Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Climate Change Is Real

Posted 1 year ago on March 7, 2013, 3:59 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: climatechange

267 Comments

267 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 1 year ago

Great work. Lets hope this message goes viral. viral. viral.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

What a PIECE OF SHIT F'n sellout. Couldn't believe that there were people in the audience defending the POS.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Guess we gotta allow the tiny percent of deniers to speak, but we can't continue allowing the media to present both sides as equal.

We call that a false equivalency (as I know YOU know).

Peace

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Such crap to spew at places of higher (?) learning - and then to have the idiot applauded. Un-FUCKING BELIEVABLE.

Was the audience for real? This asshole should have been roundly/soundly challenged by the audience.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

This one surprised me -

Break out the tin foil hats, folks.

House Speaker John Boehner and the chairman of the House Science Committee are both unsure whether the science behind climate change -- the stuff that shows pretty clearly that carbon pollution produced by humans is damaging our environment -- is real.

Instead, they're on the record saying things like this:

"The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen that is harmful to our environment is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you've got more carbon dioxide." - John Boehner, April 2009

As long as our members of Congress continue to develop their own theories behind climate change, we will fall further and further behind in our ability to make actual progress on this issue.

Make them do better. Add your name to join OFA's team that will hold climate deniers in Congress accountable:

http://my.barackobama.com/Hold-Climate-Deniers-Accountable

We owe it to our environment and our economy to start having real talk on climate change.

Join us -- and we'll be in touch with next steps soon.

Thanks,

Messina

Jim Messina Chair Organizing for Action


And yet he is opening more land for fracking - when the USA does not need it - when it is to feed the global warming industries export business.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

King of fracking. Our efforts must include agitating for an endto fracking as well.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Absolutely.

GREED THE #1 CAUSE OF DISEASE/DEATH/DESTRUCTION IN THE WORLD.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Absolutely. Greedy, indulgent, selfish, oligarchs, hoarding the wealth we created overseas in tax evading shelters.

We want our money back.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (1877) 3 weeks ago

This climate scientist will make a difference & deserves our support.

http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/16875/jess_spear_socialist_of_the_sawant_persuasion

FYI

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 weeks ago

For the shills/trolls/quislings/sellouts who are looking in :

Definition of existential (adj) Bing Dictionary

ex·is·ten·tial [ ègzi sténshəl ]

relating to human existence: concerned with or relating to existence, especially human existence

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 3 weeks ago

Ha. Just in case there is a denier (not) lookin in.

But it's a big word,so good to give official def. Could be an english denier out there after all

We don't know!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 weeks ago

We don't know!

Yep - until of course - they can't resist the urge anylonger and finally sound-off.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 3 weeks ago

I don't get that much anymore. (I like to think it's cause they are afraid to engage me, but it's likely they don't want these posts to stay up high)

'sok. I prefer it.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I agree. I think most were with us.

[-] 3 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Koch's

What more needs to be said?

http://www.politicususa.com/koch-brothers-war-renewable-energy-killing-jobs-destroying-air.html

Actually, a lot, but notoriety should count too.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 weeks ago

Too funny - where was that idiot . . . sorry . . . that obvious Scholar edge-ummmm-ahhhh-kat-eddd?

Hee duh smert 1 n dur phambly wee sow pridee ( sirrey . . . souree?. . soaryyee ) prowd - gust tink marrz uf ( ov? ) al playzeezs - Rnnulld Shooaretzunegger maid uh moovee dare - tootall recoil - memburr?

[-] 3 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

A real, non-partisan, bridge to the Worldwide ground issue.

Where's all those guys?

Our friends Down Under are feeling the heat as well.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-australian-climate-steroids-hottest-summer.html

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Cap n trade gives banksters too much opportunity to manipulate yet another "commodity".

It'll have to be a carbon tax.

So says former Nasa scientist Dr James E Hansen:

http://www.nationofchange.org/housing-health-care-7-co-ops-are-changing-our-economy-1366901440

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Here is one. John Robinson from the Island Bay World Service. A career multidisciplinary scientist who has studied the problem since the 1970s and written many books. He is in New Zealand next to Australia. There seems to be a more independent thinking in that area. Well worth reading through. It is a free ebook that can be downloaded in many formats. Full of authoritative information and sound conclusions. http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/290485

[-] 4 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

I take it he's in full agreement with China's one child policy?

As the Chinese reach "middle class" parity, it's becoming harder to enforce.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

I am not sure of that but evidently China's policy has possibly trimmed births aggregated to approximately a few hundred million and up to a similar number as the present US population. Something has to give and the present path has been well plotted some time ago. Various scientific institutes have reviewed the data and predictions published in 1972, which still appear to be right on track , but ignored and denigrated by the business leaders and of course the financial sector who just make hay wherever possible regardless the consequences. A sample of what it is about. Nothing new but much ignored.

http://elmhcx9.elmhurst.edu/~chm/onlcourse/chm110/labs/limits.html

[-] 3 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Then the real question becomes: Will our tech allow us to live off planet before the shit hits the fans.

The coming onslaught of global warming is going to make it close.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

There is not a seriously feasible path suggested to living on other planets as far as I can see.

The biological adaption needed is far beyond anything seriously suggested as possible following known effects found with short term space travel to date and living in even a reduced gravitational field for example.

Long distance travel over thousands of years would either mean reproducing during space flight which would require food, exercise, a new culture and host of completely unexplored human adaptions which would not resemble anything known to date. Probably far beyond man's capability mentally, physiologically and socially. Suspending life with freezing has been looked at but once again the idea is but another dream.

Similarly servicing a space colony would require such an overhead as to be in the realms of fantasy. Even if we found candidate planets similar to Earth at a similar stage in their existence, would most likely take many thousands of years with travel to and from being impractical on a human scale.

It just doesn't stack up.

As much as we hear the suggestion of finding another planet to live on [ and perhaps destroy also unless we change our ways?] the amount of energy and resources needed to attempt colonizing an alien planet puts it beyond any sensible prediction. We have problems organising sustainable transport on Earth. High energy dependence is but one barrier of thousands that we would have to face.

A much more feasible future would be to control the human habitation of Earth so a sustainable future is possible, which would mean cutting human population and the destruction we do.
The drivers to preventing intelligent planning seem to be in the hands of the super rich psychopaths, the 0.1%.

Whenever an "economist" or politician talks of growth you know they have it wrong and are a part of the problem.

The growth mindset is the problem preventing intelligent planning for man's limited future. The more resources we use then the smaller the surviving human population can be.

The boom illusion and the following bust will be of a scale unprecedented.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Direct Climate Action: how to

http://www.care2.com/causes/an-earth-day-appeal-from-the-real-lorax.html

Fight like your life depends on it.

It does.

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (1877) 3 days ago

Attend "Clean energy summit"

http://www.cleanenergysummit.org/

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 day ago

Enuf for deniers to vote against their fossil fuel overlords?

http://planetsave.com/2014/07/26/republican-scientists-tell-republican-global-warming-deniers-global-warming-caused-humans-video/

Every bit of pressure helps.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (1877) 3 days ago
[-] 0 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago
[-] 1 points by JohnWa (513) 1 week ago

Solar is well advanced in many countries but here it has been blocked by big money manipulating politicians and the market.

Solar and wind both need natural mineral resources to implement so relying on them expecting and expanding energy usage won't work long term. We need to reduce our energy usage and plan for a low energy existence.

From 1900 to 1950 we used a tiny fraction of the available global mineral resources.

1950 to 2000 we used a quarter of the total available .

2000 to 2014 we have used about another quarter and are chewing through what's available at an increasing rate.

So to date we have used two thirds of what is available. We have one third left to last from here on, and that third is the hardest to get.

Mineral resource use increases as our energy use increases. The two are locked together with pollution being the third running partner.

If there were more mineral resources then we would go on to make much more pollution, doubling the resource trebles the pollution we make.

The big picture is not simple, make more of anything without consequences to our future ids not what can happen.

Smaller population will happen either by overshoot we are in now creating a catastrophic crash or we limit it purposefully.

Solar while we can - Yes = a must.

But it is no guarantee that we will survive. It has been left too late.

The bold warning issued over 40 years ago has been ignored, lied about and rubbished ; but it holds true.

Some are waking up but most still slumber.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 week ago
[-] 0 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

I wrote a comment below about 10 hours before you came here. Global Warming is real, every scientist agrees, and it's a shame that US is moving so slow on the matter as they play a big role in the problem. What in the world are you guys doing? Where is Obama, your savior? You guys should be leading the show for the whole world.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

With a huge hedge at the end of the statement.

Logical fallacy, is all this post is.

In particular the statement about savior.

Yep, you're doing nothing more than playing a game.

Everywhere you post so far.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 1 year ago

Obama, your savior? You are such a pathetic little bitch.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago
[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

GR8 post = TWEETED

Climate Change Is Real | http://OccupyWallSt.org : http://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#.UTk8ILnyg1k.twitter … Food4Thought - you need to consider. Please SHARE/CIRCULATE.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Noam Chomsky - Peak Oil and a Changing Climate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQCTTKvNkic

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 days ago

On Global warming - drought & privatization:

Thu Jul 24, 2014 at 01:16 PM PDT Shocking drought data from NASA

by Jen HaydenFollow


Let us also not forget that fracking just got a judicial OK out there in Colorado.

