part of the pollution problem, then we may as well pack up and suicide ourselves.

            Until Al Gore hijacked the issue, the Right appeared to be more sensible concerning the environment. In actual fact, they were.

            Even when we look at Britain and clean air, the Right wins again. Whether it is clean air by conservative government in 1956, or later by 1993 it's the Right that introduces the legislation.

            The Right is more Green, and more environmentally friendly than the left has ever been.
            The difference between the two is one started with good intentions and what were intended to be limited regulation. The other then took that open door with good intentions and regulated everything into the ground.

            My question for both the Right and Left on pollution, of any sort, would be how clean is clean enough?

            The Right generally will give you a quantifiable number based generally on a cost - benefit ratio. The Left will tell you it should be zero.

            That's the real difference.

            Comment


            • If you are anything other than a domesticated species or human, farming and fishing were the only industries that were ever required to destroy your habitat. Ignoring life expectancy and infant mortality it doesn't even require anything besides stone tools for population growth and agriculture to cause almost total world wide ecological collapse.

              The irony is that fossil fuels have probably prevented as much habitat loss as they have caused.

              The only question is how to access the risk of continuing to use fossil fuels. That is a much more difficult question than simply observing a correlation between anthropogenic green house gases and climate change. Way to little money has been spent on the risks of natural climate change.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • No, 150,000 Penguins Were Not Killed By Global Warming

                http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...lobal-warming/
                "Why is the Rum gone?"

                -Captain Jack

                Comment


                • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  The difference between the two is one started with good intentions and what were intended to be limited regulation. The other then took that open door with good intentions and regulated everything into the ground.

                  My question for both the Right and Left on pollution, of any sort, would be how clean is clean enough?

                  The Right generally will give you a quantifiable number based generally on a cost - benefit ratio. The Left will tell you it should be zero.

                  That's the real difference.
                  The Right started with good intentions, and remained sensible concerning the environment. This was due to their political base.

                  Historically, the Left did not care about the environment too much, simply because their power lay in workers, via the unions, employed in heavy industry. They were more interested in better wages, sick pay, and rewards for working harder/smarter.

                  The left has had to change because heavy industry is in decline in the USA. The Right first brought notice to the world about climate change. Although Ronald Reagan was the first to voice such an opinion afaik, it is true that Thatcher was the first world leader to voice concern on a public stage, ie the UN in 1989.

                  What Al Gore did was to steal a Right wing historical strength and make it his own. Given that most US senators and governors are now cap in hand to corporation donations, this was a real intellectual masterstroke.

                  I can admire Al Gores intelligence, while despising him for his duplicity and hypocrisy.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • DOJ 'DISCUSSED' LEGAL ACTION AGAINST 'CLIMATE' DENIERS



                    Allow Obama to appoint a Progressive to the Supreme Court and this Blaze headline becomes a reality.
                    “Breaking News,”

                    “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                    Comment


                    • Before usual "source deniers" whine about it being from The Blaze, should note there is the CNN video clip which includes the following;
                      “My question to you is, other than civil forfeitures and matters attendant to a criminal case, are there other circumstances in which a civil matter under the authority of the Department of Justice has been referred to the FBI?” he asked.
                      “This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on,” Lynch answered. “I’m not aware of a civil referral at this time.”

                      Comment


                      • (http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...th-s-climate/_) Feb 2011

                        Tolstoy went a step further and linked volcanism to tiny shifts in the Earth's orbit around the sun, as well, that occur every 100,000 years. These shifts would trigger ice ages and warm periods, both of which affect global sea levels. That, in turn, would increase or suppress volcanic activity, Tolstoy said.

                        Such linkages between volcanoes and planetary alignments could be better represented in climate models, Tolstoy said. Present-day models do represent underwater volcanoes, but they assume that volcanoes have a constant effect on the planet's carbon cycle. But Tolstoy's study suggests that, if anything, volcanism happens in spurts dictated by astronomical events.

                        Baker of NOAA cautioned that this does not mean that present-day climate change is not driven by human activity, because humans far outstrip the fractional contribution of prehistorical volcanoes to global warming.

                        "It's important to keep in mind that, even on a 1,000-year time scale, human emissions of CO2 will continue to dominate climate change," he said. "That is, we cannot blame seafloor eruptions for the ongoing increase in atmospheric and oceanic CO2 concentrations."

                        Comment


                        • The renewable fuel subsidy program is just another opportunity for corruption.



                          William H. Barnes pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court in Reading to two charges of conspiring to provide false statements related to engineering reviews he performed for Smarter Fuel Inc. in Wind Gap and Environmental Energy Recycling Corp. in Allentown.

                          The owners of the companies, Dave Dunham Jr., 35, of Bethlehem, and a partner, Ralph Tommaso, 46, of Warren, N.J., were charged Dec. 21 in a 101-count indictment alleging they overstated the amount of clean diesel and heating oil their companies produced between 2010 and 2012. According to the indictment, the alleged fraud reached from the Lehigh Valley to Washington state and into Canada.

                          According to the charges against Barnes, company officials at Smarter Fuel and Environmental Energy Recycling hired Barnes in 2010 to complete engineering reviews of their plants to document their capacities as they applied for the EPA's renewable fuel credit program.

