Widgets Magazine
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 260

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #51

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Bees in their natural habitat are dying as well. What kills one kills all. Everytime you spray insecticide for any pest, you threaten beneficial insects. "Give me spots on my apple, but leave me the birds and the bees."

    Wild bees are in even worse shape than honeybees | TIME.com

  2. #52

    Default Re: Climate Change

    We didn't use any weed killer this year and our yard looks fine. So many unnecessary chemicals in our lives. Also, plant flowers. Good for the bees.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Interesting NY Times Op Ed on Pope's take on Climate change:

    The issue of climate change — unlike, say, the economy — may not be a matter of everyday concern to many Americans or most citizens of the planet. The debate is too often clouded by ideology and well-financed attempts to sow doubt about the underlying science. Even among those aware enough to worry, the long-term consequences can seem remote. As one futile international conference after another has attested, the facts alone have not been enough to move world governments to take decisive action.
    Enter now Pope Francis with “Laudato Si.” Leaked on Monday, and presented to an expectant world on Thursday, “Laudato Si” is the first papal encyclical devoted solely to environmental issues — and also, Pope Francis clearly hopes, the beginning of the broad moral awakening necessary to persuade not just one billion Catholic faithful, but humanity at large, of our collective responsibility to pass along a clean and safe planet to future generations. In other words, to do the things that mere facts have not inspired us to do.
    Thus far, he made clear, we mortals have made a mess of it, polluting the air and water, destroying forests and wildlife, wantonly wasting resources. “The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth,” he declared. “In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish.”
    A papal document along these lines had been expected for months, but even so, the language packed an unexpectedly authoritative and confident punch, especially on global warming. “Climate change is a global problem with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, political and for the distribution of goods,” he wrote. “It represents one of the principal challenges facing humanity in our day.”
    Echoing the virtually unanimous findings of mainstream scientists, Pope Francis fixes the blame squarely on humans and their burning of fossil fuels, while warning of an “unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us.” The hardest-hit — here again he echoes mainstream thinking — will be the poorest citizens of the poorest countries, those least able to adapt to the rising seas and devastating droughts and floods that are likely to occur even in this century without swift remedial action.
    The timing of “Laudato Si” could not have been better. In December, delegates from nearly 200 nations will gather in Paris to make one more attempt at a global arrangement that would commit all nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, before atmospheric concentrations reach what some believe is the point beyond which truly intolerable consequences are inescapable. Some countries, including the United States and the European Union, have already published their commitments — President Obama has pledged to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. Other big emitters, including China and Brazil, are expected to do so well before Paris.
    Although the Vatican has not said so, Pope Francis must surely have intended the document as a nudge to individual governments; Brazil, for instance, has a large Catholic population and may see his words as cover for what could be unpopular policies to limit development and the clearing of forests for agricultural purposes — a restriction that is essential to any effective climate policy.
    Sadly, the encyclical, compelling as it is, is unlikely to have a similarly positive effect on American politics. The Republican presidential candidates, on the whole, have avoided discussing climate change, at least when they’re not dismissing it completely as an issue. Meanwhile, in Congress, by straight party-line votes, both the House and Senate appropriations committees have passed bills that would make it impossible for President Obama to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants — the centerpiece of the strategy he intends to present to the negotiators in Paris.
    Even though Mr. Obama is virtually certain to veto such measures, the fact that a majority in Congress does not support him cannot help his credibility as a world leader on the climate issue. But of course, that matters not a bit to the likes of Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader. What concerns Mr. McConnell is whether the Environmental Protection Agency will impose new rules on the coal mining industry in Kentucky.
    A pope in Rome worries about how we can shepherd the planet safely into the future. If only the senator from Kentucky and others in Congress could join him in thinking bigger.

  4. #54

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by okatty View Post
    A pope in Rome worries about how we can shepherd the planet safely into the future. If only the senator from Kentucky and others in Congress could join him in thinking bigger.
    That would be nice (if only the senator from ...), but the elephant(s) in the room are other economies, especially emerging economies.