And the parade of insanity continues on and on and on and..............

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

The last ice age happened in 6 months. 6 months for the planet to unleash an army of apartment-building-size ice blocks across Europe and the United States. It was a climate tipping point where the balance is knocked completely out of control and threatens the survival of everything -- and three more tipping points exactly like it are on the verge of happening.

It's our "holy shit" climate moment according to a leading NASA scientist, and only a holy shit massive coordinated day of action response, right now, can change the future we're facing.

One agreement with common sense steps to end dirty energy can save us. That's why the UN has called an urgent climate meeting in just over 100 days with all major world leaders — if we greet them on September 21st with the largest ever global climate mobilisation in history we can break through the walls of mega coal, oil, and business that prevent even the best politicians from doing what is right.

There's no way to get around how big a task this is. But together, each small action will add up into a millions-strong movement that literally drowns out the opposition and gives our leaders the best reason to break free and build a hopeful, clean and green future. Click below to join in:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/join_to_change_everything_rb/?bGfGZcb&v=41497

"Tipping points" are feedback loops, where climate change feeds back on itself and causes rapidly accelerating, catastrophic consequences. Right now, methane gas that is 25 times worse for global warming than CO2 is frozen in our ice. But as the ice melts, the gas leaks, causing more melting and each melt loses us another layer of reflective ice shield that we rely on to keep the planet cool, more methane and less ice means more warming still, and everything starts to spin out of control. And that's just one example… it's why scientists are yelling from the rooftops that we have to act now.

We actually have the tools and the plan we need to make sure we don't cross into a world where tipping points destroy us. And while it will take global cooperation on a bigger scale than ever before, our 36 million-strong movement already has the people power necessary to move leaders from every country to take the first steps. Just days ago, the United States and China announced serious new plans to curb their pollution — momentum is building ahead of next year's critical Paris climate summit where a deal could be inked, and in just over 100 days we can take it up a notch further.

Taking to the streets in a record setting show of power and coordination is one of the most effective ways to create change -- from the anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa to civil rights in the US, it's sometimes been the only way. This is our chance to bring that power to the most important issue of our time: survival and a thriving future for our families, and their families and the generations of people to come. Click below to be a part of it all:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/join_to_change_everything_rb/?bGfGZcb&v=41497

We know we can do this… and do it big. When our community was just 3 million people we held 3,000 actions on the same day to protect our planet. We're now 36 million strong, ten times the size! Imagine what we can achieve together now...

With so much hope for our future,

Emma, Iain, Lisa, Ricken, Alice, Emily, Sayeeda, Uilleam and the rest of the Avaaz team

MORE INFORMATION

Global warming: it's a point of no return in West Antarctica. What happens next? (The Guardian) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/17/climate-change-antarctica-glaciers-melting-global-warming-nasa

A Call to Arms: An Invitation to Demand Action on Climate Change (Rolling Stone) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/a-call-to-arms-an-invitation-to-demand-action-on-climate-change-20140521

Mini ice age took hold of Europe in months (New Scientist) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427344.800-mini-ice-age-took-hold-of-europe-in-months.html

Report: Prepare for climate tipping points (Politico) http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/national-research-council-report-climate-change-could-hit-tipping-points-environment-100615.html

Avaaz.org is a 36-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

tweet-n-tweet

DKAtoday @DKAtoday · 6s

"holy shit" climate moment according to a leading NASA scientist https://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#comment-1036343 … Can we stop using fossil fuel yet?

[-] 2 points by LeoYo (5854) 9 months ago

'Killer Hornets' Kill 42 in China

http://news.yahoo.com/killer-hornets-kill-42-china-100344960.html

8 hours ago

Beijing (AFP) - Swarms of hornets have killed 42 people in northwestern China in recent months, state media said Thursday, as temperatures rise and development drives the stinging insects into cities.

The terrifying attacks started in July, the official Xinhua news agency said Thursday, with 1,640 people having been stung.

Of those, 206 are being treated in hospital, it quoted the National Health and Family Planning Commission as saying.

"With the development of air-conditioning, urban landscaping and residential environment, hornets have started to migrate and relocate to cities, which has increased the probability of their hurting people," Xinhua said in a report Wednesday.

It carried a photo of a doctor examining a hospitalised patient with several large and swollen sting wounds on the legs.

It also quoted Huang Rongyao -- a senior official concerned with pest control in the city of Ankang, which has borne the brunt of the attacks -- as attributing the phenomenon to warmer-than-usual temperatures in the region.

"Furthermore, hornets are sensitive to bright colours, the smell of human sweat, alcohol, perfume, any specially scented articles and things that are sweet as well as the running of humans or animals," Huang said.

Hua Baozhen, a professor of entomology at Northwest Agriculture Forestry University, attributed the attacks mostly to a decrease in the number of the hornets' natural enemies, such as spiders and birds, due to ecological changes.

The Shaanxi Daily has said the attacks were centred on the cities of Ankang, Hanzhong and Shangluo.

CNWEST, the government-run news portal of Shaanxi province, said the provincial forestry department sent three teams of personnel to raise public awareness of hornets.

It also said that the province allocated six million yuan ($980,000) for work to prevent attacks and treat victims in the three cities.

Xinhua described the hornets as about the size of an adult thumb. China News quoted a person working to combat them as saying they are about three to four centimetres (less than two inches) long and thousands can inhabit a single hive.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In compliment : (in my neighborhood )

Incredible news -- even with an April snowstorm on the way, hundreds of Minnesotans from across the state made it to the State Capitol on Earth Day to support clean energy and jobs!1

Thanks to thousands of messages from Sierra Club supporters and hundreds joining the Clean Energy & Jobs Day of Action at the Capitol, our state legislators are hearing that Minnesotans care about clean energy. But our work is not done -- this legislation still faces critical votes as soon as next week!

We still haven't heard from you. Send a message to your legislators today asking them to support clean energy & jobs!

We have an opportunity to strengthen the state's renewable energy standard to 40 percent by 2030; make Minnesota a leader in solar energy by enacting a solar energy standard; and save consumers money by improving energy efficiency and making it easier to generate local power.

These policies will take Minnesota further down the road to a clean energy future that provides good jobs and protects the environment for generations to come. But we need your help.

Let your legislators know that you want to see a clean energy future for Minnesota.

At Monday's rally, Governor Dayton told the crowd, "We owe it to ourselves, we owe it to our children, and we owe it to our grandchildren to look for ecologically sustainable, environmentally renewable sources of energy, and if we put our ingenuity together we'll find it."

The time for action is now -- tell your legislators to support solar, wind, and energy efficiency.

Thanks for all you do to protect the environment,

Jessica Tritsch Minnesota Beyond Coal Campaign Sierra Club

P.S. After you take action, be sure to forward this alert to your friends and colleagues!

Sources: 1. Earth Day brings renewable energy push at State Capitol, KARE 11, April 22, 2013.


Is The Sierra Club active in your state ? _______ BTW - what I added to the letter:

We need to implement clean green power generation - ASAP - for our health - individual health - environmental health - economic health.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago
[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

On a positive note, climate activist Tim DeChristopher is being released from prison this Sunday, in time to celebrate Earth Day. Watch for an exciting announcement that day by Dr. Jill Stein.

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/activist-tim-dechristopher-be-freed-after-21-months-custody

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

From The Sierra Club :

I'm stunned. Yesterday we made history! Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city, is going coal-free.1

LA known for its dirty air, is slashing climate-disrupting pollution more than any other city in the nation -- proving we can win the fight against climate change.

RSVP now to watch the livestream of the announcement about LA ending its reliance on coal on March 22, and witness history in the making!

Here are the details:

WHO: You, your friends, Sierra Club activists and Angelenos and supporters across the country!

WHAT: Livestream of a major announcement by Mayor Villaraigosa, Al Gore, and our Executive Director Michael Brune to end LA's reliance on dirty coal.

WHEN: Friday, March 22 at 11:00 a.m. PT

WHERE: Watch from the comfort of your desk or couch via your internet-enabled computer. If you are in LA, join us and watch the announcement in person at the LADWP Headquaters located at 111 N Hope St, Los Angeles, CA 90012 [Map].

RSVP: http://action.sierraclub.org/lacoalannouncement

NOTE: Friday morning, just go to the LA Beyond Coal website at http://content.sierraclub.org/coal/los-angeles to watch the big announcement. We will send you a reminder email just in case.

Questions: Contact Jasmin Vargas at jasmin.vargas@sierraclub.org.

Los Angeles gets forty percent of its energy from out-of-state dirty coal. Moving beyond coal will make LA the clear leader in fighting climate change. LA's utility is on its way to cutting emissions sixty percent below 1990 levels -- roughly 8.5 times the Kyoto Protocol standard! Bascially it's like taking all 2 milllion registered vehicles in LA off the road. This is amazing!

Without visionary leadership from Mayor Villaraigosa and the hard work of thousands this would never have happened.

LA's victory over coal may mark the turning point for California and the entire country in the transition from the dirty fuels of the past to the clean energy of today and sets a new bar for what is possible in the transition from coal to clean energy!

RSVP now for the livestream of the announcement about the future of coal in LA on March 22 and watch history in the making!

