World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[lynnvinc]

Godwin’s Law is alive and well. I guess it’s time for this thread to be officially closed

I stand by that moral reasoning: just because someone else does something worse (I could have picked some common criminal instead of Hitler), it doesn’t make our wrong-doings okay and fine.

So just because Al Gore or George Soros fail to mitigate AGW, is no reason for us to fail to mitigate it. In fact I really don’t know what the rich people are up to, and whatever it is it has had absolutely no impact on me reducing my efforts to mitigate.

 

[jilly4ski]

I stand by that moral reasoning: just because someone else does something worse (I could have picked some common criminal instead of Hitler), it doesn’t make our wrong-doings okay and fine.

So just because Al Gore or George Soros fail to mitigate AGW, is no reason for us to fail to mitigate it. In fact I really don’t know what the rich people are up to, and whatever it is it has had absolutely no impact on me reducing my efforts to mitigate.

Except that is not the question. The question is, if they believe so strongly that “excess” CO2 emissions are going to kill us all, then why do they continue to emit CO2 far and above the “average” American.

The other point is, some people are already conserving as much as possible for their living situations, they cannot reduce more in order to “save more.” As taxes and regulations are imposed on oil and coal, these people (who are usually the poor) are going to be hurt the most. They cannot afford to buy volts or install solar panels (either because they can’t even afford to fix their roof or they live in a rental situation. They also tend to live in older homes, if they do buy or rent, that are less efficient. These people are the ones who are most closely on a budget and cannot afford for hefty increases in the energy bills, much less an increase in everything else that will be affected by increase in energy prices.

A renter in an apartment cannot calk their windows or not use the dryer (no place to hang clothes, even if the temperatures and rain cooperate), they cannot insulate, or do many of the other electricity saving things. They do have an advantage that they are heating or cooling a smaller area than many/most houses. We had thermal curtains in one apartment we lived in (to keep the sun and heat out in the summer and keep the cold out in the winter), but in this one (LEED certified) we cannot hang our curtains in the living room because of existing blinds. Living situations: lots of apartments are placed near major roads, we can’t open our windows because of the noise from the semis, and because the bedroom windows are susceptible to having children fall out. Thus we have to run our air conditioner in the summer instead of having the windows open. Those of us in the upper midwest have serious heating costs in the winter, people die of exposure, and there are laws about turning off people’s electricity and even evicting tenants during a majority of the year because of temperatures.

 

[Erich]

So just because Al Gore or George Soros fail to mitigate AGW, is no reason for us to fail to mitigate it.

Al Gore and George Soros might have more credibility if they were to actually start practicing what they preach. As it is, they are both rather incredible (in the “impossible or very difficult to believe” sense, not the “wow, that’s amazing” sense).

 

[lynnvinc]

Except that is not the question. The question is, if they believe so strongly that “excess” CO2 emissions are going to kill us all, then why do they continue to emit CO2 far and above the “average” American.

That’s really their problem. I suggest you take it up with them.

I’m doing the best I can, but I know I emit a whole lot more than some poor person in Mali or India.

The other point is, some people are already conserving as much as possible for their living situations, they cannot reduce more in order to “save more.”

Maybe, maybe not. I’ve noticed a lot of poor people who are inefficient and non-conservative with resources/energy. Many people may not even know what can be done to reduce that, and instead reduce on food and medical needs. Which is a shame.

As taxes and regulations are imposed on oil and coal, these people (who are usually the poor) are going to be hurt the most. They cannot afford to buy volts or install solar panels (either because they can’t even afford to fix their roof or they live in a rental situation. They also tend to live in older homes, if they do buy or rent, that are less efficient. These people are the ones who are most closely on a budget and cannot afford for hefty increases in the energy bills, much less an increase in everything else that will be affected by increase in energy prices.

A renter in an apartment cannot calk their windows or not use the dryer (no place to hang clothes, even if the temperatures and rain cooperate), they cannot insulate, or do many of the other electricity saving things. They do have an advantage that they are heating or cooling a smaller area than many/most houses. We had thermal curtains in one apartment we lived in (to keep the sun and heat out in the summer and keep the cold out in the winter), but in this one (LEED certified) we cannot hang our curtains in the living room because of existing blinds. Living situations: lots of apartments are placed near major roads, we can’t open our windows because of the noise from the semis, and because the bedroom windows are susceptible to having children fall out. Thus we have to run our air conditioner in the summer instead of having the windows open. Those of us in the upper midwest have serious heating costs in the winter, people die of exposure, and there are laws about turning off people’s electricity and even evicting tenants during a majority of the year because of temperatures.

There are programs for the poor to help them with high energy costs (these actually amount to subsidies mainly for the fossil fuel industries). Again, many poor people may not know about these.

