Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course Big Oil has an obvious motive.

Government as such doesn’t, but those who run the government can, and do. One remembers Obama’s pre-election promise long ago to “bankrupt” the coal industry
Sorry, this one does not remember. You will have to refresh my memory.
, and he got it done, for the most part. Arch Coal, Peabody Coal. Both in bankruptcy.
Companies go into bankrupt all the time. Just ask Trump. It doesn’t mean Obama did it.
At the same time, the government under this administration has poured money into solar and wind
“Poured”? How much? Then compare that to other comparable government subsidized research.
 
Really? Billions from who? To create false data so they die with the rest of us?

Ed
Mainly from Exxon & Koch

See:
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997… at greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

EXXONMOBIL’S $33*MILLION CAMPAIGN TO SOW DOUBT AND DENIAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING at desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial

also Peabody Coal - see
desmogblog.com/2016/06/13/court-documents-show-peabody-energy-funded-dozens-climate-change-denying-groups &
prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabody-coal-bankruptcy-reveals-extensive-funding-climate-denial-network

and Scaife – “the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting “ultra-free-market ideas” in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation” – at scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

and I’m sure others, but have no time to look them up now

BTW, those so funded by these rapscallion companies & orgs do not do research or collect data (1st they’d have to study for many years to gain enough expertise to do so) – they just misrepresent the findings of climate scientists in sneaky and deceitful ways, which the gullible, esp if they have some motives not to accept the real science, easily buy into.
 
Mainly from Exxon & Koch

See:
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997… at greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

EXXONMOBIL’S $33*MILLION CAMPAIGN TO SOW DOUBT AND DENIAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING at desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial

also Peabody Coal - see
desmogblog.com/2016/06/13/court-documents-show-peabody-energy-funded-dozens-climate-change-denying-groups &
prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabody-coal-bankruptcy-reveals-extensive-funding-climate-denial-network

and Scaife – “the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting “ultra-free-market ideas” in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation” – at scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

and I’m sure others, but have no time to look them up now

BTW, those so funded by these rapscallion companies & orgs do not do research or collect data (1st they’d have to study for many years to gain enough expertise to do so) – they just misrepresent the findings of climate scientists in sneaky and deceitful ways, which the gullible, esp if they have some motives not to accept the real science, easily buy into.
And what do these people plan on doing if something really bad happens? Money is more important than their own lives?

Ed
 
Mainly from Exxon & Koch

See:
The Koch Brothers have sent at least $88,810,770 directly to 80 groups denying climate change science since 1997… at greenpeace.org/usa/global-warming/climate-deniers/koch-industries/

EXXONMOBIL’S $33*MILLION CAMPAIGN TO SOW DOUBT AND DENIAL ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING at desmogblog.com/exxonmobil-funding-climate-science-denial

also Peabody Coal - see
desmogblog.com/2016/06/13/court-documents-show-peabody-energy-funded-dozens-climate-change-denying-groups &
prwatch.org/news/2016/06/13114/peabody-coal-bankruptcy-reveals-extensive-funding-climate-denial-network

and Scaife – “the largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative foundations promoting “ultra-free-market ideas” in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation” – at scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

and I’m sure others, but have no time to look them up now

BTW, those so funded by these rapscallion companies & orgs do not do research or collect data (1st they’d have to study for many years to gain enough expertise to do so) – they just misrepresent the findings of climate scientists in sneaky and deceitful ways, which the gullible, esp if they have some motives not to accept the real science, easily buy into.
I am just amazed how Republicans are in lock step on the climate issue. They all seem to start with being genuinely concern for the planet we inhabit. However, the moment they start getting ambitious and require money…

You are correct, people like the Koch brothers have done so much to influence the decisions within the Republican party. One example is our buddy Mitt Romney:

In Mitt Romney’s 2010 book - No apology, he wrote; *I believe that climate change is occurring. The reduction in the size of ice caps is hard to ignore. I believe that human activity is a contributing factor. *

When he hit the campaign trail in June 2011, he reiterated his view. He even stated;* it is important that we reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases*. By October 2011, he suddenly declared himself a skeptic. He stated; my view is that we don’t know what is causing climate change. By the time he accepted the Republican nomination in Tampa (the following summer). Romney treated the idea of climate change as a joke even mocking President Obama’s position on climate.

Why the change?