                          http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/m...310-story.html
                          "Stand for the flag ~ Kneel for the fallen"

                          "A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer." ~ Bruce Lee

                          Comment


                          • I put this here since it originally appeared on the op ed page of the Arizona Republic making it at least in part political and news:

                            http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...-day/82910580/

                            I e-mailed Suzanne Tveit (at [email protected] ) this response:

                            Suzanne,

                            Read your column on climate change in Wednesday’s paper. Even checked out the Citizen’s Climate Lobby.
                            Can’t say I was impressed with either. To me, your column and the CCL both narrowly focus on the same worn out and unworkable solutions to a problem that isn’t even yet properly identified as to cause. For those that focus solely on anthropogenic (manmade) CO2 and on solutions that call for control of that problem, as you did in your column, and the CCL does in general, I term their belief in climate change “Gorebal Warming.” That is, the irrational belief led by their prophet of climate change Al Gore, that climate change has a sole source (CO2) and that through human action it can be controlled and reversed.
                            I hold no such belief. I see climate change as a very complex problem that has a number of causes, natural and manmade. For example, take jet engine contrails. There is now clear and convincing evidence these impact the climate in a measurable way. Your group, the CCL, says nothing about them.
                            http://essea.strategies.org/module.php?module_id=159
                            As but one source on that.
                            I don’t buy that Al Gore, or James Hansen can be trusted or listened to on this subject. Gore is a scientific illiterate, and Hansen has had much of his work called into serious question. They are but two of a plethora of those calling for the same solutions you do that are like that.
                            Let me go down your list of points in your article:

                            Earth Day. Cute but irrelevant. The Paris accords have to be ratified by Congress to take effect. Good luck there. I’ll write my congress critters to oppose it thank you. It is not the solution you are looking for.
                            500 institutions hum? Nice appeal to popularity there. Irrelevant. This isn’t a question of ethics, it’s a question of economics. More on that later.
                            More “clean energy” hum? Solar and wind are not the solution and they never will be. Physics, chemistry, and engineering work against them enmasse. Neither can be used for base load energy production. You do know the difference between base load and peak or spot loading don’t you when it comes to power production?
                            While it’s sad, it was inevitable that the Ivanpah solar plant (you do know the details of its operation don’t you) would be a major fail. It is horribly inefficient and produces a fraction of the power advertised. In fact it’s quickly headed to bankruptcy like most major solar power projects that aren’t continually government subsidized.

                            http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014...needs-bailout/

                            A billion dollar failure in solar behind. The list is long and expensive.
                            http://www.greentechmedia.com/articl...olar-Companies
                            Then there’s the Tesla. A car that can’t drive from my house to Mesa and back on a charge. How useful is that? Battery cars aren’t anything new and you can never, ever, get around the chemistry involved. The most voltage you can get from a single battery cell is around 2 volts, maybe a little more or less depending on the elements used in it.
                            The size of the cell determines the amount of ampacity it has. The bigger, the longer it goes. Can’t get around that either.
                            Charge rate is a matter of chemistry and the heat generated from that chemical reaction. But, it is still a matter of hours to recharge a battery powered car. Again, impractical.
                            So, if your proposals aren’t the solution, what is? Something I’m sure will leave you aghast with loathing. But, it would work and it would give us cheap plentiful stationary and mobile energy unlike the total fail of expensive, unworkable, solar, wind, and battery cars.
                            What works is N2N+H. That is, natural gas to nuclear plus hydrogen. Natural gas is cheap and plentiful. It is far cleaner than coal and could replace it as the primary means of stationary energy production. It gives us a ready and quick bridge to the real solution: More nuclear plants.
                            Oh yea, I’m sure you’re reeling with that one. Let me assure you I can bury you with factual evidence of the safety, reliability, and efficiency of nuclear… Bury you. I’ll be glad to debate that one with you anytime, anywhere.
                            With nuclear, we get cheap electricity… On the order of about 20% the cost per KWH (KiloWatt Hour) of solar and about 30% that of wind with no carbon production.
                            Yes, yes, you probably are going on about what to do with the waste. You do know that the actual waste from nuclear power in the US would all fit inside a super Walmart don’t you? No? Now you do.
                            As for where to store it? Yucca Flats is great. The only thing keeping it closed is a bunch of ill-informed NIMBY political nonsense from those who can’t even tell me how a nuclear power plant works. Oh, do you know how a nuclear power plant works? Do you know the different types in use? I do…
                            Then we get to portable fuel: Hydrogen. Cheap electricity means cheap hydrogen production. No more stupid battery cars. Hydrogen powered ones like the Honda Clarity are the future, or should be. The Tesla can go the way of the Edison (Yes, that Edison produced battery cars in the early 20th century. They failed then too.)
                            https://vimeo.com/87333312
                            So, Suzanne, while I might enjoy being part of a coalition to change energy policy in America for the environmental better, I want no part of one that is narrowly focused on carbon, government solutions like a carbon tax (and that is what the “fee-and-dividend” program you advocate is), and unworkable solutions like solar, wind, and cute useless battery cars.
                            If the CCL chapters locally were more open and amenable to alternatives and willing to educate their members to such, I might get involved. Until then, I oppose your expensive and unnecessary solutions to our energy problems.


                            What say you?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                              I put this here since it originally appeared on the op ed page of the Arizona Republic making it at least in part political and news:

                              http://www.azcentral.com/story/opini...-day/82910580/

                              I e-mailed Suzanne Tveit (at [email protected] ) this response:





                              What say you?
                              Within the first few sentences you establish that you are an ACC/AGW "denier" and she likely didn't read any further. She would likely agree with Bill Nye 'Science Guy' that you should be criminally charged and jailed.
                              http://www.dailywire.com/news/4978/w...mpaign=dwbrand

                              Comment


                              • Well, she can file a complaint then...

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X