I would think a more comprehensive program that helps the poor and apt dwellers (and their landlords) become more efficient and conservative of energy/resources and to go onto alt energy would be great. To some extent stricter building codes help, but they fall pretty short.

Help for the poor, apt-dwellers, and landlords to become more efficient/conservative of energy/resources are areas that could use a lot of smart policies. I think we as a society need to come up with solutions. And policy-makers need (name removed by moderator)ut from people like you, so they can find out the problems…

As for the Volt (which is now reduced to $27,500 with the tax credit), it is not really feasible for apt dwellers, unless they have a plug point near their parking slot (it has an alarm if anyone tries to pull out the plug with the car locked).

However, it would be ideal for poor folks with facilities to charge it (who might be spending a similar amount on another car anyway), since it saves about $1000 a year.

I know a lot of lower income people who buy new cars – some for as much as the Volt price – with a loan, while for over 45 years we’ve always bought used cars for cash no matter what our financial situation, only buying the Volt (our final car) new and with a loan.

But again, the Volt is not for people who drive more than 40 miles a day on a regular basis, or for families of more than 4 (unless they have a 2nd car with more passenger space).

We all have to do what we can; that’s all God ever expects from us…unlike humans who often expect the impossible from us.

 

[jilly4ski]

That’s really their problem. I suggest you take it up with them.

I’m doing the best I can, but I know I emit a whole lot more than some poor person in Mali or India.

Maybe, maybe not. I’ve noticed a lot of poor people who are inefficient and non-conservative with resources/energy. Many people may not even know what can be done to reduce that, and instead reduce on food and medical needs. Which is a shame.

There are programs for the poor to help them with high energy costs (these actually amount to subsidies mainly for the fossil fuel industries). Again, many poor people may not know about these.

I would think a more comprehensive program that helps the poor and apt dwellers (and their landlords) become more efficient and conservative of energy/resources and to go onto alt energy would be great. To some extent stricter building codes help, but they fall pretty short.

Help for the poor, apt-dwellers, and landlords to become more efficient/conservative of energy/resources are areas that could use a lot of smart policies. I think we as a society need to come up with solutions. And policy-makers need (name removed by moderator)ut from people like you, so they can find out the problems…

As for the Volt (which is now reduced to $27,500 with the tax credit), it is not really feasible for apt dwellers, unless they have a plug point near their parking slot (it has an alarm if anyone tries to pull out the plug with the car locked).

However, it would be ideal for poor folks with facilities to charge it (who might be spending a similar amount on another car anyway), since it saves about $1000 a year.

I know a lot of lower income people who buy new cars – some for as much as the Volt price – with a loan, while for over 45 years we’ve always bought used cars for cash no matter what our financial situation, only buying the Volt (our final car) new and with a loan.

But again, the Volt is not for people who drive more than 40 miles a day on a regular basis, or for families of more than 4 (unless they have a 2nd car with more passenger space).

We all have to do what we can; that’s all God ever expects from us…unlike humans who often expect the impossible from us.

LOL, my guess is you don’t know many poor people or even just low income brackets. Poor people (maybe by definition?) cannot make large outlays of money in order to save money in the future (sometimes just buying the paper for the coupons is not doable because they can’t afford the subscription to get the paper cheapest). Three years ago I would not have been able to get a loan for a 27k car. I could hardly get a loan for a 10k vehicle. They cannot afford to charge the volt and increase their electricity bills, because they need the money for food, or rent. Sometimes just buying window coverings is too expensive. Plus poor people (low income people) are super busy and do not have the time or materials to conserve energy or money. (Sometimes they have to buy new because they can’t afford the material or tools to fix).

Yes, there is LIHEAP, but you have to apply, and not all people who are quite poor (or have their income tied up in things like rent and healthcare) qualify for it. The problem is that LIHEAP can’t even help everyone or cover all energy costs even now (it doesn’t pay for all your electricity costs, and seems more to be a subsidy to the energy provider so they don’t go short over winter months when people can’t pay the increase in usage). If energy costs go up, then LIHEAP won’t necessarily cover the excess, and people who don’t qualify will be squeezed even tighter. But this is just another cost that the taxpayers have to cover. Why increase energy prices in the first place and just make it easier on everyone.

And LOL, landlords are not going to overhaul their existing buildings to save their tenants $5 a month on their energy bills. My apartment puts wash and dryers in our units and then makes them coin operated so they can come by every month and collect the quarters. I suppose right there, they are making policies to conserve energy. Making laundry prohibitively expensive to make people not do laundry…
In fact when we were struggling, we hauled our laundry to my parent’s or in-law’s house every week to do laundry, since we were visiting anyways. In order to do so we had to fill up our van with gasoline . Now we have free washes, because our washer would never start, so they opened up the panel so we don’t have to pay, but still have to pay for the dryer.

