It's Climate Change, Stupid

gotsnowgotslush

skates like Eck
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Posts
25,720
It's Climate Change, Stupid!

"It's the economy, stupid!," worked, at one point.

Why not Climate Change ?

If your children could become 4X as wealthy as your are, would you throw the whole American middle class in the trash?

In order to give your children that increase in wealth, you would be forced to trash the ecology, and squander resources that could sustain Americans for centuries.

FOX TV news is willing to talk you into it. Their grandchildren will be inheriting luxury bomb shelter silos in safe places, and beautiful condos in the exclusive city bomb shelter complexes.

Got trillions ?

Billionaires are tomorrow's millionaires. So poor! Sad.
 
After the Cuban Missile Crisis, a decision was made final. The international ultra- rich decided that the American middle class was not needed.

America would be just another large, dumb animal, with owners. Like Russia, China, and South America.

Despite Trump Campaign Promise, Billionaires’ Tax Loophole Survives
11/07

The loophole dates to almost a century ago, in the tax treatment of profits from oil-drilling partnerships, but its cost to the Treasury has exploded only in the past couple decades with the boom in the private equity industry. Those who manage the investments in private-equity funds are typically compensated in two different ways: with a 2 percent fee on the funds under management, and with a 20 percent cut of the gains they produce for investors — their “carried interest.” That 20 percent cut is taxed under the capital gains rate, which currently amounts to 23.8 percent for the wealthy, instead of at the top rate for ordinary income, 39.6 percent, even though it is, essentially, part of the compensation that these investment managers are receiving for their labor, which is managing other people’s money.

The loophole has also been very valuable to partners in large-scale real estate investment — such as Trump himself. Estimates of the loophole’s total cost to the Treasury range from $1 billion per year to more than $10 billion.

Defenders of the loophole — who reject even the term “loophole” — have long argued that applying the lower capital gains rate to carried interest justly rewards the risk-taking involved in private-equity partnerships. But in recent years, even some people within the industry have grown more muted in their defense, as the loophole has become increasingly implicated in soaring incomes at the very top of the ladder.

http://crooksandliars.com/2017/11/despite-trump-campaign-promise
 
I don’t have kids.

Why isn’t it global warming? If the tagline don’t fit, you must acquit.

I’m glad we can have small talk about the weather. We have snow here. Was supposed to be 7”, but we all know how that goes.:eek:
 
I don’t have kids.

Why isn’t it global warming? If the tagline don’t fit, you must acquit.

I’m glad we can have small talk about the weather. We have snow here. Was supposed to be 7”, but we all know how that goes.:eek:
If you really care about the topic, you should learn about it. Global warming is part of climate change, along with ocean acidification, desertification, albedo change, sea level rise, weather event intensity increase, ocean and air current changes, flora and fauna habitat changes, and others.
 
If you really care about the topic, you should learn about it. Global warming is part of climate change, along with ocean acidification, desertification, albedo change, sea level rise, weather event intensity increase, ocean and air current changes, flora and fauna habitat changes, and others.
I share her confusion re: this thread. Label and subject don't match. Sort of like Tromp's tweets and reality.
 
I believe the climate changes, just as the seasons do. It’s a generic term that means anything you want it to. I also believe I’ll be dead before the ozone disappears, the sun dies or wishes upon stars come true. My belief doesn’t affect any of it. Ask those people exchanging carbon credits so Gore can pollute guilt free.

It’s self-interest stupid, always is, always will be.
 
I believe the climate changes, just as the seasons do. It’s a generic term that means anything you want it to. I also believe I’ll be dead before the ozone disappears, the sun dies or wishes upon stars come true. My belief doesn’t affect any of it. Ask those people exchanging carbon credits so Gore can pollute guilt free.

It’s self-interest stupid, always is, always will be.
Yes, self-interest is why we need to off the fuckers who shit in the well.
 
I believe the climate changes, just as the seasons do. It’s a generic term that means anything you want it to.
Incorrect. "Weather change" covers patterns of up to two years. "Climate change" covers patterns of at least thirty years. Weather changes noticeably to our human attention span; climate changes over a longer-term view. Weather: El Niños and La Niñas roll in and out. Climate: severe El Niños and La Niñas are longer and stronger over decades.

Human industrial activity direct correlates with rising hydrosphere temperatures, the energy stored in our water world, trapped by human-generated greenhouse gases. Human-influenced global warming is real.
 
What Trump Rants About

Top complaint- The EPA is too restrictive. Corporate entities are determined to exceed the obscene amounts of profit they enjoy. They demand more opportunities to pollute, destroy, ruin.