  5. #55

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Hmm, this would put global warming on the backburner for over 50 years if this actually occurred. A "Mini ice age" would level out and may even cause the human population to decline.

    Scientists predict 'mini ice age' will hit in 15 years - AOL.com

  6. #56

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post
    You are right that the planet goes through normal warming and cooling cycles, but never at the rate of what we are currently experiencing. The current warming cycle is being greatly accelerated by human activity.

    The Earth has warmed and cooled very quickly in geologic history. Massive volcanic eruptions (think the likes of Yellowstone or bigger) eject massive amounts of ash into the atmosphere which can cause rapid cooling. Out gassing from massive lava flows (Deccan Traps) can cause rapid warming that last quite a while. You also can't rule out meteor impacts. All of these things trigger positive feedback systems which can accelerate climate change. To say the earth has never had climate change events as rapidly as this is a little shortsighted. Now, whether or not we can survive the climate that the earth experienced millions of years ago has yet to be seen. I guess we'll all have to move to Canada...

  7. #57

    Default Re: Climate Change

    The truth is never embarrassed by honest inquiry.

  8. #58

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by C_M_25 View Post
    The Earth has warmed and cooled very quickly in geologic history. Massive volcanic eruptions (think the likes of Yellowstone or bigger) eject massive amounts of ash into the atmosphere which can cause rapid cooling. Out gassing from massive lava flows (Deccan Traps) can cause rapid warming that last quite a while. You also can't rule out meteor impacts. All of these things trigger positive feedback systems which can accelerate climate change. To say the earth has never had climate change events as rapidly as this is a little shortsighted. Now, whether or not we can survive the climate that the earth experienced millions of years ago has yet to be seen. I guess we'll all have to move to Canada...
    Some things just are. At some point, we all have accepted the scientific consensus on multitudes of things.

    According to the NASA page (link below) 97% of climate scientists accept - as fact - that human beings and the Industrial Revolution have caused the current global warming pattern. While the first tangible link to distant humanity began some seven million years ago, it is only within the past 150-175 years that humans have had the ability to alter our living greenhouse. That is just a fact. From the first factory smokestacks in Europe to the current world population of some seven billion people, relying on fossil fuels to drive the modern lifestyle, it has only been around 170 years. Why can so many people not accept that this has created a situation that is now out-of-control? One answer: because the love of money is the root of all evil. It has been used to mislead people to favor and support the status quo - which is killing us.

    The science of this isn't even that difficult when explained without a lot of industry propoganda. NASA has done an exceptional job: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  9. #59
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    12,600
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by soonerguru View Post
    We didn't use any weed killer this year and our yard looks fine. So many unnecessary chemicals in our lives. Also, plant flowers. Good for the bees.
    Yeah, for instance, zinnias do good in this summer heat.

  10. #60

  11. #61

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Sorry, I can't take her opinion as anything more than that. She was fired from HP after a dismal record there. Her track record in her area of expertise, not so good. Now she wants to tell us she knows more than the vast majority of people who have dedicated their professional lives to this issue?

  12. Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by zookeeper View Post
    According to the NASA page (link below) 97% of climate scientists accept - as fact - that human beings and the Industrial Revolution have caused the current global warming pattern.

    The science of this isn't even that difficult when explained without a lot of industry propoganda. NASA has done an exceptional job: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    It always amazes me how absolute, incontrovertible, inviolable, irrefutable, unchallengeable, you-should-be-shot-if-you-dissent scientific fact still only accumulates a 97% "vote" among this "scientific" community.

    I've got a great idea. Maybe if we put "2+2=3" out there as "fact" and get 97% to agree to it, that will magically become fact, too, under this new era of "science by quorum."

  13. Default Re: Climate Change

    There is a reason why politics needs to stay out of science. People shouldn't be forming their understanding of something scientific through political talking points.

  14. #64

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by zookeeper View Post
    Some things just are. At some point, we all have accepted the scientific consensus on multitudes of things.