A week after first reversing himself on the subject. He attended an event by the group Americans for Prosperity where Romney was also a speaker. Romney had govern Massachusetts as a moderate. But now had delivered a keynote address far more right-winged. Having potential supporter like David Koch in the audience made it apparent that he was directly seeking money from the Koch’s. Amazing what an encounter can do; He later introduced a budget plan to cut all income tax rate by 1/5. This would save the top one percent an average of 240k per year while the bottom would see a savings of $73 dollars. He also proposed eliminating estate taxes, lowering the corporate tax rate and ending taxes owe by companies that shipped operations overseas.

Taking a complete opposite on their original stance just seems to be the Republican way…
 
I am just amazed how Republicans are in lock step on the climate issue. They all seem to start with being genuinely concern for the planet we inhabit. However, the moment they start getting ambitious and require money…

You are correct, people like the Koch brothers have done so much to influence the decisions within the Republican party. One example is our buddy Mitt Romney:

In Mitt Romney’s 2010 book - No apology, he wrote; *I believe that climate change is occurring. The reduction in the size of ice caps is hard to ignore. I believe that human activity is a contributing factor. *

When he hit the campaign trail in June 2011, he reiterated his view. He even stated;* it is important that we reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases*. By October 2011, he suddenly declared himself a skeptic. He stated; my view is that we don’t know what is causing climate change. By the time he accepted the Republican nomination in Tampa (the following summer). Romney treated the idea of climate change as a joke even mocking President Obama’s position on climate.

Why the change?

A week after first reversing himself on the subject. He attended an event by the group Americans for Prosperity where Romney was also a speaker. Romney had govern Massachusetts as a moderate. But now had delivered a keynote address far more right-winged. Having potential supporter like David Koch in the audience made it apparent that he was directly seeking money from the Koch’s. Amazing what an encounter can do; He later introduced a budget plan to cut all income tax rate by 1/5. This would save the top one percent an average of 240k per year while the bottom would see a savings of $73 dollars. He also proposed eliminating estate taxes, lowering the corporate tax rate and ending taxes owe by companies that shipped operations overseas.

Taking a complete opposite on their original stance just seems to be the Republican way…
And big oil has no problem in funding willing Democrats, as well. Bill Clinton in 1992 received about as much from big oil as GH Bush. They don’t care about abortion or any of the other hot topic issues that motive voters; they only want a door into the Oval Office.

Which is why (among other reasons) I was for Jerry Brown in the primaries, & why I was for Bernie this time around (he seemed to be the least corrupted or corruptible).

I understand Trump has fossil fuel interests in various places
 
I understand Trump has fossil fuel interests in various places, so I guess he doesn’t need big oil to fund him to do right for fossil fuels & wrong for those who suffer (& will be suffering for 100s of years to come) from the extraction, piping, leakages, accidents, processing, combustion, & waste harms from fossil fuels & their byproducts.

One of his main goal he’s working on right now is “canceling restrictions [read: env protections that help save lives] on energy production, including shale energy and clean coal” msn.com/en-us/news/politics/this-is-what-donald-trump-will-do-starting-on-day-one/ar-AAm04Tn?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

“money, money, money” for him & his buddies. that’s what it is all about.
 
  1. If corporate throws money at scientific research, thats great. Afterall, more money seems to be thrown at the arts and military rather then science and medical discoveries. Results are results , regardless of who funds the work. If corporate doesnt like those results, let them fund more research. Wonderful feedback loop right there.
  2. DARK chocolate, regardless of fat and sugar, is very good for us because it contains some great minerals , and , nice fatty acids, and, antioxidants, and flavenols, and, is thought to help raise the blood HDL thereby helping the heart. Etcetcetc Go for it, eat DARK chocolate.
  3. The horse has bolted, while folks were and are, arguing if the globe is getting warmer , and whats causing it. Whether a person believes or not, that wont stop river systems flipping upside down, coral reefs bleaching, icebergs splitting off ice sheets and stranding polar bears, human milk being contaminated with nasties, crops failing, potable water supplies being secured for the next few centuries. And trade winds going haywire.
  4. Best thing now is to start modelling successful crops, permanent clean water supplies and good sun screen.
Love your neighbour as yourself, ensure they have food and water. And the following generations do too.
 
  1. If corporate throws money at scientific research, thats great. Afterall, more money seems to be thrown at the arts and military rather then science and medical discoveries. Results are results , regardless of who funds the work. If corporate doesnt like those results, let them fund more research. Wonderful feedback loop right there.
Actually corps have greatly benefitted from gov-sponsored research over the decades.

The important point is to know who is funding it. There are plenty of instances in which corps or their institutes engage in fraudulent science – like the Formaldehyde Institute, where the scientists were actually put in prison for their fraudulent research.