Their motto is- "Let me do what I want, where I want, how I want. I do not give a fuck about how many people will die. I do not care about the crater of poisoned land that will result from what I do. I do not care about the future of America. I care about me, and my ability to accumulate wealth."

Corporate entities do not want to adhere to the ritual of answering to legal authorities, and pretending to pay a penalty. (At the end of the ritual, the corporation has their penalty reduced to nothing, thanks to money from the tax payer's coffers. Grants, funding of projects, easements, exceptions that are made in the corporations favor. The fines themselves are reduced to a pittance, after the public furor has died down. A pittance is paid, for permission granted, to exploit a public natural resource, and billions of profit flows into the corporation's coffers.


If someone supports Trump without reservation, it is entirely within the realm of possibility, that they will oppose the study of global climate change(denier), support Trump's efforts to give billionaires enormous tax breaks at the expense of the middle class, and the poor.(greed of swamp monsters) Trump supporters cheer the exclusion of minorities entering America. Trump supporters frequently attack minorities, because it is not about safety. It is about hate.

On August 5, 2012, a white supremacist named Wade Michael Page killed six believers of the Sikh faith in their house of worship, a Gurdwara, outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Devout male followers of the Sikh faith, a monotheistic religion that originated in Northern India, keep long beards and wear turbans, and often are confused with Muslims


https://www.voanews.com/a/wisconsin-sikh-massacre-anniversary/3973627.html

"...in Hoboken, where City Councilman Ravi Bhalla topped five other candidates in the race to succeed Dawn Zimmer, who decided not to seek a third term in office."


Ravi Bhalla wins Hoboken election, becomes N.J.'s first Sikh mayor

November 7, 2017

Bhalla, an Indian-American born in New Jersey, was endorsed by current Mayor Dawn Zimmer, who in a surprising decision announced she would not seek a third term in office.


The race for City Hall took a turn this week when doctored campaign fliers began circulating attacking Bhalla with the message "Don't let TERRORISM take over our town!" above a picture of the Sikh mayoral candidate wearing a turban.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2017/11/bhalla_bests_defusco_to_win_hoboken_mayoral_race.html

The hateful idiocy spiked again this week in New Jersey, this time in Hoboken, where a flyer with the word “terrorist” spliced in over a picture of mayoral candidate Ravi Bhalla’s face caught the attention of the insider political world and joined local rivals in opposition, condemnation and outrage even as they sharp elbow their way to Tuesday’s finish line.

The piece was a doctored version of one of Bhalla’s own flyers, regurgitated just days after a racist flyer burped up in Edison and sent the political classes chattering in both parties. A Sikh American running for mayor with the endorsement of Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer, Bhalla this morning denounced the piece, which no one is claiming ownership of, even as it incorrectly identifies candidate Mike DeFusco as the culprit.

DeFusco slammed the piece in a Facebook post.

“A disgusting, racist flier was found on car windshields tonight that altered one of my campaign’s mailers and added a racial epithet aimed at Ravi Bhalla,” wrote DeFusco, who is one of Bhalla’s competitors in next week’s local mayoral election. “I condemn this piece of racist garbage in the strongest possible terms. Hoboken is far better than this, and whoever made this flier is not only insulting one of my opponents in a despicable way, they are also painting me as a racist, which as the only openly gay elected official in Hudson County and a progressive Democrat …simply could not be further from the truth. I called Councilman Bhalla tonight to assure him that although we disagree on many issues, we can stand united against this kind of racism infecting our city.”

https://www.insidernj.com/racist-flyer-lands-hoboken-days-tuesdays-election/
 
I asked them to write Scott Stringer, the comptroller of the city of New York. Now, that’s not a job that necessarily gives you a lot of latitude to fight climate change, except that he’s ultimately the guy in change of the hundreds of billions of dollars in pension funds from New York City. And believe it or not, a bunch of that is invested in fossil-fuel companies. That makes no financial sense, as the fossil fuel guys have lost more money than anybody else over the last five years—that’s why people like the Rockefeller brothers, for heaven’s sake, divested. It makes no moral sense.

These are the guys who gamed our political system—as Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is demonstrating daily as he goes after ExxonMobil. It makes no practical sense, Bill—New York City is going to spend billions upon billions building seawalls to try and protect Wall Street.

Why would you be investing the city’s cash in the companies that are making that work necessary ?

Donald Trump made the CEO of ExxonMobil the US secretary of state.


Moyers: What kind of capitalism is it that puts everyone on earth at risk and lies about it for the sake of profit?

