What's new

Weather Network ****s on Breitbart climate article

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
It's pretty simple from my point of view. Since climate science is real, since climate science is not the BS its deniers want everyone to believe, and since we are talking about dire consequences for future generations, then those who would trash climate science and go full speed ahead with fossil fuels are the enemies of mankind. That's simple enough, no?

If Myron Ebell, Trump's EPA transition chief is accurate in what he describes as being Trump's plans for his environmental policy, then the Trump administration will be guilty of crimes against humanity. And that is the side of history where climate change deniers stand. They are proponents of crimes against humanity. Simple enough.
-----------------------------------------
"From health care and tax policy to environmental protections, this will undoubtedly be a government of the looters, by the looters, and for the looters, and a Congress of the same. As of yet, however, we’ve seen only the smallest hints of what is to come.

In such a leave-no-billionaires-behind era, forget the past swamps of Washington (whichwasn’t really built on swampland). The government of Donald J. Trump seems slated to produce an American swamp of swamps and, somewhere down the line, will surely give new meaning to the phrase conflict of interest. Yet these processes, too, are barely underway.

From a government of 1% looters, what can you expect but to be looted and to experience crimes of every sort? (Ask the citizens of most Arab lands.) Still, whatever those may turn out to be, in the end they will just be the usual crimes of human history. In them, there will be little new, except perhaps in their extremity in the United States. They will cause pain, of course -- as well as gain for the few -- but sooner or later such crimes and those who commit them will pass from the scene and in the course of history be largely forgotten.

Of only one future crime will that not be true. As a result, it’s likely to prove the most unforgivable of them all and those who help in its commission will, without a doubt, be the greatest criminals of all time. Think of them as “terrarists” and their set of acts as, in sum, terracide. If there’s a single figure in the Trump administration who catches the essence of this, it is, of course, former ExxonMobil CEO and present Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. His former company has a grim history not just of exploiting fossil fuels come (literally) hell or high water, but of suppressing information about the harm they’ve done, via greenhouse gas emissions that heat the atmosphere and the Earth’s waters, while funding climate denialism; of, in short, destroying the planet in an eternal search for record profits.

Now, he joins an administration whose president once termed climate change a “Chinese hoax,” and who has, with a striking determination, appointed first to his transition team and then to his government an unparallelled crew of climate change deniers and so-called climate skeptics. They, and largely only they, are taking crucial positions in every department or agency of government in any way connected with fossil fuels or the environment. Among his first acts was to green-light two much-disputed pipelines, one slated to bring the carbon-dirtiest of oil products, Canadian tar sands, from Alberta to the Gulf Coast; the other to encourage the frackers of the Bakken shale oil fields of North Dakota to keep up the good work. In his yearning to return to a 1950s America, President Trump has promised a new age of fossil-fuel exploitation. He’s evidently ready to leave the Paris climate agreement in the trash heap of history and toss aside support for the development of alternative energy systems as well. (In the process -- and irony is too weak a word for this -- he will potentially cede a monster job-creation machine to the Chinese, the Germans, and others.)"...........

"............So those, including our new president and his administration who are focused on suppressing both scientific knowledge about climate change and any attempt to mitigate the phenomenon, and who, like Rex Tillerson’s former colleagues at the big energy companies, prefer to suppress basic information about all of this in the name of fossil fuels and personal enrichment, will be committing the most basic of crimes against humanity.

As a group, they will be taking the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter out of the climate change sweepstakes for years to come and helping ensure that the welcoming planet on which humanity has so long existed will be something so much grimmer in the future. In this moment’s endless flurries of “news” about Donald Trump, this -- the most basic news of all -- has, of course, been lost in the hubbub. And yet, unlike any other set of actions they could engage in (except perhaps nuclear war), this is truly the definition of forever news. Climate change, after all, operates on a different time scale than we do, being part of planetary history, and so may prove human history’s deal-breaker."

https://www.tomdispatch.com/post/17...a_plane..._it's_the_donald_in_the_news!/#more
 
That's funny, because you're on here complaining an awful lot.

Where complaining is described as points of view that undermine your own? OK, that's true as far as it goes. You post the lying BS, and I'll post the corrections. I don't think they're the same thing at all. Unless you're saying truth and bald face lies are equivalent.
 
o-BONDI-BEACH-1-570.jpg

A photo from the 2016 Climate Change Deniers Conference?

Remember, now. If you support Trump's enviornmental opinions, and soon to be policies, then you too are an enemy of mankind. How's that feel, knowing history will judge you an enemy of the human race? You should be so proud of yourself.
 
Where complaining is described as points of view that undermine your own? OK, that's true as far as it goes. You post the lying BS, and I'll post the corrections. I don't think they're the same thing at all. Unless you're saying truth and bald face lies are equivalent.

You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.
 
You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.