Thanks for all you do to protect the environment,

Jasmin Vargas Beyond Coal Campaign Sierra Club

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Not surprising. Thanks for the info.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Every week there is more overwhelming evidence.

The deniers have to be beat aboutthe head and neck with every new bit of proof.

It's the only way they will learn.

Tough love

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

tough love would be to simply stop reporting anything they have to say - on anything

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Ok. Just tough.

One beatin as ordered.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

how about one per day, every day, just for fun?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

That would be fun. And they'd be convinced too.

Maybe it should be thematic environmental beatings.

We can hit 'em with rocks (earth)

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

now that does sound like fun

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I like the taped box, truck exhaust idea I saw you describe earlier for the 'air' theme.

I suppose water will have to be 'water boarding'.

I've gone too far.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago

But it IS a 'war on coal'. Isn't it? War on burning it & all fossil fuels at least.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/18/foxification-global-warming-war-on-coal

Perhaps we should look at it as a war to PROTECT coal (from being burned).

(That's just silly. I apologize in advance)

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Hmmmm get it listed as endangered? Put it on a protected resource list? Heeeheeeeheheheeeeee no mining until the resource has a chance to recover ummmmm how many millions of years? HAAAAHAhahahaha

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago

Don't know why epa won't say it but ok.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/06/mcconnell-misquotes-epa-administrator/

As long as we conduct (un)said war on coal.

a little bit on their strategy: (I'm sure you know)

http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/06/09/epas-carbon-pollution-rules-war-on-coal-by-the-numbers/

Not quite enough for my tastes but something to build on certainly.

& a little street monitoring/activism info as well: (keepin us honest)

http://www.tricities.com/news/article_1072368e-f8f3-11e3-829c-0017a43b2370.html

Peace

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Damn if only there was/were alternatives that could be demonstrated/shown to the public - something to show how unnecessary fossil fuels really are - hmmmmmm ( Hydrogen; Nature's Fuel - YouTube ) hmmmmmm - and the endangered fossil fuel billionaires? ummm why is it that "THEY" have not transitioned yet? I mean aren't "they" in the best strategic position monetarily to do so?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

if only we had options -> tweet

Fossil Fuels TOXIC if only there were alternatives https://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#comment-1036311 If only we could do other things.....

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago

They've had lotsa time to prepare. (still have time).

I'm sure as the end of fossil fuel era occurs the pollution oligarchs will save themselves somehow.

In fact those corps have been rackin in profits/tax subsidies for so long they do not deserve sympathy.

Their money should somehow go to those unemployed from fossil fuel industry.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Their money should somehow go to those unemployed from fossil fuel industry.

[ EDIT ] Retraining/education into like say clean energy processes technology employment? Ready them to take advantage of the growing necessity to create and use clean energy in industry and throughout all of society?

EDIT -> Because surely fossil fuel workers can be retrained - can't they? - I mean is anyone? a one and done use/prospect? I say not - NO - humanity is very adaptable - endlessly? - well it "can" be hard to tell sometimes like when society seemingly gets stuck on stupid ( suicidal ) = fossil fuel use when there are clean alternatives.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

OH I have no doubt that they already are strategically prepared that they even have some small (?) thing going in a shell company sort of way - ready to massively expand overnight on their command. But in the meantime - they are gonna rape the world for as much money as they can - prior to the world really waking up and finally forcing them to stop out of necessity.

[-] 0 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago

Corporatists have rigged the system to allow thorough resource exploitation. Only for profit.

Penny wise and dollar foolish.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/24/us-climatechange-economy-idUSKBN0EZ0AA20140624

Peace

[-] 2 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

It harms the creatures of the planet too.

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-lizards-mass-extinction.html

Who will sell me car insurance when the lizards are gone?

[-] 2 points by Justoneof99 (80) 1 year ago

If you eat Animals: YOU are the problem: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes

Global warming poses one of the most serious threats to the global environment ever faced in human history. Yet by focusing entirely on carbon dioxide emissions, major environmental organizations have failed to account for published data showing that other gases are the main culprits behind the global warming we see today. As a result, they are neglecting what might be the most effective strategy for reducing global warming in our lifetimes: advocating a vegetarian diet.

The environmental community has focused its efforts almost exclusively on abating carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Domestic legislative efforts concentrate on raising fuel economy standards, capping CO2 emissions from power plants, and investing in alternative energy sources. Recommendations to consumers also focus on CO2: buy fuel-efficient cars and appliances, and minimize their use. ,

This is a serious miscalculation. Data published by Dr. James Hansen and others show that CO2 emissions are not the main cause of observed atmospheric warming. Though this may sound like the work of global warming skeptics, it isn’t: Hansen is Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies who has been called “a grandfather of the global warming theory.” He is a longtime supporter of action against global warming, cited by Al Gore and often quoted by environmental organizations, who has argued against skeptics for subverting the scientific process. His results are generally accepted by global warming experts, including bigwigs like Dr. James McCarthy, co-chair of the International Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group II.

... Nevertheless, the fact remains that sources of non-CO2 greenhouse gases are responsible for virtually all the global warming we’re seeing, and all the global warming we are going to see for the next fifty years. If we wish to curb global warming over the coming half century, we must look at strategies to address non-CO2 emissions. The strategy with the most impact is vegetarianism.

Methane and Vegetarianism By far the most important non-CO2 greenhouse gas is methane, and the number one source of methane worldwide is animal agriculture.

Methane is responsible for nearly as much global warming as all other non-CO2 greenhouse gases put together. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than CO2. While atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen by about 31% since pre-industrial times, methane concentrations have more than doubled. Whereas human sources of CO2 amount to just 3% of natural emissions, human sources produce one and a half times as much methane as all natural sources. In fact, the effect of our methane emissions may be compounded as methane-induced warming in turn stimulates microbial decay of organic matter in wetlands—the primary natural source of methane.

With methane emissions causing nearly half of the planet’s human-induced warming, methane reduction must be a priority. Methane is produced by a number of sources, including coal mining and landfills—but the number one source worldwide is animal agriculture. Animal agriculture produces more than 100 million tons of methane a year. And this source is on the rise: global meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past fifty years, and shows little sign of abating. About 85% of this methane is produced in the digestive processes of livestock, and while a single cow releases a relatively small amount of methane, the collective effect on the environment of the hundreds of millions of livestock animals worldwide is enormous. An additional 15% of animal agricultural methane emissions are released from the massive “lagoons” used to store untreated farm animal waste, and already a target of environmentalists’ for their role as the number one source of water pollution in the U.S.

The conclusion is simple: arguably the best way to reduce global warming in our lifetimes is to reduce or eliminate our consumption of animal products. Simply by going vegetarian (or, strictly speaking, vegan), , , we can eliminate one of the major sources of emissions of methane, the greenhouse gas responsible for almost half of the global warming impacting the planet today.

Advantages of Vegetarianism over CO2 Reduction In addition to having the advantage of immediately reducing global warming, a shift away from methane-emitting food sources is much easier than cutting carbon dioxide.

First, there is no limit to reductions in this source of greenhouse gas that can be achieved through vegetarian diet. In principle, even 100% reduction could be achieved with little negative impact. In contrast, similar cuts in carbon dioxide are impossible without devastating effects on the economy. Even the most ambitious carbon dioxide reduction strategies fall short of cutting emissions by half.

Second, shifts in diet lower greenhouse gas emissions much more quickly than shifts away from the fossil fuel burning technologies that emit carbon dioxide. The turnover rate for most ruminant farm animals is one or two years, so that decreases in meat consumption would result in almost immediate drops in methane emissions. The turnover rate for cars and power plants, on the other hand, can be decades. Even if cheap, zero-emission fuel sources were available today, they would take many years to build and slowly replace the massive infrastructure our economy depends upon today.

Similarly, unlike carbon dioxide which can remain in the air for more than a century, methane cycles out of the atmosphere in just eight years, so that lower methane emissions quickly translate to cooling of the earth.

Third, efforts to cut carbon dioxide involve fighting powerful and wealthy business interests like the auto and oil industries. Environmental groups have been lobbying for years to make fuel-efficient SUVs available or phase out power plants that don’t meet modern environmental standards without success. At the same time, vegetarian foods are readily available, and cuts in agricultural methane emissions are achievable at every meal.

Also, polls show that concern about global warming is widespread, and environmental activists often feel helpless to do anything about it. Unless they happen to be buying a car or major appliance, most people wanting to make a difference are given little to do aside from writing their legislators and turning off their lights. Reducing or eliminating meat consumption is something concerned citizens can do every day to help the planet.

Finally, it is worth noting that reductions in this source of greenhouse gas have many beneficial side effects for the environment. Less methane results in less tropospheric ozone, a pollutant damaging to human health and agriculture. Moreover, the same factory farms responsible for these methane emissions also use up most of the country’s water supply, and denude most of its wilderness for rangeland and growing feed. Creating rangeland to feed western nations’ growing appetite for meat has been a major source of deforestation and desertification in third world countries. Factory farm waste lagoons are a leading source of water pollution in the U.S. Indeed, because of animal agriculture’s high demand for fossil fuels, the average American diet is far more CO2-polluting than a plant-based one.

