Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 159/170)
olejoedad MAR 06, 09:04 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

It's FACT CHECK time... was it "conservatives" that deserve the lion's share of the credit for creating the EPA?

So to say without further elaboration that "Conservatives passed the bill that created the EPA" is not very meaningful, in light of the actual history—it was more than just "conservatives."

FACT CHECK result... "Misleading statement about conservatives and the EPA."



I know all of that, I lived it and applauded it.
Senator Jackson was a neoconservative. In the present day, I suspect he would be appalled at what the Democratic party has become.
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 07, 08:08 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

That's about the limit of how much of the Earth's history is relevant to understanding anthropogenic global warming... only the most recent 800,000 years.

Anything more distant than 800,000 years ago is (mostly) "Apples and Oranges."





Apparently it only quoted this... but I read everything else.

I think you're missing my point... definitely... (I'll get to it in a minute)

Even if we compared 140 years to 800,000 years... it's still so far outside the margin of error as to be completely useless. That we've made such grand claims about the climate on such a ridiculous dataset is scientifically inexcusable... and yet, here we are.

And let me also address the 140 years, which you've said we have "...about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures."

There is absolutely nothing systematic about it. As a matter of fact, even the last 20 years of temperature readings have been wildly inaccurate. Land-based temperature sensors consistently get moved, either as a result of construction (the land which it was on is sold and developed), or structures are built up around it... which more often than not will affect the temperature readings. Temperature readings from sensors in the city will always be hotter than the actual ambient temperature because of blacktop, concrete (which absorbs and releases heat), to refraction of the sun. About the only reliable way to measure temperature is via satellite... and that's really only been within the last 10 years.

All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...


For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.
cliffw MAR 07, 09:32 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Tell us rinselberg, why does your ilk have such a hard time convincing the logical 93% into believing your dogma ?



Well rinselberg, it looks like you are screwed.

On the upcoming elections, on the importance of issues which concern the US populace, Global Warming is at 4%.

Why is that ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 03-07-2024).]

cliffw MAR 07, 09:48 AM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:
It's not about what the climate could be like even just 1,000 years from now. That's way behind what humans can plan for.

It's about what the climate could be like just 200 years from now, and even more concerning, what the climate could be like in the years immediately ahead, and forward to year 2100.



What are you planning for 100 years from now ?


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
You don't get it.

Those that agree that human activity that has caused a massive increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is making things much worse, is because they have been indoctrinated.



US House Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D) New York, put forward a bill to make kindergartens to teach "Global Warming".
williegoat MAR 07, 10:42 AM
This whole “global warming/climate change” fairy tale is nothing more than an evil scheme to suppress Capitalism, to depress the western economy. The net outcome is the devolution of human civilization.

It is just like the “you are a racist/hitler/(whatever)phobe” mantra chanted by the ill informed stooges of the Aristocracy. Your guilt benefits no one other than your keepers.

Just stop it.

Your leaders are driving all of us back to the dark ages. We need another renaissance.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 03-07-2024).]

rinselberg MAR 07, 12:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
<SNIP>
All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...

For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.



WETLANDS UPDATE

I'm "big" on wetlands! They are an important part of Climate Adaptation, as they physically protect farmland and communities from flooding and storm surge.

They're like giant-sized sheets of Bounty paper towels that soak up water and keep the water from going where it is not wanted to go.

Are they also part of Climate Mitigation? That's more "iffy." They are generally considered to be carbon reservoirs or sinks that remove CO2 or carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but wetlands can also emit CH4 or methane, which is a planet-warming greenhouse gas that is generally ranked as "Number Two" on the EPA's Wanted List of Villainous Greenhouse Gases—second only to carbon dioxide.

These waters (pun intended) are too deep for me to wade into, at this moment, but I can say that Yale Environment 360 is an excellent source of reportage on the science of wetlands and wetlands restoration and how that connects to Climate concerns. As you may well have suspected, Yale Environment 360 is published by the Yale School of the Environment at Yale University.

Some time ago, I posted an article from Yale Environment 360 on this very issue about wetlands, but I don't know if I can find it again. I don't remember the thread. And when I used the Yale Environment 360 search function, I did not see anything that jogged my memory. I could be looking at the title of the article that I posted, without realizing that it is the title of the article that I posted. Nevertheless...

AUGUST 29, 2023.
"Biden administration weakens water [including wetlands] protections after Supreme Court curtails federal power"

quote
The Biden administration weakened regulations protecting millions of acres of wetlands Tuesday, saying it had no choice after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s jurisdiction over them.