    According to the NASA page (link below) 97% of climate scientists accept - as fact - that human beings and the Industrial Revolution have caused the current global warming pattern. The science of this isn't even that difficult when explained without a lot of industry propoganda. NASA has done an exceptional job: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    The other 3% are funded by corporate interests who are trying to muddy the water.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    6,181
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by SoonerDave View Post
    It always amazes me how absolute, incontrovertible, inviolable, irrefutable, unchallengeable, you-should-be-shot-if-you-dissent scientific fact still only accumulates a 97% "vote" among this "scientific" community.

    I've got a great idea. Maybe if we put "2+2=3" out there as "fact" and get 97% to agree to it, that will magically become fact, too, under this new era of "science by quorum."
    If you have all the mountains of evidence that 2+2=3, by all means put it out there and see how smart or stupid you look. The idea that somehow evidence and scientific method is humbo jumbo and a big conspiracy is more evidence of the major anti intellectual and anti education movement in the US, in particular. Come to think of it, you can probably get 97% of the tea partiers to agree 2+2=3, but not mathematicians. So, go for it.

  16. #66

    Default Re: Climate Change

    + 1 ^

  17. #67

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	51.6 KB 
ID:	11337i

  18. #68

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Boss View Post
    Sorry, I can't take her opinion as anything more than that. She was fired from HP after a dismal record there. Her track record in her area of expertise, not so good. Now she wants to tell us she knows more than the vast majority of people who have dedicated their professional lives to this issue?
    Al Gore was championed as the God of Climate Change but he was only a life-long politician. Few CEOs dont get let go at some point and with little fanfare but at least Fiorina has accomplished something that few women have accomplished which is to make it to the CEO level of a major corporation. But i guess only Democrat women get credit for that.

  19. #69

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by mugofbeer View Post
    Al Gore was championed as the God of Climate Change but he was only a life-long politician. Few CEOs dont get let go at some point and with little fanfare but at least Fiorina has accomplished something that few women have accomplished which is to make it to the CEO level of a major corporation. But i guess only Democrat women get credit for that.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/bu...ling.html?_r=0

    30, 000 laid off and HP stock lost 50% of it's value during her 5 year tenure. Yes Carly accomplished something few women, heck few men managed to accomplish. Thank our lucky stars. I shudder to think how she would run the country. Sheesh.

  20. #70

    Default Re: Climate Change

    I'll just drop this here.

    Climate change denier Rupert Murdoch just bought National Geographic

    https://boingboing.net/2015/09/09/ru...ought-nat.html

  21. #71

    Default Re: Climate Change

    Quote Originally Posted by Jersey Boss View Post
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/bu...ling.html?_r=0

    30, 000 laid off and HP stock lost 50% of it's value during her 5 year tenure. Yes Carly accomplished something few women, heck few men managed to accomplish. Thank our lucky stars. I shudder to think how she would run the country. Sheesh.
    The Hill on August 27 (if i knew how to copy and paste on my phone i would provide the link) quotes a HP Board member who at-first voted to fire her, says that she did what she was brought in to do....save the company from demise. He states he was wrong to be the ringleader to oust her.

    Yes a lot lost jobs and the stock price declined but in business, that is sometimes what has to be done to keep a company from going out of business. Shrinking the company is sometimes the only way to survive.....see Texas Instruments.

  22. Default Re: Climate Change

    This is a climate-change nightmare: Droughts rage and fires burn, while evil ALEC and hapless Democrats dither - Salon.com

    "1. We must act now, not vow to act in five or 15 years. If we wait till it gets any hotter it’ll be too late. In a 2012 Rolling Stone article, Bill McKibben sketched some now famous math done by British financial analysts. Their bottom line: to stay under the 2 C limit we must leave 80 percent of all coal, oil and gas reserves in the ground. “Keep it in the ground” has since become a worldwide battle cry. On Tuesday 400 organizations and individuals called on Obama to stop leasing federal lands and waters to oil and gas companies. He should do as they ask. When he does he should tell the American people he now knows it is no longer a distinction to lead the world in fossil fuel production, and that we must leave most of what we have found in the ground.