Recommendations Organizations should consider making advocating vegetarianism a major part of their global warming campaigns. At a minimum, environmental advocates should mention vegetarianism in any information about actions individuals can take to address global warming. Government policy should encourage vegetarian diets. Possible mechanisms include an environmental tax on meat similar to one already recommended on gasoline, a shift in farm subsidies to encourage plant agriculture over animal agriculture, or an increased emphasis on vegetarian foods in government-run programs like the school lunch program or food stamps.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Earthday Everyday! Make a difference

http://www.care2.com/causes/top-10-ways-to-make-every-day-earth-day.html

Change your behavior to save the planet

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

And this is scientists working hard to prove to the ignorant Fossilized dinosaurs on the right who still deny climate change.

http://news.yahoo.com/antarctic-team-digs-deep-predict-climate-future-121909842.html

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

It would seem that plant based whole foods scares many people in spite of the heart disease, cancer, diabetes, dementia, auto immune diseases and a host of other dire conditions brought about by our recent Western dietary patterns.

Communities living on plant based nutrition have very low incidence of these diseases.

Giant food corporations sell processed food for profit not for our health.

[-] 1 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 1 year ago

Your comments only apply to factory farming and the techniques they use like feeding the cows corn. While it is true that the meat industry is responsible for both rain forest deforestation and the litany of repercussions of factory farming it is not the production of meat itself that causes the destruction it is the techniques used. the best farming techniques are biodiverse integrated traditional techniques enhanced with science.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

The Kochs & their conservative lapdogs are still the greatest threat to combating the causes & affects of climate change.

http://www.nationofchange.org/koch-brothers-continue-state-state-attempts-stifle-growth-renewable-energy-1363529460

[-] 2 points by quantumystic (1710) from Memphis, TN 15 hours ago

the us military is the biggest consumer of oil in the world.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Global sea levels have risen 400 feet since the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. Global warming and cooling is normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The truth about climate change can't be understood by looking at only the last 100 years of climate history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

The bigger picture is important but cherry picking does not help. Never since man's existence has change happened so fast and in the presence of so many man made changes.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Man's existence on this planet is the blink of an eye in the grand timeline.

Climate changes on this planet HAVE happened this fast before.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110908145109.htm

"800,000 Years of Abrupt Climate Variability: Earth's Climate Is Capable of Very Rapid Transitions"

http://www.bodc.ac.uk/projects/uk/rapid/

"Studies of past climate have shown that large changes can occur over timescales as small as ten or twenty years. To find out more, follow these links"

Man made changes can only happen if man is around. But rapid climate changes have happened in the past when man hasn't been a factor.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Yes the time scales are long and man's measurements have largely arising out of deduction. Various changes in climate one would suspect have related causal events or combinations of conditions.

Once oceans were formed, that the mass of water that we are familiar with, would dampen the rate of change sinking heat energy. Speculation and discussion about rates of change will continue to evolve as more evidence is uncovered.

Time lines involved for rapid warming or cooling are also controlled by the various feedback systems. There may be a limit to how fast the climate can change without occurance of a catastrophic events such as collision of an large asteroid with Earth.

Climate change is a consequence of a complex interaction of causal conditions.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yes, complex interaction of causal conditions. There may be a limit to how fast the climate can change without occurrence of catastrophic events, and there may not be. Discovering more evidence is something I fully support.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Correct. Cherry picking is focusing only on the last 100 years. It doesn't help.

Over the last 20,000 years, sea levels rose an average of 2 feet a century. Currently it's about one foot per century.

What figures support your claim that change is happening so rapidly?

[-] 4 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Can we all agree pollution is bad and we must cut down on it?

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

I agree 100% with that and add very little myself by a lifestyle of low consumption.

[-] 3 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

Well excellent. We can also cut down on eating meat, using the car, the thermostat, & encourage our friends to do the same.

Finally and most importantly we can agitate our govt to do what you are doing individually. Cut down on polluting!!

It's simple. We just gotta stop urning so much.

Time for clean energy.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/these-greentech-actions-shouldbe-a-focus-of-pressu/

[-] -1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Although you and I might do these things, the bulk of humanity is pursuing ever increasing consumption. I don't think this tide can be turned, even if the oceans spilled over every coastline.

Look at the air pollution in Beijing. Their greed is so great that they sacrifice the health of many for the wealth of the few.

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You are correct, adequate change is unlikely. But that is no excuse for inaction. We must agitate for all peoples all over the world to burn less, consume less.

It is urgent that we continue the fight. We can't give up.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/08/hawaii-climate-change-second-greatest-annual-rise-emissions For a starter.

The rate of co2 rise is increasing exponentially. You surely know what this means.

There is approximately a 20 year lag between man's actions and climate consequences so one may expect the rate of climate change to accelerate in spite of any immediate effective curbs mankind is able effect on his reduction of carbon emissions, deforestation, fossil resource mining and resultant devastation and pollution, exponential population explosion, reduction of plant species variety, poisoning of soils with fertilisers adding to the 2 + % of fertile soil being lost per year worldwide and the increasing sickness of western nations both health wise and culturally. Increase use of animal products in the diet is economically, ecologically without sustainability, and lead to the crash even more rapidly.

But no curbs are being effectively implemented.

Your quoted average of 2 feet a century is not the rate over the last 8000 years leading up to the very recent acceleration of man's exponential population growth coupled with the use of coal and oil over the last 200 years. As this fossil fuel use has also grown exponentially and energy harvesting has become an insatiable drive in human culture, the pattern of sea level rise has changed from near equilibrium to a new melting pattern which has accompanied heating of the oceans coincident with CO2 rise in the atmosphere linked with fossil fuel being burnt.

In short the bigger picture shows the links.

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

If you look at the link with the Milankovitch cycles, there's a graph that shows Co2 rising as a result of temperature increase, all without man's assistance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Also the rise in CO2 levels equates closely with the imbalance expected with burning of fossilcarbon deposits laid down in past eras and consequent with reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere during those times.

The natural processes of CO2 reduction in the atmosphere in recent eras are largely linked with life forms capturing CO2 and storing it in living cells which then become a part fo the surface layers of the planet. [coal and oil being two forms of concentrated carbon sequestration.]

In modrn times we have stripped away a significant part of the forests which have taken part in this process so much less CO2 is removed from the atmosphere as a consequence.

Added to that European stock have been the primary movers in instigating mining of coal for burning followed by extraction of oil for burning.

The balance of CO2 in the atmosphere evident in very recent times leading up to mans exponential short term exploitation of fossil sequestration of carbon deposits, has shown CO2 increase in the atmosphere commensurate with fossil fuel burning and forest reduction.

There has been a lot of work done on this which remains consistent with known and understood predictions which have taken into account the lag in time expected.

While there are many and varied alternative theory thrown up, they do not explain what is happening when rigourously analysied.
If a more convenient explanation of CO2 rise was found to be tenable then rigorous scientific scrutiny would be applied with comprehensive peer review and publications.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agitate ALL pols to end Coal giveaways

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/jewell_coal_leasing/?akid=7312.3424571.USxuP_&rd=1&t=3

We need your help.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Check the CO2 rise in the atmosphere, ocean temperature rise and acidification, pollution caused by massive scourge of plastic particles interfering with animal and human hormonal system, human population explosion and energy consumption, depletion of natural resources including fertile soil which is disappearing at a rate of 2 + % per year and thousands of other new developments diminishing hope for future generations.

You can ignore all of that and pin your blind hopes on denialist propaganda but the weight of evidence is enormous. Common sense surely must hit home at some point but it is already too late to change the path to massive change which is already rolling.

Put a group of rats in an area which is finite with a finite amount of food and see what happens over time.

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Did you know there used to be an ice sheet over a large part of North America, extending as far south as New York and Chicago. It was over a mile thick in places. What caused it to melt? The Co2 emitted from cave man's camp fires?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurentide_ice_sheet

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

The scientist that have assembled the picture on past climate are the very ones warning of the man made warming.

Long term climate patterns are a fascinating and the more mankind explores the evidence, the greater are the questions that arise. Perhaps the future climatologists wil have a detailed picture of the interactions affecting climate if mankind lasts long enough, which is the concern held by many.

The precautionary principle regarding climate appear to be denied to the world by a small group of controlling wealthy power brokers. Economics short term for the purposes of their wealth harvesting seems to take precedence.

The idea that burning of fossil fuel, stripping of forests, heating of the ocean and producing multifarious changes in all written off to "progress" without unwanted consequence, defies logic and defies scientific reporting observable effects.

The basic principle that you cannot change one thing alone without other changes happening stands firm.

If a person wants to believe a particular line of understanding and is resistant to accepting a change, then that may be a function of their makeup. Not all can weigh up evidence that is contrary to their beliefs. For some it is a painful process to change undertanding.

I have avoided posting numerous links and the wider picture is the best starting point.

Perhaps you may see that the scale and effect of a mere thousand or two "cavemen" at the late stone age era could burn fires at will with little effect due to the insignificant magnitude of their omissions and the vast biosphere very much intact.

Man's growth in numbers in recent times ia over three million times that population with environment resources being exploited on a very different scale.

For example the out of control oligarchy called Monsanto produced a deadly toxic substance called PCB, traces of which is now found in living cells in every ecosystem tested. Mans impact is on a devastating scale.

Public education is sorely lacking and mis education is alive and thriving.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

You can't believe this nonsense really. Can you?

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

This is real evidence that climate change is real & we must act!

http://news.yahoo.com/why-1-600-years-ice-melting-25-years-180000961.html

Please join Occupy in our efforts to reduce our fossil fuel use.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Welcome to the party. Seriously. It's going to take all of us.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Something smells. Have you heard anything about this ?

oil & gas cos & environmentalists agree on fracking approval process

http://news.yahoo.com/both-sides-agree-tough-fracking-standards-170129217--finance.html

Nothing good can come of this.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

It's an attempt by the oil industry to create something that eases opposition pressure. I'm sure that's what it is.

drilling and pipeline companies will be encouraged to submit to an independent review of their operations. If they are found to be abiding by a list of stringent measures to protect the air and water from pollution, they will receive the blessing of the new Pittsburgh-based Center for Sustainable Shale Development, created by environmentalists and the energy industry.

Environmentalists created the Pittsburgh-based Center for Sustainable Shale Development - I can't imagine credible environmentalists would sign on to Sustainable Shale Development - I bet there is nothing that demands disclosure of the chemicals injected during the fracking process. That alone would suggest the whole thing is just a creation of the oil industry.

After reading the whole thing it seems like they have divided some of those who fund environmental groups - and a serious draw back:

The Pittsburgh project will be overseen by a 12-member board consisting of four seats for environmentalists, four for industry and four for independent figures, including former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency chief.

12 seats - only 4 held by "environmentalists" who may or may not have bought into the position that stipulates: this is the best we can get, 4 seats held by people who are highly likely to side with the oil industry, it doesn't look like much of a win to me at all.

I don't think there is a group in the country that has been successful at policing themselves. Not doctors, not lawyers, certainly not the oil industry.

I see this as a sell out by those who agree to participate.

Testing water quality for only one year? I think that's meaningless. Depends on soil type and the kind of contamination involved to get an accurate picture about the potential for migration of underground plumes of pollution. I bet if this goes through there will be lawsuits in the future over water contamination.

It could work too - if people do what they say they are going to do, and if they do the right thing. Hasn't been the standard operating procedure of the oil industry.

[-] 1 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

Agreed. must be suspect. gotta see which environmental groups are on board. The key is these independent seats. Industry can pay off those people easiest.

Depressing to see this happen, creates cover for the industry.

Gotta ratchet up the pressure.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

The four independent seats:

  • four for independent figures, including former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey governor and Environmental Protection Agency chief.

I'm sure I saw something highly controversial about one of Whitman's policies while EPA chief.

The environmental groups include:

  • the participants include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Clean Air Task Force, EQT Corp., Consol Energy and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and the organizers hope to recruit others.

Also mentioned in the article: Boston-based Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund.

This statement is telling:

  • "We do recognize that this resource is going to be developed," said Robert Vagt, president of the Heinz Endowments, a charitable foundation that has bankrolled anti-fracking efforts. "We think that it can be done in a way that does not do violence to the environment."

Clearly indicative of a degree of success for the oil industry.

[-] 2 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

I only recognize the Env Def Fund. but none of the biggest groups. The others could be industry setups but I don't wanna be too conspiratorial.

And the thing I remember most about Whitmans tenure as GWBushs EPA admin is that she said the air down at ground zero was safe. And I could taste the burning plastic for a week after her statement.

I Don't trust her. Nor O'neill although can't specific an incident with him.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21481) 1 year ago

Bravo to whoever did that graphic. Well done.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 3 days ago

Fri Jul 25, 2014 at 05:00 AM PDT State of Emergency in Siberia's Permafrost Region due to Wildfires

by PakaloloFollow

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (168) 1 month ago

This is yet another example of greed. It's greed that caused anthropogenic global warming to begin with. It's greed that prevents the media from giving this issue the attention (and truth) it deserves. It's greed that prevents any real progress on the issue. It's greed that prevents ALL of the rich and many ordinary people from taking the issue seriously. I would never ask any one person to eliminate their carbon foot print entirely. But I do think it's reasonable to ask that everyone try to keep it modest. At least by Western standards. We should be willing to make the occasional sacrifice for the good of society and most living things around the world. For our activity has been causing actual pain, suffering, misery, and death around the world. What's done is done but it's time to do a little less. A little less clear cutting. A little less building and expanding. A little less racing. A little less recreational travel. A little less of everything that causes anthropogenic global warming. It shouldn't be that big of a deal.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (168) 1 month ago

By the way, this is another reason why I hate celebrities. Remember a few years back when a bunch of them showed up at an awards show in little hybrids? Well, it was just another Hollywood trend. It had nothing whatsoever to do with love of the Earth or even respect for nature. They did it because at the time, they were under more pressure to do so. Since then, the polls have shown less concern for anthropogenic global warming. So, that's it. The Hollywood pigs, for the most part, have gone right back to showing up in stretch limos and super exotic sports cars.

Don't even get me started on their private jets and mansions.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 2 weeks ago

"Delusional search for reasonable republicans"

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/24841-a-delusional-search-for-reasonable-republicans

Ay! We gotcha' anthropogene right 'er!

Retire pols against transition from fossil fuels

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Thanks for that = http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/20/3451380/abandoned-pennsylvania-wells-spew-methane/

American Petroleum Institute " Natural Gas Good For You Good For The Environment"

Such a HUGE HOT SLOPPY STINKY TOXIC LOAD OF CRAP !!!

and

Children can you say "BS" ? GOOD. I knew ya could.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 month ago

You do understand that that investigation was the tip of a VERY large methane "iceberg".

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451919/high-risk-oil-and-gas-wells-not-inspected/

How many more in Texas?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Damn if only there were some way to alleviate these massive leaks of extreme green house gasses - hmmmmm - I know - put an open ended cylinder over the hole ummm abandoned well and light a match and throw it in the top? No no no Heh silly me...................I mean methane doesn't burn does it?

See -> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/20/3451380/abandoned-pennsylvania-wells-spew-methane/

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Just had ta tweet/share

DKAtoday @DKAtoday · now

Massive Gas/Methane leaks from Abandoned Oil & Gas wells. What to do? https://occupywallst.org/article/climate-change-real/#comment-1036307 … If only there was something that could be done

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

{ EDIT } NOVA | Earth From Space - PBS

I still find it hard to believe that Koch is a sponsor of NOVA.

EDIT -> Granted the major portion of the program was a feel good explanation of how the world operates. But at the very end ( the last ten minutes ? ) it finally touches on our ( humanities ) role as affecting how the world functions. Where the program ended - IS ( in my opinion ) - Where the program should have started and then expanded upon - OUR screwing-up of the operation of our environment/world.

EDIT continued -> The Earth's processes was stated as a complex set of interactions - stating that with an explanation of how the earth functions - and then following up with how our ( humanities/Industries ) pollution then feeds and distributes it's pollution/poison through this very same natural process - I feel would have been good in showing that no one is left out of the toxic effects - this also goes for it showing how the toxic/poisonous/pollution practices feed into global climate change as well. This I feel ( education of processes and interaction ) is where Koch might shoot himself in the foot with his support of NOVA - if people truly stop and think - then they will see the connection.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 month ago

Huh - an interesting section on dust and dispersal - I wonder how they would liken it to the dumping fields of toxic coal dust and subsequent movement/distribution by the earths natural processes?


NARRATOR: Plankton may be key to life, but they themselves don’t live long. MODIS shows how, in just 72 hours, a bloom can rapidly weaken and fade. All the plankton that have not been eaten die and sink into the abyss. They take their precious minerals with them all the way back to the ocean floor. Here they will remain for millennia, a thick carpeting of tiny carcasses half a mile deep. Some of the minerals may ultimately be recycled, some may emerge through hydrothermal vents again, millions of years from now, but some plankton, through yet another extraordinary chain of events, will deliver their precious cargo of nutrients, not just to life in the ocean, but also to life on land.

Half a world away from the coast of Peru, where plankton bloom, lies the Sahara Desert in North Africa. The Sahara is enormous. It makes up a tenth of the African continent. It’s one of the driest and dustiest places on Earth. Surprisingly, the remains of ancient plankton are here, hidden in this arid landscape.

It is May, the hottest month of all. Camel herders travel through one of the most exposed regions of the Sahara: the Bodele Depression. Six thousand years ago, this was covered by the world’s largest freshwater lake. The floor of the lake is covered with the ancient remains of plankton, called diatomite, laid down in a much earlier age, when an ocean covered the region.

With its eye on the earth, from 400 miles above, Landsat 7 is one of the latest generations of satellites studying the composition of rocks that make up our planet. It sweeps the Bodele, producing these high-resolution pictures in multiple wavelengths of visible light. The white expanse is the diatomite on the bed of the lake.

CHARLIE BRISTOW ( Birkbeck, University of London): The size of the lake is over a thousand kilometers long and 600 kilometers wide. But, with a satellite image, we can see the whole extent of the basin on a series of images and visualize that, on a computer, in a matter of minutes.

NARRATOR: The satellite image analysis shows over 24,000 square miles of sediment, all of it diatomite.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: We can map where the diatomite sediment is on the floor of the lake.

NARRATOR: The diatomite from the plankton is a rich source of phosphorous, an element needed by all living things to produce energy. But for this nutrient to re-enter the chain of life, it must first embark on a long journey that can be seen from space.

