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

  • Current Drudge headline/article links;
    Most Miserable Start to Winter on Record?

    EVEN FLORIDA FREEZING...

    Gore to host 24-hour 'Global Warming' special...

    DETAILS: Massive Levies in Carbon Tax Bill...
    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

    Comment


    • Note that the latest government report uses the RCP 4.5 model for much of their conclusions.

      Comment


      • Here's another fun one, from;
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/...ssment-report/

        Most of us look at temperatures on thermometers. A thermometer at the same scale as a typical temperature anomaly plot would be about 64′ tall. So, I took the liberty of reducing the temperature anomaly plot to the same scale as a thermometer, a genuine Texaco thermometer…


        Figure 4. Scary? Huh?
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
          Juliana v. United States https://www.sightline.org/2018/11/01...h-oregon-case/

          wait until this hits the courts. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco...wsuit-for-now/

          In 2015, the 21 young people, now aged 11 to 22, brought their lawsuit in the US District Court of Oregon, arguing that US energy policy over the decades has so drastically destabilized the climate that it violates the US Constitution. After three years, a new president, and countless legal filings, the plaintiffs are now in Eugene and ready to testify about how climate change already affects their lives and compromises their futures.

          i think that the young people will win. and here is why
          1) James Hansen, the former top NASA scientist who first brought climate change to the forefront 30 years ago, is also a plaintiff in the federal case.
          2) 98 % of all climate scientist see global warming as man made.
          3) the united states has done nothing it never ratified the kyoto accord.and back down from the paris agreement
          4) case are decided on merit and the deniers have little scientific merit to back up their claims that there is no such thing as global warming and that it is not man made. .


          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
          Is Kids Climate Case Coming to an End?

          charles the moderator / 6 hours ago November 28, 2018From The Volokh Conspiracy

          The “trial of the century” may not happen after all.

          Jonathan H. Adler|Nov. 26, 2018 6:09 pm

          ...
          On the eve of Thanksgiving, a federal district court judge may have conceded that there will be no federal trial in a case to force the federal government to take more aggressive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions so as to forestall global climate change. After a not-too-subtle rebuke from the Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the trial court judge in Juliana v. U.S. placed the planned trial on hold in order to allow for an interlocutory appeal of the court’s denial of the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. This action came in response to a none-too-subtle rebuke from the Supreme Court suggesting the trial court was a bit out of line — a message that does not bode well for the plaintiffs’ claims.

          The Juliana case is likely the most ambitious and aggressive climate change suit filed to date. Filed on behalf of children who are not yet able to vote, the suit’s claim is that by failing to control the emission of greenhouse gases, the federal government has violated the plaintiffs’s substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and failed to uphold its “public trust” obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.

          However serious the threat posed by climate change — and it is quite serious — these are audacious and aggressive claims. It is also not clear that they are the sort of question that can be adequately adjudicated in federal court. Accordingly, the federal government sought to have the claims dismissed on multiple grounds, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, that their claims presented nonjusticiable political questions and the failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

          After the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, the government immediately sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which the district court also rejected.

          Faced with the prospect of expansive and intrusive discovery requests — and a looming trial — the federal government sought relief in the form of a writ of mandamus and a stay of the proceedings from the Supreme Court to force the trial court back into line. This was an aggressive move, to be sure, but one the Solicitor General’s office believed was warranted given the unprecedented nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and the trial court’s unwillingness to allow its initial decisions to be challenged.
          ...
          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/...ing-to-an-end/
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

          Comment


          • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
            Is Kids Climate Case Coming to an End?

            charles the moderator / 6 hours ago November 28, 2018From The Volokh Conspiracy

            The “trial of the century” may not happen after all.

            Jonathan H. Adler|Nov. 26, 2018 6:09 pm

            ...
            On the eve of Thanksgiving, a federal district court judge may have conceded that there will be no federal trial in a case to force the federal government to take more aggressive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions so as to forestall global climate change. After a not-too-subtle rebuke from the Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the trial court judge in Juliana v. U.S. placed the planned trial on hold in order to allow for an interlocutory appeal of the court’s denial of the federal government’s motion to dismiss the case. This action came in response to a none-too-subtle rebuke from the Supreme Court suggesting the trial court was a bit out of line — a message that does not bode well for the plaintiffs’ claims.

            The Juliana case is likely the most ambitious and aggressive climate change suit filed to date. Filed on behalf of children who are not yet able to vote, the suit’s claim is that by failing to control the emission of greenhouse gases, the federal government has violated the plaintiffs’s substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property, and failed to uphold its “public trust” obligation to hold certain natural resources in trust for the people and for future generations.

            However serious the threat posed by climate change — and it is quite serious — these are audacious and aggressive claims. It is also not clear that they are the sort of question that can be adequately adjudicated in federal court. Accordingly, the federal government sought to have the claims dismissed on multiple grounds, including that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, that their claims presented nonjusticiable political questions and the failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

            After the district court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, the government immediately sought leave to file an interlocutory appeal, which the district court also rejected.

            Faced with the prospect of expansive and intrusive discovery requests — and a looming trial — the federal government sought relief in the form of a writ of mandamus and a stay of the proceedings from the Supreme Court to force the trial court back into line. This was an aggressive move, to be sure, but one the Solicitor General’s office believed was warranted given the unprecedented nature of the plaintiffs’ claims and the trial court’s unwillingness to allow its initial decisions to be challenged.
            ...
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/...ing-to-an-end/

            USING A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WEBSITE FOR HONEST INFORMATION IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.