    Obama has two entirely divergent energy policies. The time has come for him to pick one. Natural gas is not, as he would have it, a bridge to a clean energy future. Fracking is dangerous and a giant waste of resources. We’d emit far less CO2 and import far less oil by spending the money on weatherization and other forms of conservation. Conservation is the real bridge to a clean energy future. It would help if he began saying so. We don’t need oil that is dirty, expensive and dangerous to recover. That means no shale oil, and no Keystone pipeline.

    2. All of our current carbon reduction programs are ineffective. Fuel efficiency standards are a case in point. In 2012 Obama announced tough new rules requiring new cars and trucks to average 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But it seems the government lets automakers cheat on the tests. The Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that a car that posts 54.5 mpg on the fake test will only get 39.4 mpg on a real road. In effect, the rules give automakers 10 years to sell us cars they sell in Europe right now.

    When Obama announced these rules in 2012, annual gasoline consumption in the U.S. had hit a modern low of 133.4 billion gallons. Analysts predicted even steeper declines. Instead, consumption rose a billion gallons in 2013. In 2014 it rose 2 billion gallons. It’s on track to rise 4 billion gallons in 2015. Why? As gas prices fell, people drove more miles and bought fewer hybrid or all-electric cars and more gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs. Obama loves “market-based solutions.” But when this year’s market demands more trucks and fewer hybrids it drags down fuel efficiency next year and for years to come. We just can’t afford that.

    Obama’s love for market-based solutions is one reason why rules like these get written in closed-door sessions pitting high-priced industry talent against political appointees and civil servants. Behind all the market jargon hides a hard truth: We have ceded to corporations much of our power to regulate commerce in the public interest. To get fundamental change, we must take it back.

    3. The move to green energy can happen fast and if done right will be far from painful, even in the short term. Yet even Democrats frame the choice as a trade of present pain for future comfort; endure some hardship now and you’ll be spared worse down the line. Here is Obama in Anchorage:

    It will not be easy. There are hard questions to answer. I am not trying to suggest that there are not going to be difficult transitions that we all have to make. But if we… make our best efforts to protect this planet for future generations, we can solve this problem.

    We must stop talking like this. The faster we go green, the less we suffer — and not in the sweet by and by but right now. Consider conservation. Even as prices fall, the cheapest energy is still the energy you don’t use. Families and businesses can reap vast savings from conservation. Add the many hundreds of thousands of direct jobs a national conservation campaign could generate and you begin to grasp the real economics of the choices we now face. The same is true of renewables, especially solar.

    In the last five years the cost of solar electricity has fallen by an astonishing 50 percent. In the world’s sunnier climes solar power is already cheaper than any fossil fuel. Another 50 percent drop in solar prices and it’ll be game over. You’d think this would spur a massive public investment in photovoltaic research and development. You’d be wrong. Instead, at the worst possible moment, government incentives for solar installation are drying up. State and local subsidies are down 80 percent from their 2002 high. The federal income tax credit is set to expire. As noted, utilities want to impose monthly fees on solar panels. I’d say there was a conspiracy to slow the pace of solar energy, but it’s all too obvious to be called a conspiracy.

    4. This is a fabulous opportunity, not a hard choice. The transition to a sustainable economy based on conservation and renewable energy is the economic recovery program the politicians have been looking for but can’t find. In the ’90s America prospered because it led the world into the information age. The green revolution is even bigger and, as grows clearer every day, more benign. And yet we seem content to let other nations lead the way."

  23. #73

  24. #74

    Default Re: Climate Change

    I told myself I'd stay away from this thread, but I found this to be incredibly telling and interesting: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/27/high-water/

  25. #75

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NCSE Launches Climate Change Initiative
    By HewenttoJared in forum Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 08:04 AM
  2. Huntsman changes tune on climate change
    By Prunepicker in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-06-2011, 09:59 PM
  3. Climate Change--->Increased Conflict
    By HewenttoJared in forum Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-27-2011, 01:37 AM
  4. Climate Change a Threat to National Security?
    By dismayed in forum Politics
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 07-05-2008, 12:18 AM
  5. Global Climate Change
    By dismayed in forum Politics
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 05-01-2008, 10:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO