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

  • Very well said.

    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

      It really does not matter does it.

      The real issue is how to deal with the consequences of said shifts, which are apparent.

      The endless discussion over the cause is just obfuscation.
      Cause is important. Without it being attributable to human activity, changes what means we have to deal with it.

      Right now, the Gorebal Warming crowd claims it is solely anthropogenic CO2 that is the cause and the only solution offered is ending use of oil and coal and going to solar and wind. That monolithic view alone should give anyone pause to question motives there.
      But, that aside, if it isn't CO2 or it's due to some natural cause, then the means to deal with the changes would shift from a focus on what energy source we're using to simply dealing with the temperature change(s) effectively.
      Without defining the cause accurately, we can't choose solutions that will deal with the problem. The consequences of wrong choices could be equally catastrophic or even worse than simply letting things take their course.
      For example, if we were to go "all in" on a "Green" economy and shift to solar and wind losing nuclear, oil, and coal, along with battery vehicles, etc., the consequences on world economies would be punishing-- particularly in the Third World. A precipitous decline in oil production would cause the price to rise dramatically. That in turn would effect a whole range of non-energy industries that use oil as part of their production process. Everything from plastics to medicine would become more expensive. Even the cost of food would dramatically rise (increased cost of farm machinery and switching to non-oil powered equipment, loss of many pesticides, a rise in handling and processing costs, etc.).
      Placing a bet on poor science or science driven by a political agenda is a bad bet. Thus, it matters what the cause is.

      Comment


      • March roars in with coast-to-coast snow, record cold...

        For first time in 132 years, L.A. never reached 70 degrees in February...
        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

        Comment


        • The best bet is that it is a little bit of both natural and human causes. I continue however to insist cooling is worse than warming.
          We hunt the hunters

          Comment


          • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
            The best bet is that it is a little bit of both natural and human causes. I continue however to insist cooling is worse than warming.
            Agreed!
            Slightly warm and I may get that second crop off of my fig tree.
            Cooling could lead to my location under a mile of ice as in the last Ice Age, which barely ended about 13-15,000 years ago.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

              Agreed!
              Slightly warm and I may get that second crop off of my fig tree.
              Cooling could lead to my location under a mile of ice as in the last Ice Age, which barely ended about 13-15,000 years ago.
              I think that our personalities dictate how we view this issue. The people that are inclined to manage a situation may be less inclined to jump on board with a radical solution. Those that are inclined towards abstractions and openness tend to embrace change for change's sake. Conservatives are characterized as being more conscientious than liberals. Conscientious in psychological terms does not mean empathetic or polite but organized, purposeful and disciplined. What that means in practical terms is that conservatives or more likely to take an organizational approach to the problem than focus on abstract consequences that may or may not be supported by a broader view.
              We hunt the hunters

              Comment


              • Juliana v. United States

                From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                Jump to navigationJump to search

                Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a lawsuit filed in 2015 that is being brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several of its executive branchpositions and officers, also formerly including President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama. The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and on behalf of future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen. Some fossil fuel and industry groups were also initially named as defendants but were later dropped by a judge at their request.

                The lawsuit asserts that the government violated the youths' rights by allowing activities that harmed the climate and sought the government to adopt methods for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The lawsuit is at the leading edge of an area of environmental law referred to as "atmospheric trust litigation", a concept based on the public trust doctrine and international responsibility related to the government's control over natural resources in the interest of public benefit. While previous lawsuits in a similar vein have been dismissed by U.S. courts, Juliana v. United States gained attention in 2016 when U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken upheld the idea that access to a clean environment was a fundamental right, allowing the case to proceed. Since then, the government has sought to dismiss the case for various concerns, which has delayed the case's hearing at the district court level. The trial is currently on hold pending disposition of the government's interlocutory appeals of certain pre-trial rulings by Judge Aiken.

                we will see who is proven right in a court of law .

                Comment


                • Originally posted by bill shack View Post
                  Juliana v. United States

                  From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
                  Jump to navigationJump to search

                  Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a lawsuit filed in 2015 that is being brought by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several of its executive branchpositions and officers, also formerly including President Donald Trump and former President Barack Obama. The plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children's Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez's organization Earth Guardians, and on behalf of future generations represented by climatologist James Hansen. Some fossil fuel and industry groups were also initially named as defendants but were later dropped by a judge at their request.

                  The lawsuit asserts that the government violated the youths' rights by allowing activities that harmed the climate and sought the government to adopt methods for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The lawsuit is at the leading edge of an area of environmental law referred to as "atmospheric trust litigation", a concept based on the public trust doctrine and international responsibility related to the government's control over natural resources in the interest of public benefit. While previous lawsuits in a similar vein have been dismissed by U.S. courts, Juliana v. United States gained attention in 2016 when U.S. District Court of Oregon Judge Ann Aiken upheld the idea that access to a clean environment was a fundamental right, allowing the case to proceed. Since then, the government has sought to dismiss the case for various concerns, which has delayed the case's hearing at the district court level. The trial is currently on hold pending disposition of the government's interlocutory appeals of certain pre-trial rulings by Judge Aiken.

                  we will see who is proven right in a court of law .
                  What a load of crap. Some drug addled barely out of their teens ill-educated "artists" bring a suit and find a judge stupid enough to rule that a "clean environment" is a Right.