            Comment


            • This is an interesting twist:


              https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as...cid=spartandhp

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post


                USING A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WEBSITE FOR HONEST INFORMATION IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
                You think!?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JustAGuy View Post


                  USING A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL WEBSITE FOR HONEST INFORMATION IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.
                  Well, using one that is run by true believers in Gorebal Warming or the environmental Left is equally terrible.

                  Comment


                  • And the new one issued by the US government you believe is of that type?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      Well, using one that is run by true believers in Gorebal Warming or the environmental Left is equally terrible.
                      You are of course referring to the government reports I posted. I am not a science denier, so it is a wise decision on my part to follow the experts while knowing the science is not perfect. However, I also know that as time goes on the science will require adjustments in our understanding of climate chamge, and that science will make the necessary changes. Deniers on the other hand are stuck with their unscientic beliefs and cannot adapt in a meaningful way to new information that does not conform to their preconceived notions. Science can and does.

                      Comment


                      • The federal government released a devastating report last week documenting the immense economic and human cost that the U.S. will incur as a result of climate change. It warns that the damage to roads alone will add up to $21 billion by the end of the century. In certain parts of the Midwest, farms will produce 75 percent less corn than today, while ocean acidification could result in $230 billion in financial losses. More people will die from extreme temperatures and mosquito-borne diseases. Wildfire seasons will become more frequent and more destructive. Tens of millions of people living near rising oceans will be forced to resettle. The findings put the country on notice, once again, that doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

                        One last obstacle is American Exceptionalismthe notion that the U.S. is immune from the same kinds of problems that face other comparable countries. There is a misplaced sense of confidence that the scariest predictions just won’t come to pass here; the U.S. will always finds a way to avoid the disasters other nations face. Somehow America’s scientists and business leaders will figure a way out. The belief in American Exceptionalism also pushes many American leaders to resist the kind of international agreements—such as the Kyoto Pact on Global Warming and the Paris Climate Agreement—that are the path to real progress. Those who feel that America is different and superior than the rest of the world are reluctant to concede that it can’t do whatever it wants, on its own.

                        https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...heMorningEmail

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                          The federal government released a devastating report last week documenting the immense economic and human cost that the U.S. will incur as a result of climate change. It warns that the damage to roads alone will add up to $21 billion by the end of the century. In certain parts of the Midwest, farms will produce 75 percent less corn than today, while ocean acidification could result in $230 billion in financial losses. More people will die from extreme temperatures and mosquito-borne diseases. Wildfire seasons will become more frequent and more destructive. Tens of millions of people living near rising oceans will be forced to resettle. The findings put the country on notice, once again, that doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

                          One last obstacle is American Exceptionalismthe notion that the U.S. is immune from the same kinds of problems that face other comparable countries. There is a misplaced sense of confidence that the scariest predictions just won’t come to pass here; the U.S. will always finds a way to avoid the disasters other nations face. Somehow America’s scientists and business leaders will figure a way out. The belief in American Exceptionalism also pushes many American leaders to resist the kind of international agreements—such as the Kyoto Pact on Global Warming and the Paris Climate Agreement—that are the path to real progress. Those who feel that America is different and superior than the rest of the world are reluctant to concede that it can’t do whatever it wants, on its own.

                          https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...heMorningEmail
                          Thank you for link to the Atlantic article. It is thought provoking.

                          I posted links to the 2018 report a few days ago and followed with the 2017. Needless to say the science denying, anti-intellectuals here are in full cry against the reports' finding.

                          Comment


                          • It is very funny that the majority of americans view climate change as real and that it is caused by human, and yet the conservative republicans view it as a hoax, go figure .

                            Comment


                            • About the Fourth National Climate Assessment: the man who helped prepare it was Andrew Light, economic advisor of Obama and Podesta and who worked for The Center for American Progress, funded by Soros and Steyer, and directed by Podesta .
                              Thus, the conclusions of the National Climate Assessment are good for under the Greyhound bus .

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                                The federal government released a devastating report last week documenting the immense economic and human cost that the U.S. will incur as a result of climate change. It warns that the damage to roads alone will add up to $21 billion by the end of the century. In certain parts of the Midwest, farms will produce 75 percent less corn than today, while ocean acidification could result in $230 billion in financial losses. More people will die from extreme temperatures and mosquito-borne diseases. Wildfire seasons will become more frequent and more destructive. Tens of millions of people living near rising oceans will be forced to resettle. The findings put the country on notice, once again, that doing nothing is a recipe for disaster.

                                One last obstacle is American Exceptionalismthe notion that the U.S. is immune from the same kinds of problems that face other comparable countries. There is a misplaced sense of confidence that the scariest predictions just won’t come to pass here; the U.S. will always finds a way to avoid the disasters other nations face. Somehow America’s scientists and business leaders will figure a way out. The belief in American Exceptionalism also pushes many American leaders to resist the kind of international agreements—such as the Kyoto Pact on Global Warming and the Paris Climate Agreement—that are the path to real progress. Those who feel that America is different and superior than the rest of the world are reluctant to concede that it can’t do whatever it wants, on its own.

                                https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...heMorningEmail
                                This is alarmist nonsense. It's the same sort of dire economic predictions that have repeatedly been made throughout history, most famously made by Thomas Malthus.

                                The assumption(s) to get this prediction require that technology remains static and that new 'stuff' isn't invented to overcome problems and increase productivity. It also assumes that people won't adapt or innovate to overcome changes in the climate. These are the sort of prediction that stone age man will freeze to death as the ice age approaches because fire and the coat haven't been invented.

                                People die in masses from mosquito born disease now because pesticides that could effectively control them have been banned, often on the basis of bad science. See the debate over DDT that's going on today for example.

                                So, the premise that doing nothing will lead to certain disaster is nonsensical. It puts the report's economic findings in the category of sheer hysterics.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X