McKibben: I’m afraid it’s Ayn Randian capitalism—the elevation of the rich to a point of such incredible power that no one can question them. And the only way to deal with that is to build collective power in response. This is the perfect example of the fight of the many and the small against the few and the very big. Hey, there’s a great picture on my wall from a couple of summers ago. Shell wanted to go drill in the Arctic. It was insane.

Scientists had said, “If you keep burning coal and gas and oil, you will melt the Arctic.” And then the Arctic melted just as they had predicted. Did Shell Oil look at the melt and say, “Huh, maybe we should go into the solar-panel business instead?” No, Shell Oil looked at that and said, “Oh, well, now that it’s melted it will be easier to drill for more oil up there.” That’s enough to make you doubt about the big brain being a good adaptation, no? But when they started to take their giant—and I mean giant—drill rig up there to the Arctic from the harbor in Seattle, thousands of people in small craft came out on the water to block it. We called them kayaktavists. And they did so much brand damage to Shell that before the summer was out, Shell threw up its hands and said, “You know what? We’re out of the Arctic drilling business,” and walked away from their $7 billion investment. Sometimes people can stand up to the monolith. We just better figure out how to do it effectively and fast.



http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/11/a-love-letter-to-the-resistance/
 
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is at a record high, Europe is in the midst of a hellish heat wave, and extreme weather is ravaging large swaths of the globe, but President Donald Trump dismissed the need for climate action during the G20 summit in Japan on Saturday and falsely claimed that air and water in the U.S. are the "cleanest" they have ever been.


"I'm not looking to create a standard that is so high that we're going to lose 20-25 percent of our production. I'm not willing to do that," Trump continued. "We have the cleanest water we've ever had, we have the cleanest air—you saw the reports come out recently. We have the cleanest air we've ever had. But I'm not willing to sacrifice the tremendous power of what we've built up over a long period of time, and what I've enhanced and revived."

As the Associated Press reported after Trump claimed earlier this month that the U.S. is "setting records environmentally" with its air and water quality, "U.S. does not have the cleanest air, and it hasn't gotten better under the Trump administration."

"The U.S. ranks poorly on smog pollution, which kills 24,000 Americans per year," according to AP. "On a scale from the cleanest to the dirtiest, the U.S. is at 123 out of 195 countries measured."

Furthermore, according to a study published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tens of millions of Americans are exposed to unsafe drinking water each year.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...take-climate-action-because-it-would-threaten
 
Major fossil fuel companies have known for decades that their products—oil, natural gas, and coal—cause global warming. Their own scientists told them so more than 30 years ago.

In response, they decided to deceive shareholders, politicians, and the public—you!—about the facts and risks of global warming.

They repeatedly fought efforts to move the country away from fossil fuels. They slowed progress on the most important challenge of our time. And some continue to spread disinformation and obstruct climate policies even today. All while being aware of the role their products play in climate impacts.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...unqDP5pxCzp71rDrRw7ZU6zJHfYFrS5k#.Wljxi-SWyUk
 


...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all.

Despite this, climate change has been the alleged motivation for numerous policies, which, for the most part, seem to have done more harm than the purported climate change, and have the obvious capacity to do much more. Perhaps the best that can be said for these efforts is that they are acknowledged to have little impact on either CO2 levels or temperatures despite their immense cost. This is relatively good news since there is ample evidence that both changes are likely to be beneficial although the immense waste of money is not.

I haven’t spent much time [in this address] on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.”

–Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences



http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/ri...-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
 
Last edited:


GISS Global Temperature Series ( 1880- )


image69.png



 


Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?

You don't really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?



Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"



Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don't tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.



Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?



Are you kidding me?


 



So, you think the historic global temperature records are reliable?

Here's how the temperature records for the ocean (remember, that's 70% of the earth's surface) were compiled.



ERI= Engine room intake
Bucket= (literally) throwing a canvas bucket overboard (I swear to god, I'm not making this up)

figure-2.png

Source: Hadley Centre, Climate Research Unit
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/part_1_figinline.pdf



They haven't got a frickin' clue whether global temperatures are warmer or not.



 

"...At the heart of this nonsense is the failure to distinguish weather from climate. Thus, global warming refers to the welcome increase in temperature of about 1◦C since the end of the Little Ice Age about 200 years ago. On the other hand, weather extremes involve temperature changes of the order of 20◦C. Such large changes have a profoundly different origin from global warming. Crudely speaking, they result from winds carrying warm and cold air from distant regions that are very warm or very cold. These winds are in the form of waves. The strength of these waves depends on the temperature difference between the tropics and the Arctic (with larger differences leading to stronger waves). Now, the models used to project global warming all predict that this temperature difference will decrease rather than increase. Thus, the increase in temperature extremes would best support the idea of global cooling rather than global warming. However, scientifically illiterate people seem incapable of distinguishing global warming of climate from temperature extremes due to weather. In fact, as has already been noted, there doesn’t really seem to be any discernible trend in weather extremes. There is only the greater attention paid by the media to weather, and the exploitation of this ‘news’ coverage by people who realize that projections of catastrophe in the distant future are hardly compelling, and that they therefore need a way to convince the public that the danger is immediate, even if it isn’t.