The journey begins here on the ancient lakebed in the Sahara. The wind sweeps up a few flakes of diatomite into the air; the flakes fracture into a fine powder and are carried off by the wind; a dust storm builds. Twenty-two thousand miles above, the European weather satellite METEOSAT 8 looks down from its geostationary orbit. It records a daily pulse of dust rising off the Bodele Depression. Here, it’s visible as a whitish dust cloud, lifting from the desert, with clockwork regularity, at noon, each day.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: Although the individual particles of dust are minute—they’re hundredths or thousandths of a millimeter in diameter—there are such vast clouds of this dust that you can see it on satellite images.

NARRATOR: The dust cloud is over a hundred stories high and 200 miles wide. From here it will head west on an epic journey.

Seen from space, the dust is blown across Africa. At the Atlantic coast it’s drawn up high into the sky. This simulation, based on satellite data, shows how prevailing winds carry the dust cloud west and south, 3,000 miles across the Atlantic. As much as 7,000 tons of dust are airborne at any one time.

The destination is set by the winds: South America and the Amazon.

CHARLIE BRISTOW: We’re taking literally thousands of tons of this dust, which is containing phosphate, and exporting that from the Bodele. The wind is carrying it out across the Atlantic to fertilize the Amazon.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

"Sea surface temperatures in the Northeast Shelf Large Marine Ecosystem during 2012 were the highest recorded in 150 years, according to the latest Ecosystem Advisory issued by NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC). These high sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are the latest in a trend of above average temperature seen during the spring and summer seasons, and part of a pattern of elevated temperatures occurring in the Northwest Atlantic, but not seen elsewhere in the ocean basin over the past century."

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-sea-surface-temperatures-highest-years.html#jCp"

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

In compliment:

Sometimes it takes a mom to point out the obvious:

CLEAN is better than DIRTY.

That's especially true when it comes to the dirty emissions from cars and fuel that affect our children's lungs each and every day. We're very glad that the EPA has proposed a new "Tier 3 program". Not the most memorable name for such an important rule. But Tier 3 will set new vehicle emissions standards and lower the sulfur content of gasoline.

Tell the EPA you support their new Tier 3 emissions standards.

DIRTY: Cars and trucks are the second largest emitters of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds in the U. S. These are among the pollutants that form ozone.

CLEAN: Tier 3 slashes ozone precursors from vehicles by a whopping 80%.

DIRTY: Soot--particulate matter--is one of the most dangerous types of pollution. Soot triggers asthma attacks, bronchitis, heart attacks, and other types of lung disease.

CLEAN: Soot from vehicles will be 70% more tightly regulated

Bottom line: Cars and trucks will be cleaner and more efficient--at a cost of a penny a gallon.

Parents--who spend more than enough time idling in traffic--welcome these rules. And so does the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Association of Global Automakers and the United Auto Workers. Our most important health groups also support this rule--because they know that it costs far more to care for sick Americans than to clean our air.

CLEAN versus DIRTY? Seems like a no-brainer. But do not assume that everyone in Congress gets it. Make sure EPA hears your voice, loud and clear. The comment period is open until June 13. Your support matters. Make sure you let EPA know we want to clean up.

Doesn't it feel good to be able to do something about air pollution?

Sincerely,

Dominique Browning Co-Founder and Senior Director, Moms Clean Air Force


BTW - what I added to the letter:

This effort should also support the growth of clean energy production and clean energy transportation development and implementation.


Also - Tweeted

Tell @EPAgov that you support new standards that will reduce vehicle emisisons. Via @MomsCAF http://bit.ly/11vVvxH Promote clean energy

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

this is an interesting movie

It is legislators, in their own words, presenting their views on Global Warming - the subtext clearly illustrates how desperate it is that we get money out of the electoral process.

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 month ago
[-] 0 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 week ago
[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

at some point the fact of global warming must cease its deniability and false optimism regarding the status of the climate as well as its cause must become quite apparent.

At that point I am quite sure the public will begin taking heads - and in a most literal sense. Repelicans are themselves such mean spirited and petty creatures, and none more so than staunch repelican conservatives. I'm sure they may be depended upon once the depths of this betrayal are no longer in any question.

[-] -2 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Typhoons have gotten so huge they are affecting the polar vortex.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/14/3459809/polar-vortex-missed-the-point/

I wonder what the one currently hitting China will do to our weather. patterns?

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

Hurricane Irene hit NYC *as a tropical storm

Irene was one third the size of the East Coast yet, if that isn't big enough, it was smaller than Hurricane Sandy.

And then there was Super Typhoon Haiyan.

Whatever the impact this latest storm may exhibit globally, I think it is clear, big storms are becoming the norm, I'm therefore confident that we will have ample opportunity to weigh and to measure their impact on a global scale over the course of the next decade - after that I think the question is uncertain. Resource allocation ten years from now may preclude funding for a wide variety of scientific endeavor -

. . . unless of course we begin taxing the rich now . . .

[-] -2 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

The western drought, is reaching up into Canada too, creating HUGE fires that have gone unnoticed by the MSM.

You can see this fire, not just the smoke, from space.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/canada-wildfires-climate-change-feedbacks

Taxing the rich goes against libe(R)tarian principles, if you can call them that.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

Libertarians have principles? I had not heard that

.

And just think: the boreal forest is a temperate rain forest

at least, that was my understanding. I thought the whole boreal forest was considered a temperate rainforest - there has to be a lot of moisture available during the growing season to produce large mosses and ferns among the understory, which I think is typical. I've seen sphagnum moss with six inch stems growing under dying red spruce - the spruce succumbing to acid rain - along the ridge line between Mount Abraham and Mount Ellen.

And I"m pretty sure that yellow birch can respire as much as 900 gallons of water a day.

[-] -3 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Oh no, I was being ironic.

They have no principals, as has been evidenced here for over 3 years.

Think of all that carbon that used to be sequestered in that boreal forest....on fire and releasing it's carbon for all the atmosphere to share..

That would be the ONLY principle of sharing you will find among the libe(R)tarians.

We get to share that, while they sequester all the profits, from the extraction that caused it.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

the soot will no doubt hasten the melting of the ice cap.

we need to sequester their oxygen.

[-] -3 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Oxygen?

Shi--it.

They already sell it to us after we've smoked their cigarettes and breathed their pollution.

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

Shee-it indeed.

But still, there simply must be some means whereby we may interdict their supply . . .

[-] -3 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Well, the way it's going, we will have to wait until they start building domes over their gated "communities", at that point, we may be able to shove some pipes under their dome and fill it up with diesel fumes, or something else of their own manufacture.

[-] -3 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

LoL!

[-] -3 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 week ago

Droughts happen

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/drought/drght_history.html

All this weird weather happened in the 1950's. Surely you remember the '50's. Hell, two hurricanes hit NY in one month in 54. Big difference was that nobody was playing politics about it like they do now. They wasn't as much FEAR back then.

Also, shooz, did you ever say anything to ZD about how he harasses innocent women who are probably the same age as your daughter?

[-] -3 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Asshole

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by freakzilla (-161) from Detroit, MI 1 week ago

Hey, you're tied with shadz on the best comments! That improves your record to 0-5437-1 against him. Congrats! Cambridge vs Cooke County Community College

[+] -5 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Asshole

[-] -2 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

freak's just jealous. Some young chicks actually dig me. It's not my fault. And don't expect me to complain.

[+] -4 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

He do get the bots and puppets stirred up for his fellow trolls though.

He's trashy/shadz biggest fan.

[+] -4 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

he is a bot - a fukin puppet - one who doesn't even know nor care where his real interests lie.

He cannot be planning on a future because he is directly contributing to the creation of a world that has none.

fukin repelicans

[-] -1 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/07/18/3461677/noaa-state-of-the-climate-warmer/

The score for last year is in.

His comment was droughts happen.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

upper ocean heat content - I'm pretty sure that is the key influence behind bigger hurricanes. If the wind shear aloft doesn't cut them apart, then ready access to this warmer ocean water results in higher rates of evaporation - and boom

. . . cat 5 . . .

[-] -1 points by shooz (17621) 1 week ago

Wow, as big as it is, not a word in the MSM, nor from our own resident partisan insistent posers.

http://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search;_ylt=A0LEV7xY88tTBxEAhc4PxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=china+typhoon&hspart=visicom&hsimp=yhs-lavasoft

I guess 'cause it's only a 4?

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

holy fuk . . . two typhoons in only 4 days? wtf

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[+] -4 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 week ago

I think sooner rather than later, perhaps.

Certainly that is my preference.

[-] -3 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

it largely depends on how quickly the poles shed their reserves of cold I think. I assume that is what the whole polar vortex thing has been about lately, is the Arctic releasing cold air simply because the sum of the physics demand that it do so.

I don't think of it as a polar vortex at all. I think of it as heat transference - or warm air going north.

[-] -1 points by 99nproud (1877) 1 week ago

Good theory, in any case, the deniers s/b punished, at the pols & in the streets.

Bastard, oil whores!

[+] -7 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 1 week ago

I've a new game we can play - let the red rivers run - anarchists should really like it because there really are no rules . . . just red rivers under the hot summer sun . . .

hehehe

[-] 1 points by 99nproud (1877) 6 days ago
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13023) from South Burlington, VT 6 days ago

theme song

[-] 2 points by 99nproud (1877) 5 days ago

Climate Deniers are real.!