                  Riddle me this: How clean an environment do you have a Right to? How much harm to the climate is allowable? Hint: The wrong answer is "A completely clean environment with no harm to the climate." Zero tolerance involves humanity returning to the stone age, or humanity's extinction.

                  The plaintiffs are idiots. The judge is an idiot. I don't say that as an ad hominem, I state it as a matter of fact.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    What a load of crap. Some drug addled barely out of their teens ill-educated "artists" bring a suit and find a judge stupid enough to rule that a "clean environment" is a Right.

                    Riddle me this: How clean an environment do you have a Right to? How much harm to the climate is allowable? Hint: The wrong answer is "A completely clean environment with no harm to the climate." Zero tolerance involves humanity returning to the stone age, or humanity's extinction.

                    The plaintiffs are idiots. The judge is an idiot. I don't say that as an ad hominem, I state it as a matter of fact.
                    I'm rather inclined to agree on practical considerations alone. However, the fact that such an action has been brought and is getting at least a modicum of attention is very interesting. I await developments with some curiosity.
                    "England expects that every man will do his duty!" (English crew members had better get ready for a tough fight against the combined French and Spanish fleets because that's what England expects! However, Scotland, Wales and Ireland appear to expect nothing so the Scottish, Welsh and Irish crew members can relax below decks if they like!)

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by panther3485 View Post

                      I'm rather inclined to agree on practical considerations alone. However, the fact that such an action has been brought and is getting at least a modicum of attention is very interesting. I await developments with some curiosity.
                      Go over to the site for Earth Guardians and you'll see that they're serious idiots. I'd also say the average age of the membership is somewhere between 14 and 18.

                      What I expect is this judge's opinion will be smacked down on appeal. Making up Rights out of thin air usually doesn't play well with reasonable judges.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        Cause is important. Without it being attributable to human activity, changes what means we have to deal with it.
                        "It" meaning - what exactly ?

                        Geologically speaking we're still in an Ice Age I think, I doubt THAT is attributable to human activity, modern humans are only 100.000 years old..

                        There are however indications human activity over the last few centuries has been making our ice age a little warmer than it normally would have been.

                        The practical consequences, regardless of the cause, are however apparent,

                        https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

                        Global sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2014, global sea level was 2.6 inches above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). Sea level continues to rise at a rate of about one-eighth of an inch per year.
                        So plant that fig tree far enough inland
                        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                          "It" meaning - what exactly ?

                          Geologically speaking we're still in an Ice Age I think, I doubt THAT is attributable to human activity, modern humans are only 100.000 years old..

                          There are however indications human activity over the last few centuries has been making our ice age a little warmer than it normally would have been.

                          The practical consequences, regardless of the cause, are however apparent,

                          https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html



                          So plant that fig tree far enough inland
                          Gorebal Warming (aka Climate Change).

                          Some alternatives that haven't been accounted for other than CO2 in the normal climate change narrative:

                          Contrails. These have increased cloud cover significantly particularly in the northern hemisphere. Water vapor in the form of clouds is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

                          The changing strength of Earth's magnetic field. Again, this interacts with solar radiation and can significantly increase or decrease temperatures. Right now, it's weakening and that is potentially raising temperatures.

                          Solar activity.

                          The bottom line is that the planet's atmosphere is a complex system that isn't being modelled by climate scientists with any great degree of accuracy. Yet, they are making predictions from these crude models that don't match observed data.

                          Comment


                          • Of all of the circumstances working their approach by the federal courtroom system none is extra attention-grabbing or probably extra life altering than Juliana v. United States. To cite one federal choose, “That is no unusual lawsuit.” It was filed again in 2015 on behalf of a bunch of youngsters who’re making an attempt to get the courts to dam the U.S. authorities from persevering with using fossil fuels. They are saying it is inflicting local weather change, endangering their future and violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property. When the lawsuit started hardly anybody took it critically, together with the federal government’s legal professionals, who’ve since watched the Supreme Court docket reject two of their motions to delay or dismiss the case. 4 years in, it’s nonetheless very a lot alive, partially as a result of the plaintiffs have amassed a physique of proof that can shock even the skeptics and have pressured the federal government to confess that the disaster is actual.
                            https://www.freshmynews.com/2019/03/...rom-supporting

                            Comment


                            • the federal government to confess that the disaster is actual.

                              Comment


                              • The problem with Juliana is the plaintiffs have zero clue about that which they want stopped. Their view is "fossil fuels are bad." I doubt any of them know what an octane actually is as a molecule. I doubt any of them know the first thing about nuclear power plants, how photovoltaic cells work, how electricity is generated, how an internal combustion engine works, or anything that requires scientific or engineering knowledge about anything they're complaining about.

                                How technical illiterates can bring such a suit is beyond me. Why should the courts hear their case when the plaintiffs can't show they're being harmed beyond some vague political rhetoric they believe in?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X