There are various ways fraudulent and deceptive science can be done, sometimes in ways that are hard to detect – I used to teach about that.

Also don’t trust the FDA (completely) - it has a dual mandate to serve business and consumers. Guess who gets served more.
 
Why the change?

A week after first reversing himself on the subject. He attended an event by the group Americans for Prosperity where Romney was also a speaker. Romney had govern Massachusetts as a moderate. But now had delivered a keynote address far more right-winged. Having potential supporter like David Koch in the audience made it apparent that he was directly seeking money from the Koch’s. Amazing what an encounter can do; He later introduced a budget plan to cut all income tax rate by 1/5. This would save the top one percent an average of 240k per year while the bottom would see a savings of $73 dollars. He also proposed eliminating estate taxes, lowering the corporate tax rate and ending taxes owe by companies that shipped operations overseas.

Taking a complete opposite on their original stance just seems to be the Republican way…
Could this simply be the way politics works? I can recall some Democrats like Al Gore being pro-life early in their congressional careers, when in his case he represented Tennessee, a ‘red’ state, then doing an about-face when they were elevated to a higher, national office that required them to pledge fealty to other principles opposed to the ones that they had previously held.

It’s a bit like the opposite of what Dorothy Parker said in response to the House Un-American Activities Committee: ‘I will cut my conscience to suit this year’s fashions’ (paraphrased).
 
The MMGW people will tell you they account for that. But I have never seen anything that absolutely convinces me of it.

But location can matter in other ways as well. Here in the Ozarks where I live, it gets significantly cooler in the hollows than on hilltops or prairies, and especially at night.

One of my favorite sights in the summer is to see the cool air flow down the stream valleys just after dark. It’s like a river, and fog flows downstream with it because the air above the stream is often cooler than the very top water. It’s like something in a fairy tale.

Where I live, if you want an apple orchard, you’ll plant it on hilltops. But if you want peaches, you’ll plant them in the bottoms because the ground stays cooler in the bottoms longer and you don’t get peach trees blossoming in February only to get the blossoms killed by frost. Or at least that’s your intent. Doesn’t always work.🙂

But if you put your temperature measuring device in any kind of flow-way, you’ll get average lower temperatures year-round than if you put it on a hill top where there’s no downward flow of cool air and more retained radiation from the sun.

Also, strangely enough, rocks matter too. If you measure temperature on rocky ground, you’ll get higher temperatures on average than you will on clearer soil. Same with western slopes versus eastern slopes. Western slopes here are always warmer. So if you want early strawberries here, you’ll plant them on a rocky western slope. But you do run drought risk. If you want walnut trees or pecans, you’ll plant them on an eastern slope. Deeper soil, less droughtiness.

Maybe the people who do all this temperature measuring take those things into account, but I don’t know for a fact that they do.
There’s a group that actually did audit the placement of the temperature measuring instruments and they found the instruments read high because they are poorly placed very close to heat sources.

surfacestations.org
 
There’s a group that actually did audit the placement of the temperature measuring instruments and they found the instruments read high because they are poorly placed very close to heat sources.

surfacestations.org
By the names I could see it is a denialist site.

The important point is that they are looking for changes in temps, so as long as the surroundings (such urban heat island or whatever) remain the same, even if a bit higher or lower than would be if those surroundings did not exist, it is the difference that counts.

The only problem is when there is urban sprawl and urban heat islands being built up around weather stations, and they do make corrections for those.

see realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/02/urban-heat-islands-and-u-s-temperature-trends/
 
The word “could” is all they have. Its always could, might, never a definite.
That’s not science!!!
 
The word “could” is all they have. Its always could, might, never a definite.
That’s not science!!!
Actually it is. Science generally goes with 95% or more confidence on something, so that means there is a 5% or less chance they are wrong.

Also, science requires both data evidence and theory – which they have for CC, which is based on laws of physics.

And if there are many many studies from different angles all coming to the same conclusion – which there is for CC – then it is said to be “robust.”

But there is always that outside chance we might not be greatly harming life on planet earth.

Best policy – hope for the best, expect the worst and do the needful. 🙂
 
Actually it is. Science generally goes with 95% or more confidence on something, so that means there is a 5% or less chance they are wrong.

Also, science requires both data evidence and theory – which they have for CC, which is based on laws of physics.

And if there are many many studies from different angles all coming to the same conclusion – which there is for CC – then it is said to be “robust.”

But there is always that outside chance we might not be greatly harming life on planet earth.

Best policy – hope for the best, expect the worst and do the needful. 🙂
I don’t think we should have to accept the Democrats agenda on this since its not clear
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top