Oh,what the hey, I can live with that. The people who promote climate change denial are the enemies of mankind. And, since it is very clear that we are in the midst of the 5th great extinction event in the planet's known history, driven in part by human influenced climate change, those same people are the enemies of life on Earth. I think that is much more then just a complaint along the lines of complaining about today's weather forecast. But, whatever, I complain a lot. But, per my dad's lesson, people complaining about fake science are themselves using fake science to support their delusions. I am not doing that at all. Climate change denial is bogus. It needs to be pointed out every time.
 
You can be wrong and complain, you can be correct and complain...complaining isn't about correctness, it's just a mentality, and you sir, do a lot of it.

On the other hand, maybe you misunderstand the truism my dad was trying to convey to me. It is not a case of "people who complain about other people complaining are themselves devoted to complaining". The key here was complaining about specific activity. So, one might observe that people who complain about other people being intolerant toward others may themselves be very intolerant toward others. The lesson was not about the mere act of complaining, but rather people engaging in the same activity they are complaining about. In this instance, complaining that real climate science is fake, and utilizing fake science to support their own complaint. I'm not complaining about complaining, and neither was my father. Rather, it's engaging in the same activity being complained about, not the act of complaining in and of itself, devoid of any specific content. Heck, I've complained that we were setting ourselves up for a tragic mistake from the first day Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower. And likely will till the day he too is history.
 
The old criticism of those crying foul being fouler has been used in every argument for ages, Red. It's useless.

Clearly, you have lost your grounding in good sense on climate change/AGW, and science is everything that is good sense, when it is science and not a political tool.

It is reasonable to believe that increased CO2 should correlate----other factors held constant---- with increases in atmospheric heat content. oh, btw, that's not exactly going to be "temperature".... heat content is one aspect, temperature can be something else. A shallow pond on a sunny summer day will absorb and retain heat, and so will a sheet of metal. The metal will get a lot hotter, and can even produce burns on touch perhaps, but the pond will have more of an increase in "heat content". The metal will be cold by morning, but the pond will still be a little warmer. The Greenhouse Effect is real because of a molecular physics property known as heat capacity, which is greater for molecules that can roll, spin, vibrate, or stretch or bend. The more modes energy can be employed, the more heat a molecule will "store" at any given temp. Once stored in those modes, it can be retained better.

I don't dispute the temp data generally, though I might be concerned if "scientists" are being biased in their measurements. I just don't agree much with the long range fear-mongering that is politically convenient in the run up to getting a global carbon tax to redistribute world income and fund world government.

I'll take a recent estimate of polar ice and calculate a theoretical rise in ocean levels from it, and figure out how to plan development so it won't be encroached, so people can live somewhere above water, maybe. That would be a valid use of the "Science".

But mostly it is the other variables we refuse to include in our "science" that alerts me to the fact that people are being manipulated unnecessarily to the level of panic you suffer from.

Enlarging upon the point about the pond, it has always been the Oceans that are the far and away significant store of solar heat. Little thought has been given to studying the ocean temp profiles beyond the surface, so far, and that oversight is profoundly disturbing. It makes everything else pretty much making a mountain out of a molehill. This is how I judge that what you're learning is not real science. We haven't done "science" yet.

Here you are, wanting to call people criminal and everything, for no good reason.

Moreover, we are in an interglacial warm, with some as yet unidentified natural driver still out there, in the ocean I think, capable of lowering atmospheric temps 15 C, over ten times our carbon emission competence to raise temps, that will likely bring back an ice age in your lifetime. The more reasonable thing for you to fear, Red, is how your beaches will look in the next ice age, with a sea level dropped by 300 feet.
 
Here is another example. The Great Barrier Reef just had the largest die off coral because of increasing water temperature.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/australia/great-barrier-reef-coral-bleaching.html


If you believe scientists at all we cannot wait. We can't keep pumping carbon and pollution into the atmosphere.
Oh noes! That was terrible news. I'm sure you'll be happy to hear the Great Barrier Reef is fine.


A little closer to home the water temperature is also really warm, and the coral here is also doing great.

 
Oh noes! That was terrible news. I'm sure you'll be happy to hear the Great Barrier Reef is fine.

Your link disagrees with your assessment.
In contrast to the upper stretches of the Great Barrier Reef, the southern third saw coral cover drop from 38 percent to 34 percent year on year. Scientists blamed the decline on an outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish, which prey on corals. The starfish grow faster and eat more in warmer, more acidic waters, and carbon emissions are both raising ocean temperatures and turning waters more acidic.

In areas where coral cover expanded, it was mostly fast-growing Acropora corals driving the growth, a potentially troubling prospect given that Acropora are particularly vulnerable to strong waves generated by tropical cyclones, highly susceptible to bleaching, and the preferred target of crown-of-thorns starfish.
 
Back
Top