This has also been the case with sea-level rise. Sea level has been increasing by about 8 inches per century for hundreds of years, and we have clearly been able to deal with it. In order to promote fear, however, those models that predict much larger increases are invoked. As a practical matter, it has long been known that at most coastal locations, changes in sea level, as measured by tide gauges, are primarily due to changes in land level associated with both tectonics and land use.

Moreover, the small change in global mean temperature (actually the change in temperature increase) is much smaller than what the computer models used by the IPCC have predicted. Even if all this change were due to man, it would be most consistent with low sensitivity to added carbon dioxide, and the IPCC only claims that most (not all) of the warming over the past 60 years is due to man’s activities. Thus, the issue of man-made climate change does not appear to be a serious problem. However, this hardly stops ignorant politicians from declaring that the IPCC’s claim of attribution is tantamount to unambiguous proof of coming disaster.

Cherry picking is always an issue. Thus, there has been a recent claim that Greenland ice discharge has increased, and that warming will make it worse.

Omitted from the report is the finding by both NOAA and the Danish Meteorological Institute that the ice mass of Greenland has actually been increasing. In fact both these observations can be true, and, indeed, ice build-up pushes peripheral ice into the sea. Misrepresentation, exaggeration, cherry picking, or outright lying pretty much covers all the so-called evidence.



Conclusion

So there you have it. An implausible conjecture backed by false evidence and repeated incessantly has become politically correct ‘knowledge,’ and is used to promote the overturn of industrial civilization. What we will be leaving our grandchildren is not a planet damaged by industrial progress, but a record of unfathomable silliness as well as a landscape degraded by rusting wind farms and decaying solar panel arrays. False claims about 97% agreement will not spare us, but the willingness of scientists to keep mum is likely to much reduce trust in and support for science. Perhaps this won’t be such a bad thing after all – certainly as concerns ‘official’ science. There is at least one positive aspect to the present situation. None of the proposed policies will have much impact on greenhouse gases. Thus we will continue to benefit from the one thing that can be clearly attributed to elevated carbon dioxide: namely, its effective role as a plant fertilizer, and reducer of the drought vulnerability of plants. Meanwhile, the IPCC is claiming that we need to prevent another 0.5◦C of warming, although the 1◦C that has occurred so far has been accompanied by the greatest increase in human welfare in history. As we used to say in my childhood home of the Bronx: ‘Go figure’. "
-Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
Professor of Meteorology (emeritus)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology



 


Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1915-1950 are reliable?

You don't really expect a rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad or in Ukraine during the famine or all over Siberia?



Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or "The Great Leap Forward?"



Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don't tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.



Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earth’s surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?



Are you kidding me?


How about the graphs you post?
 
You can only come up with one name, who's been debunked time after time; no references at all.

Open the IPCC reports, and you will find a compilation of peer-reviewed studies, and so far no reliable scientist has been able to refute their conclusions; sure, some data sets may be less reliable than others, but all results show the same direction.

Ever heard of temperature proxies? How come they show the same data trends as directly measured data?



ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, Michael "Piltdown" Mann's undisclosed appending of instrumental temperatures to bristlecone pine tree ring-derived proxy temperatures was sooooooooooooooooo convincing (and, of course, completely fraudulent).


 



At least they got this thread in the right place (i.e., the "Politics Board") because "climate $cience" sure as fuck ain't science and, god knows, the one thing it ain't is "settled" science.


In fact, climate $cience really is political science (or, in so many cases, science fiction).


It is a primitive field. At best, it is pseudoscience. At worst, it's outright fraud.


 


ROTFLMFAO

Yeah, Michael "Piltdown" Mann's undisclosed appending of instrumental temperatures to bristlecone pine tree ring-derived proxy temperatures was sooooooooooooooooo convincing (and, of course, completely fraudulent).


No fraud was ever found. He was COMPLETELY EXONERATED!
 


CliSci is political science.



If you've been bamboozled into believing that "climate $cience" remotely resembles actual science, you have bigger problems (like innumeracy and scientific illiteracy).



 
Back
Top