 

[lynnvinc]

LOL, my guess is you don’t know many poor people or even just low income brackets. Poor people (maybe by definition?) cannot make large outlays of money in order to save money in the future (sometimes just buying the paper for the coupons is not doable because they can’t afford the subscription to get the paper cheapest). Three years ago I would not have been able to get a loan for a 27k car. I could hardly get a loan for a 10k vehicle. They cannot afford to charge the volt and increase their electricity bills, because they need the money for food, or rent. Sometimes just buying window coverings is too expensive. Plus poor people (low income people) are super busy and do not have the time or materials to conserve energy or money. (Sometimes they have to buy new because they can’t afford the material or tools to fix).

Yes, there is LIHEAP, but you have to apply, and not all people who are quite poor (or have their income tied up in things like rent and healthcare) qualify for it. The problem is that LIHEAP can’t even help everyone or cover all energy costs even now (it doesn’t pay for all your electricity costs, and seems more to be a subsidy to the energy provider so they don’t go short over winter months when people can’t pay the increase in usage). If energy costs go up, then LIHEAP won’t necessarily cover the excess, and people who don’t qualify will be squeezed even tighter. But this is just another cost that the taxpayers have to cover. Why increase energy prices in the first place and just make it easier on everyone.

And LOL, landlords are not going to overhaul their existing buildings to save their tenants $5 a month on their energy bills. My apartment puts wash and dryers in our units and then makes them coin operated so they can come by every month and collect the quarters. I suppose right there, they are making policies to conserve energy. Making laundry prohibitively expensive to make people not do laundry…
In fact when we were struggling, we hauled our laundry to my parent’s or in-law’s house every week to do laundry, since we were visiting anyways. In order to do so we had to fill up our van with gasoline . Now we have free washes, because our washer would never start, so they opened up the panel so we don’t have to pay, but still have to pay for the dryer.

Of course very poor people can’t afford new cars, but over the years I’ve been surprised to see a lot of lower income people get into pretty serious debt buying new cars on loan, furniture on loan, etc etc. I think for some it is a matter of grasping at status. Here in Texas a good portion of low income (and all people) have to have big fancy trucks (which don’t have good passenger space either). I very rarely see those trucks hauling anything. In fact a study showed that while 23% of Texans have trucks, only about 2% to 3% actually need them for work. We have a van (more efficient than those trucks) as a 2nd car and we do use it for work (hauling things about once a week), as well as when we need a 2nd car bec we’re on different schedules.

There is also the issue of a lot of money needed to maintain cars, esp older ones. It is a real bind for poor people if there is inadequate public transportation and they need to get to work. EVs are a lot cheaper to maintain (which is why the auto industry is against them).

I know about being poor. We were poor students for the first two years of our marriage 1969-71 (and individually for years before that), and even with his first job, we were pretty poor, esp since we were supporting his family in India (supporting his parents, father had retired, and educating his brothers and sister). That’s sort of how we got into the habit of being extremely frugal, and why we never bought a new car until now. What we did buy as soon as we could in 1972 was a home in a low income area ($1800 down, $165/month payments), then after a few years and facing prejudice in that community we bought another home in a better area, making some $2000 profit, then sold that when we moved to another state, making a $5000 profit. We didn’t always make huge profits, but it was a good track we were on rather than the new car track. (I know since the 2000s realty has been not a great path, unless one bought their 1st home when real estate hit rock bottom around 2010, as our niece did.)

Anyway bec of our very frugal habits and hubby being Indian (super-frugal) when we started down the energy/resource efficiency/conservation path in 1990 to mitigate AGW (we had already been living 1 to 2 miles from work all along), we started out with things that didn’t cost or that had small costs with good returns. For bigger items I presented hubby with a business plan that showed how the investment would be saving money. It took us over 20 years to reduce our GHG emissions more than 60%.

Hubby is very happy to be an environmentalist as long as we’re saving money on it He keeps asking if there are any other good environmental investments, now that he fully understands that these save money. He even takes bags when shopping (very low cost measure). The other day he took the bag but forgot to give it to the clerk, then told her to repack it in the bag bec the wife would get mad at him. The clerk told him he shouldn’t be afraid of anyone. He came and told me the story and said he wasn’t afraid of anyone, even me! I told him he had now become a complete American!