The rule would require that wetlands be more clearly connected to other waters like oceans and rivers, a policy shift that departs from a half-century of federal rules governing the nation’s waterways.

READ MORE: The Supreme Court just narrowed protection for wetlands, leaving many valuable ecosystems at risk
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-supreme-court-just-narrowed-protection-for-wetlands-leaving-man y-valuable-ecosystems-at-risk

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said the agency had no alternative after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s power to regulate wetlands that do not have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water.

Michael Phillis, Matthew Daly and John Flesher for the Associated Press; August 29, 2023.
https://www.pbs.org/newshou...rtails-federal-power

The reference is to the Supreme Court's ruling, issued on May 25, 2023, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency:
https://supreme.justia.com/...deral/us/598/21-454/


AUGUST 15, 2023
"Biden-Harris Administration makes $240 million available for habitat restoration and coastal resilience through Investing in America agenda"

quote
Today [August 15, 2023,] NOAA Fisheries is announcing the availability of up to $240 million in funding for transformational habitat restoration and coastal resilience projects as part of President Biden’s Investing in America agenda, under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act. Through this funding opportunity, NOAA will support habitat restoration approaches that enhance the resilience of coastal and Great Lakes communities — including tribes and underserved communities — against climate hazards. This announcement comes one day ahead of the one-year anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest climate investment in U.S. history.

“The projects selected by NOAA for this exciting funding opportunity will have a transformative impact in coastal and tribal communities nationwide,” said U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo. “In turn, they will help sustain our nation’s fisheries, make significant strides in the recovery of threatened and endangered species, improve water quality and protect communities and ecosystems from the impacts of harmful climate change.” . . .

NOAA; August 15, 2023.
https://www.noaa.gov/news-r...toration-and-coastal


APRIL 2023
"Habitat Protection and Restoration Awards: National Coastal Zone Management Program"

quote
In April 2023, NOAA announced the distribution of $74.4 million in funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act for coastal zone management programs to support coastal habitat restoration [including wetlands] and conservation projects and capacity-building. This includes $50.1 million across 20 projects and $24.3 million to support capacity-building and additional staff to manage these, and to develop impactful projects and carry out other projects, planning, and initiatives to advance the resilience of their coastal communities.

NOAA Office for Coastal Management; April, 2023.
https://coast.noaa.gov/fund...re-projects-czm.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-07-2024).]

rinselberg MAR 07, 06:00 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

Apparently it only quoted this... but I read everything else.

I think you're missing my point... definitely... (I'll get to it in a minute)

Even if we compared 140 years to 800,000 years... it's still so far outside the margin of error as to be completely useless. That we've made such grand claims about the climate on such a ridiculous dataset is scientifically inexcusable... and yet, here we are.

And let me also address the 140 years, which you've said we have "...about 140 years of systematic record keeping of temperatures."

There is absolutely nothing systematic about it. As a matter of fact, even the last 20 years of temperature readings have been wildly inaccurate. Land-based temperature sensors consistently get moved, either as a result of construction (the land which it was on is sold and developed), or structures are built up around it... which more often than not will affect the temperature readings. Temperature readings from sensors in the city will always be hotter than the actual ambient temperature because of blacktop, concrete (which absorbs and releases heat), to refraction of the sun. About the only reliable way to measure temperature is via satellite... and that's really only been within the last 10 years.

All of that aside... let's say temperatures are going up. How do we not know this is simply one of many warming / cooling cycles the Earth goes through? You don't...

For me, this is something we cannot change, and the "solution" always seems to taking money from America and giving it to **** -hole countries. We should be smarter, and actually do something that's good for the environment like protecting wetlands, creating a national recycling program, etc. And I don't like the whole "we can do both," because yet again... the carbon credit system is there for no other reason than wealth redistribution.


That was quite the diatribe... or is it just a "tribe"..?

Actually, I appreciate that "82-T/A" had the interest and took the time to read through what I posted into this thread just yesterday; to wit:

"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
Rebecca Lindsey for Climate(.gov); May 12, 2023.
https://www.climate.gov/new...heric-carbon-dioxide

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but seeing that kind of reading appetite from "82" has me wanting to tempt him to take a look at another recent article that was posted very recently on the RealClimate blog, because I think it talks directly to some of the skepticism that he harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I haven't read through it closely myself, but I've scrolled through it and that's how I see that it talks directly to some of the skepticism that "82" harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming—of course, if someone other than "82" wants to look at it, I really can't stop them.

"Science denial is still an issue ahead of COP28"
Stefan Rahmstorf for RealClimate(.org); November 29, 2023.
https://www.realclimate.org...ssue-ahead-of-cop28/

Some may say "Who's Stefan Rahmstorf?"
https://www.realclimate.org...12/stefan-rahmstorf/

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-07-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] MAR 07, 06:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

That was quite the diatribe... or is it just a "tribe"..?

Actually, I appreciate that "82-T/A" had the interest and took the time to read through what I posted into this thread just yesterday; to wit:

"Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide"
Rebecca Lindsey for Climate(.gov); May 12, 2023.
https://www.climate.gov/new...heric-carbon-dioxide

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but seeing that kind of reading appetite from "82" has me wanting to tempt him to take a look at another recent article that was posted very recently on the RealClimate blog, because I think it talks directly to some of the skepticism that he harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming.

I haven't read through it closely myself, but I've scrolled through it and that's how I see that it talks directly to some of the skepticism that "82" harbors about Anthropogenic Global Warming—of course, if someone other than "82" wants to look at it, I really can't stop them.

"Science denial is still an issue ahead of COP28"
Stefan Rahmstorf for RealClimate(.org); November 29, 2023.
https://www.realclimate.org...ssue-ahead-of-cop28/

Some may say "Who's Stefan Rahmstorf?"
https://www.realclimate.org...12/stefan-rahmstorf/





I will read your last two links, but respectfully, I do not trust climate.gov as far as I can throw it. I know full well after being in government for over a decade... information is selectively released. It's a very calculated decision. I've actually found some European governments to be more forthcoming in releasing their information than the United States. It has to do with the structure of the government. Let me be clear, I prefer the US structure... but because essentially the "house" or Parliament if you will effectively runs the country, and they "form a government" from that (to select a prime minister, etc.)... there tends to be less "ownership" of the government to the person running it. In the United States... the agencies are effectively "owned" by the President... as they all fall under the Executive Branch, and except in situations where they make a concerted effort to do things against the President's will (like in the case of Trump), they tend to fall all over themselves to support Democrat narratives (as I've personally seen in the intel community). So... Climate.Gov can ... well, you get the gist.

What I will say... I am not saying we aren't warming. We might be. I am also not saying that humans are not causing it... it's very possible that we are.

What I am saying though, is that there is so much corruption in developing these facts, figures, and numbers... in order to produce a narrative, that I question the authenticity of all of it. I find it hard that through all the industrial eras of these countries, we were only increasing seal levels by 1.5mm a year for like 100 years. And then magically in the late 90s, they've deemed this changed to 2.5mm. And then all of a sudden, they say it's 3.9mm... it's suspect. I think the *truth* is probably somewhere in the middle.

I also don't like the prescription, which always seems to boil down to the whole carbon credits thing, which I cannot support. It basically means taking money from the U.S., and giving it to everyone else... while they basically laugh at us and live it up.
ray b MAR 07, 07:45 PM
todays news was dead fish do to the SFWMD canal gates opening

thanks to rhonda and BIG SUGAR IT STINKS TODD
82-T/A [At Work] MAR 08, 08:02 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

todays news was dead fish do to the SFWMD canal gates opening

thanks to rhonda and BIG SUGAR IT STINKS TODD




The amount of chemicals being dumped in the water in South Florida has gone down many orders of magnitude since Republicans took over. The Democrats did NOTHING during their governance. Matter of fact... DeSantis has done more for Florida's environment than any past Florida governor.


Florida's Clean Waterways Act: https://www.flgov.com/2020/...clean-waterways-act/
(More): https://floridadep.gov/wate...rulemaking-workshops

And just last year: https://www.flgov.com/2023/...onservation-efforts/


And there have have been dozens of other pro-environmental waterway protection acts.


It's exactly like I was saying. Back when Democrats ran Florida... you never thought twice about any of this. All those farms and factories dumping chemicals into the Suwanee river... and you never batted an eye, and the media never talked about it. Once the Republicans started taking over the state (starting in 2000), and then completely by 2012, the environment was the most important thing in the world. All while, Democrats totally ignored the fact that they did little to nothing, and the party even encouraged it. Do you remember... I forget which Democrat Governor it was... he was the former Agriculture Director for the state... basically wholly supported the pineapple / sugarcane industry in dumping chemicals into the waterways.


Dude, you are sooo out there Ray, so completely biased. Anything you say here is wildly hypocritical to reality.