The NHL is with us

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/23/new-2014-nhl-sustainability-report/

How can we fail?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

From The Environmental Defense Fund:

https://secure2.edf.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=2083

Excerpt:

The dirty energy lobby is waging an all-out assault on the clean energy revolution — and they're working through the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to push model legislation to gut state renewable energy standards.

With companies like Koch Industries and Exxon Mobil sitting on ALEC's energy, environment and agriculture task force, they are trying to kill clean energy in America.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Global Average Temperatures Are Close to 11,000-Year Peak

That's 11,000 years, for those who seem to think what we are seeing is a mere blip.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=global-average-temperatures-are-close-to-11000-year-peak

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

From the article-

" After the ice age, they found, global average temperatures rose until they reached a plateau between 7550 and 3550 BC. Then a long-term cooling trend set in, reaching its lowest temperature extreme between ad 1450 and 1850."

"Since then, temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global average temperatures rose from near their coldest point since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his team report today in Science."

So-temperatures started rising after the last ice age, reach a plateau, then cooled. Now they are rising again, AND they are ALMOST back up to what they were prior to the "Little Ice Age". It's almost like scientists are SHOCKED that an earth coming out of a full on Ice Age warms slower and an earth coming out of a "little" ice age warms faster! Like they cannot fathom that more ice=takes longer to get warm, and less ice=much faster.

Wow.

[-] -1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

OK. Mr. super pseudo scientist.

Whatever you say

WOW.

Good job.

How's your court case against Mother Nature coming along?

You're a Dominionist. I get that.

I think you're 100% wrong, but at least I understand why.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Excuse me? I quoted the article YOU linked to. Maybe you shouldn't link to pseudo science.

If you question the very basic laws of physics I referred to, I'm sure a scientist can help you with that.

I'm a "Dominionist"? Never heard of the term.

You can think and understand whatever you choose to. Doesn't mean it's true or accurate.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

"The temperature trends during most of the post-ice-age period match those expected from natural factors such as the long-term variation in the tilt of Earth’s axis, says Marcott. But in the past century and a half, industrial emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have increased — which helps to explain why global temperatures have risen so quickly in recent decades, he suggests."

You were saying?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

He "suggests".

"Global average temperatures are now higher than they have been for about 75% of the past 11,300 years, a study suggests. "

25% of the past 11,300 years (2,825 years) it's been this hot or hotter.

AND all of those years were prior to a 4,000 year span between 7550 and 3550 BC. I wonder what caused things to be so hot back then? I wonder if those causes have ceased to function.

“Prior to this study, researchers could only guess whether global temperatures had exceeded the warmest part of the present interglacial period,” says Darrell Kaufman, a geologist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. The latest findings show that the recent high temperatures are not necessarily the warmest, but they are unusually high, he notes."

Recent high temps are not the warmest, even if they are unusually high. And as the title of the article demonstrates-

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

You never did say how your court case against Mother Nature is coming along.

If you can't get the percentage you're looking for, will your case against her still hold up, or will the doubt created still be enough so that your ego isn't bruised while you continue to urge the poisoning of the planet, as long as there is profit involved?

The game you play, isn't just disingenuous, it's foolhardy and downright dangerous to every living thing on the planet.

So if you don't mind, while you play your game, the rest of us are going to accept the whole reality and not get hung up in the isolated details you keep getting hung up on.

It's a shame really. It makes me wonder if you aren't one of the myriad agenda21 nut bags running around here.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

"It" apparently has no children of "It's" own and no family that "It" cares for or "It" perhaps hates "It's" family.

"It" also probably figures that "It" will be dead before things really get nasty.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Just more propaganda when the facts are pointed out to you.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Meaningless "facts" in isolation.

Now, please go ahead and respond to what I actually wrote.

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Nothing you wrote about me is true. That's the only response I have.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

I guess that's because nothing about you is true.

It just goes to follow.

So about those percentages?

You never did say what you were going to do IF you could find out what they are.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I could ask the same of you-since there is no way (currently) to know, what happens if, in the future, we find out the actual percentages and your case against the evil oil industry/human race doesn't hold up? Will you continue to claim that we're poisoning the planet as long as it suits your agenda?

"the rest of us are going to accept the whole reality"

HAHAHAHAHA. The "facts" in the article you linked to become "meaningless facts in isolation" when they are pointed out to you. And yet, YOU linked to them as if they HAD meaning of some kind.

The "whole reality" is that you REFUSE to accept any reality that doesn't fit your agenda. I guess "it just goes to follow".

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Here's the bottom line.

About 10 years ago, I was reading a paper (remember those?), and there in the business section, was a small one or two paragraph press release from GE, explaining that their board had "decided" that they as a corporation could now accept global warming, because they had figured out how to make a profit from it.

I looked at the lovely young blond sitting next to me and said this.

" If you think news about global warming is BS now, you haven't seen anything yet."

Not long before that announcement I had noticed stronger opposition to the scientific findings.

They have been growing ever since, and now you have the brothers Koch highly proactive in their donations to producing even more.

You can pretend that's not real, but it is.

Now would you like to explain what you are going to do if you get the percentages you keep asking for?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Do you know how much money (profit) Al Gore has made hawking global warming? And yet he's flying around in his big jet and building mansions right on the shoreline....weird....for a guy who cares so much about the planet and screams that the oceans are going to overflow.

Do you know how much money (profit) countries would make selling "carbon credits"? (And how hilarious would it be to earn billions off of something that just might be occurring naturally or not really affecting the planet as touted!)

You act as if the Koch brothers and the oil industry are the ONLY ONES interested in making money. How many organizations on the "left" of the issue have realized, and would continue to realize profits if they can demonize the other side? Are you that naive? Do you actually think that evil and corruption CARES which side it's on?? For crying out loud, YOU link to "scientific findings" and then when I point out that those FINDINGS do not say what you want/need/think they say, YOU produce "stronger opposition to the scientific findings"!!! You're doing exactly what you want to point fingers at OTHERS for doing.

You think the Tides Foundation and billionaires on the left haven't been contributing all kinds of millions of dollars into the propaganda machine? YOU can pretend it's not real, but it is. You're only looking at half the picture my friend. And anyone who can read at all, knows that.

I'm going to watch and read and decide for MYSELF what the truth is, because that's what I'm after-the truth. It's not about percentages to me. It's about knowing ALL the facts before I go deciding who or what is to blame.

This doesn't mean I support pollution or evil or the Koch's or anyone else on the right. It means that the truth matters to me. And in this day and age of lie upon lie upon lie, that means I have to actually do the work MYSELF-rather than just believing the stuff I like hearing and discarding the stuff I don't. But if that's the price required so that I'm not beholdin to or "bound to" any particular party or idea or position other than the TRUTH, it's worth it to me.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

'Round and 'round and 'round you go.

I'll give you the truth, one more time.

I've stopped expecting you to actually explain your position.

It can only mean you don't actually know what it is.

"The game you play, isn't just disingenuous, it's foolhardy and downright dangerous to every living thing on the planet.

So if you don't mind, while you play your game, the rest of us are going to accept the whole reality and not get hung up in the isolated details you keep getting hung up on.

It's a shame really. It makes me wonder if you aren't one of the myriad agenda21 nut bags running around here."

[-] -1 points by DSamms (-294) 1 year ago

Welcome to the club, apparently.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

...where even study author Marcott is now admitting that his bogus hockey stick blade is not "robust," and btw, which was fairly obvious to even most laypersons, including moi. "

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/03/analysis-marcott-et-al-hockey-stick-gigo-range-bad-proxies-bad-scientists.html

It appears that even scientific "idiots" (unlike myself) could see the STUPID screaming out of the Marcott paper.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/03/anatomy-unprecedented-global-warming-bogus-hockey-stick-faux-science.html

"Conclusions: The Marcott et al. 2013 study is nothing more than rehashed alarmists' faux-science that will be undoubtedly eviscerated by statistical and climate experts, respectively. To rebuild their credibility, green-sharia scientists would be best advised to avoid promoting obviously flawed blender-statistical fakery that produce easily refuted bogus hockey sticks.

Let the evisceration begin: here, here, here, here, here, and here."

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

For the audience at home, would you please state the C words in the page title of C3 headlines?

For added clarity would you also explain what those words mean in the context of that website?

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I said "idiots" for you. Isn't that what you're babbling about?

Here's the thing, I assume the "audience at home" can read and comprehend all by themselves and doesn't need you or me to interpret anything for them. I'm sure they'll have no problem understanding that Marcott ADMITTED that the data in the paper is "not robust" and if that term is unfamiliar to them, they're smart enough to look it up. I'm also sure if they want to know more, they can click on the links and read the articles and decide for themselves what sounds real and what doesn't.

Stop insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads posts here by trying to do their thinking for them.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Truly ashamed of the words those Cs stand for then?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by satohirona (-20) 1 year ago

Good initiative, Global Warming is definitely real and definitely caused by humans. Scientists thoroughly agree on that.

There's one thing I don't like and it's when you state that Global Warming caused Hurricane Katrina. I don't think we have scientific evidence to prove this. This undermines our scientific approach. We already have plenty of evidence for Global Warming, we don't have to make stuff up on the side. This doesn't help our cause.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Don't forget the oceans.

We're doing a number on those too.

http://www.stateoftheocean.org/index.cfm

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

You're making assumptions.

And one would have to wonder why you spend so much time and effort hanging on every political word.

But since you've brought it up, and you ARE the expert, what is said on the other side of the "aisle" on this subject?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by redandbluestripedpill (333) 1 year ago

Will solution be buried in iterations of problem?

[-] -1 points by bonsai (-1) 1 year ago

It is an endless discussion about who or what causes climate change… for some people it is like a religion… if you don´t believe you are demned in hell! Fact is, we can´t be sure! it is more likely that there is more than only one single factor that causes this effect… But in the end it doesn´t matter at all !! We already know very well almost all is going wrong in our world, polluting our water, our air and food is killing all life on earth that’s obvious and I think we all agree in that. We must change the whole system and way of human living now, and then if climate change is man-made maybe we stop it, if not, we must find a way to live with new living conditions but we will never survive with this sick systems, ideologys and religions that only separates people and causes hate and war … in this debates it is only about who is wright and who is wrong… it is the same here with this climate debate, … it is the sick human ego… the “I am wright an you are wrong” thinking, it is useless… Fact is climate is changing for what reason ever, and fact is this is one of many very severe Problems we will have to deal with in future! We must change the world now or it will be too late and all discussions will be for nothing …

[-] 3 points by imagine40 (383) 1 year ago

But we can all agree pollution is bad and we must cut down on it. right?

[-] -1 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Getting more real every day.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/?p=904#.UTwU_coRB8E

I'm in Michigan, Detroit area and I now officially have flowers blooming.

[-] 1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

What kind of flowers. There are many late winter, early spring flowers that actually bloom in snow.

[-] 0 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

I'll send you a picture when the light and wind get right and you tell me.

All I know is they are blooming about a month to a month and a half earlier than ever before.........

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by dotcon (-2) 1 year ago

This is all such total shit.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by hatpin (-6) 1 month ago

The scandal of the global warming LIE. But chucklehead liberals fell for it. Earth cooling since 1930's. Scumbag liberals manipulate data.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

[-] -3 points by fanya11 (-35) 1 year ago

every single one of the comments above is bold face fucking LIE. Global warming...a religion..nothing more. Shrieking hand wringing liberals are the only one who believe it. Self loathing pinheads who demand to be taxed for breathing air.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Glenn?

What are you doing here?

Y'all musta got lost, and you know how truth and controversy twists yer biscuit.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by jdoggma (25) 1 year ago

This is total horse shit! The climate was warmer in the past, before human C02 was significant. There are 2 reasons for this climate change BS. 1) If taxpayer funding dries up, all the “climate scientists” and “environmentalists” will be out of a job. 2) Do nothing government scumbags want another source of taxes (carbon tax and other energy taxes). Ever wonder why C02 concentration in our atmosphere is so miniscule (less than ½ of one tenth of one percent!), when animals have been putting C02 into our atmosphere for millions of years? It is because plants are starved for C02. What do you do in a greenhouse to get the plants to grow good and healthy? You burn propane to enrich the C02 levels in the greenhouse. Increased C02 means greater crop yields.

How many people are made aware of the following facts: 1) The temperature records indicate that C02 concentrations are led by temperature, not the other way around, strongly suggesting that when the oceans warm, C02 is lost from the oceans, and when temperatures fall, they can absorb more C02. C02 is more soluble in cold water than hot water.

2) Calculating human caloric input into the atmosphere is approximately 10 times more significant in putting heat into the atmosphere than the heat absorption by C02, which is a trace gas. Consider that there are ~ 33 people per square mile on the earth, which gives us each the equivalent of an area that is less than 1000 feet x 1000 feet (~70% of which would be ocean)

3) Water vapor is more significant as a greenhouse gas than C02. The gas concentration in our atmosphere by gas is Nitrogen, Oxygen, H20, Argon and C02 – Argon and C02 are both trace gases with ~ 1% Argon and .048% C02.

Educate yourselves! Do not believe this crap. Read the climategate emails to get a sense of the political games that are being played. The damage to humans by the crap these people are trying to push is much worse than the possibility of the climate getting warmer (actually a big plus, not a minus).

Do the calculations for caloric warming based on the specific heat of air (~1000 joules/Kg = .24 btu(therm)/lb-degF), the air each of us has (1000 ft x 1000 ft <convert to square inches and multiply by the weight of the air above each inch { =atm pressure, 14.7 lb/sq in), and your own caloric input (food you eat + energy you use – gasoline is approx 114,000 btu per gal, on your energy bill, 1 therm is 100,000 btu.)

The climate has always been changing, civilizations have thrived and died off due to it – none because of their own doing. The earth is not stagnant and does not have a normal temperature. The sun does not have a “normal” or unchanging heat output, Our orbital relationship with the sun is constantly changing – always has and always will. This climate change crap is nothing but a way to take money out of one set of wallets and put it into another set of wallets – the purpose of every big media campaign.

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

But we can all agree we should cut pollution right?

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

idiot

[+] -6 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Yes, we know DKA-anyone who posts facts here or disagrees with you is an idiot.

edited to add-

And lives in a "fantasy world" And is either a Koch or works for one. And is a religious fanatic. And loves to pollute, be irresponsible, and pee in shooz's stream.

Damn those nutjobs with their facts and differing opinions. There is no place for either of those things in OWS!!!

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (34832) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

OH - GO BACK - to your little fantasy world Vapid.

[-] 3 points by shooz (17621) 1 year ago

Of course Mr. Koch.

We tiny little people couldn't possibly have an effect on the big old planet. we're just itty bitty and ineffectual at affecting any environment at all.

It's only the higher power that can do that.

Yes of course Mr. Koch, by all means keep dumping your crap wherever you want. Why should you be responsible for what you do?

PS: Stop peeing in my stream.

[Removed]

[+] -10 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Global sea levels have risen 400 feet since the last ice age about 20,000 years ago. Global warming is normal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

[-] 5 points by tankcoil (37) 1 year ago

When your home is gone under water will you still call it "normal?" I suppose not. Why not turn around? Let us do something.

[+] -5 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

The truth about climate change can't be understood by looking at only the last 100 years of climate history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[-] 4 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

but we can all agree we should cut pollution no?

[-] 2 points by occupycampbellco (34) from Newport, KY 1 year ago

Um, no.

[+] -7 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Provide your evidence.

"UM no" doesn't refute it.

[-] 4 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Your not listening it seems. A pity because every one can help get the message through. CO2 is near 400ppm. 350 ppm is an enormous risk but we now have little hope of avoiding runaway change.

The 1% still promoting oil are enemies to the planet and future generations such as our kids today.

This is not a dress rehearsal but the final act. Do your bit to try and understand that for a start..

[+] -5 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Read the links I provided, then get back to me.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

The work of Milankovitch is well known and aspects of the change of tilt angle and its apparent effects are taken into account with current scientific thinking on the change of climate and its linked observable data.

While the graph of climate changes and sea level rise over the last 20,000 years shows a slowing of sea level rise in recent times if the curve is followed, the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing not following the longer term trend mentioned.

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Show me the graph or data that you base that on.

[-] 5 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

There are numerous sources of that information and it probably is more useful if you can find the various graphs showing long term and short term trends over say the last 50,000 years to suit the aspect that answers your building up of the picture best.

Here is a simple start but don't be content with that link alone. There are much more authoritative scientific sites but much the same pattern is shown. You may notice the poster talks of scientists proving a point. This reveals a misunderstanding common to lay thinking for in science nothing is ever proven. Scientist set out to find evidence towards challenging or "disproving' a point or theory so any new information gained will lead onto a better understanding which will mean a new theory. This is the basis of scientific method.

http://www.johnenglander.net/sea-level-rise-for-centuries

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

"While the graph of climate changes and sea level rise over the last 20,000 years shows a slowing of sea level rise in recent times if the curve is followed, the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing not following the longer term trend mentioned."

The link does not support this statement.

[-] 3 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

Perhaps you need to read again.

A recent news release - non scientific reporting but essentially summative.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34238.htm

[-] -3 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

Again, no facts supporting your claim,

"the actual data shows the very recent trend is now reversed and sea level rise appears to be increasing"

in either link. What you need to provide is evidence that completely separates the contributions of anthropogenic and natural sources of global warming and cooling, and that shows the anthropogenic portion is great enough to be responsible for the increase in sea level rise over the past 100 years.

[-] 2 points by JohnWa (513) 1 year ago

What are you looking for.

Basically the simplicity of man releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuel is coincident with CO2 increase in the atmosphere.

The increase is measurable and significant.

[-] -2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 1 year ago

You must separate the solar heating and all other natural contributions from the man made ones.

If you have a solar oven with a tiny gas burner inside, you can't assume the oven is getting hotter just because the gas burner is turned on.

What proportion of global warming is natural and what is caused by man?

[-] 3 points by inclusionman (7064) 1 year ago

$1/2T subs to fossil fuel?!!!

Lets transfer that to renewable energy and we will be fine.

http://www.nationofchange.org/stop-paying-polluters-1365254746

Please join with Occupy and the vast majority of the people to support greentech conversion.