As mentioned God only expects us to do what we can, not what we can’t. (To be frank, we could have done more and could have done it faster…)

 

[lynnvinc]

Here is story re a study that atmospheric warming may be slow for another decade due to the 30 year current cycle in the Atlantic Ocean causing more of the warming to go into the ocean, but will pick up after then - time.com/3161971/global-warming-slowdown-climate-change/

And the studies to which the story refers: sciencemag.org/content/345/6199/897
& p. 5 of climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

 

[Erich]

There are programs for the poor to help them with high energy costs

But this is just another cost that the taxpayers have to cover. Why increase energy prices in the first place and just make it easier on everyone.

This.

 

[USMC_Convert]

Uhhh hmmm, any source that hasn’t been proven to be attempting to sway public, political, and scientific opinion with false or misleading information. That’s who I would trust. Hmmm now as for my sources, let’s see I worked at the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency), had access to all the information in the intelligence community (well that pertained to my missions) talked to lots of the professionals on both sides and reviewed the data with my team over time and did an objective analysis of the situation.

You see I don’t care either way, my job is the truth, if it’s good news who cares, if it’s bad news great, my job is even more important, I’m more needed, more people are coming to me, I’m da man!!!

The reason I’m so against it is because I saw the data, I saw what was going on with foreign governments and organizations, and I figured out the truth. So I wrote my analysis my team and I submitted our evidence and the U.S. Congress went with our suggestions. Whether it was our information that did it or not, the point is that if it truly was a threat there is no way they would have gone forward.

I honestly don’t care whose laughing now, I’ll be laughing in the end…

Which source of information on this issue would you not find laughable? Maybe I will find your sources even more laughable.

 

[estesbob]

This.

Reminds me of Reagans quip about Govt policy

1. If it moves tax it
2. If it continues to move regulate it
3. if it stops subsidize it.

 

[Bill1940]

Here is either fuel to add to the fire or perhaps a bucket of ice water,
breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming

The article also references the East Anglia controversy.

 

[Tomdstone]

Lowering emissions won’t help because it’s not the main problem…

It may not be the main proble, but that does not prove that lowering emission would not help even to some amount.

 

[ReConverted]

You May Be Denying Climate Change, But The US Military Isn’t

Read more: businessinsider.com/climate-change-military-2014-7#ixzz3C0HMrudI

 

[ReConverted]

House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/pentagon-climate-change_n_5382067.html

Ah, yes. The GOP is looking out for my grandkids “best interest” yet again.
I’ll just tell 'em "Yeah, they trashed your future, but hey, it was great for business!

 

[sps49]

House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change

huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/23/pentagon-climate-change_n_5382067.html

Ah, yes. The GOP is looking out for my grandkids “best interest” yet again.
I’ll just tell 'em "Yeah, they trashed your future, but hey, it was great for business!

What’s not to like? The text of the amendment is reproduced below, and unlike the Huffingpost’s headline of “House Directs Pentagon To Ignore Climate Change” what it really says is “PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS.” Hmm, didn’t see “ignore” in there.

The link to the amendment is: amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/MCCLIMATE51914080929929.pdf

Um, that does not sound like “Ignore Climate Change.” Fearmonger much?

AMENDMENT TO THE RULES COMMITTEE PRINT
FOR H.R. 4435
OFFERED BY MR. MCKINLEY OF WEST VIRGINIA
At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the following:
1 SEC. 318. PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT
2 CERTAIN CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS
3 AND REPORTS.
4 None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or
5 otherwise made available by this Act may be used to imple
6ment the U.S. Global Change Research Program National
7 Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Cli
8mate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Na
9tion’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the
10 May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon
11 for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order
12 12866.

Have a great day, thanks for playing…

 

[ReConverted]

“PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS.” Hmm, didn’t see “ignore” in there.

“Don’t spend money researching this”. That’s not ignoring the problem? Wow.

 

[sps49]

“PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT CERTAIN CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENTS AND REPORTS.” Hmm, didn’t see “ignore” in there.

“Don’t spend money researching this”. That’s not ignoring the problem? Wow.

No reason to be defensive, there are plenty of reading comprehension programs out there to help you.

 

[ReConverted]

Rift Widening Between Energy And Insurance Industries Over Climate Change

forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2014/05/18/rift-widening-between-energy-and-insurance-industries-over-climate-change/ <— From Forbes, not exactly a magazine for “Liberal elites” and “Environmental whackos”.

 

[ReConverted]

No reason to be defensive, there are plenty of reading comprehension programs out there to help you.

You go with that story. Wow, 2 Ad hominems in one sentence. Nice goin’.

PS: I was going to chide you about reading comprehension, but I figured it wouldn’t be charitable. Have a good day and God bless you.

 

[sps49]

You go with that story. Wow, 2 Ad hominems in one sentence. Nice goin’.

PS: I was going to chide you about reading comprehension, but I figured it wouldn’t be charitable. Have a good day and God bless you.

Chide away. While you are at it, remember to read the black part.