• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

New report on climate change released today

More anti-science claptrap from the science ignorant speaker of the house;

NancyPelosi said:
Here we are, on the eve of 9/11, the 19th anniversary of 9/11, as we are filled with sadness, continued to be filled with sadness about those who lost their lives at that time and since from consequences of 9/11. That was going to be our focus this week. We have these fires in California, and in the West, 16 people have died in Washington, Oregon, and California, including a firefighter and a 1-year-old baby. We -- our firefighters have been so, very, very courageous.
Now, we're, again, breaking records. Mother Earth is angry. She's telling us -- whether - she's telling us with hurricanes on the Gulf Coast, fires in the West, whatever it is, that climate crisis is real and has an impact.

realclearpolitics

One short step away before we are back to doing a rain dance or sacrificing virgins to appease mother earth when the crops fail due to lack of rain or whatever.

It really-is a rapture like cult.
 
The most telling aspect of the whole "it's not settled science this is just natural climate variation nothing to worry about" is the distinct lack of a scientific theory that supports this position. It's all well and good to claim that the IPCC is part of some eco-globalist conspiracy, or dwell on the unscientific statements made by politicians and activists, but where's the science that explains what's really going on with the climate?

Not every climate scientist agrees with the consensus that man-made CO2 is driving our current warming. But the most interesting and relevant sceptics are those who have offered alternative climate models where variation in solar activity is responsible for variation in Earth's climate. For instance, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen propose that cosmic rays are the main driver of climate change as they cause clouds to form, and the amount of cosmic radiation reaching Earth varies with solar activity (the sun acts as a shield against cosmic radiation). Their model predicts that, as the sun goes through its 11 year cycle of rising and then falling irradiance, Earth's climate should heat up and cool down. Their prediction is actually correct - the climate does vary with this 11-year cycle - but this effect is drowned out by a much larger trend of almost linear increase in global temperatures. The solar cycle, or the indirect effect of cosmic rays, can't explain that trend. Even a repeat of the Maunder Minimum would only have a tiny effect on the current trend.

One of the more unscientific claims is that the "climate has changed before, and this current warming is just more of that". The most obvious problem with this explanation is that past variation in climate is extremely slow compared to what we're observing now. Some of the more imaginative "citizen scientists" out there claim that the past climate actually changed much more rapidly than current reconstructions show, but we just can't see it because our temperature proxies (ice cores) lack the necessary resolution. Basically, they believe that the climate has always been highly variable and the evidence to the contrary is just wrong. Of course, this belief in rapid natural variations in climate is offered without any attempt to explain what physical processes are driving the current warming.

The distinct lack of scientific evidence behind this belief is why its proponents instead prefer to focus their criticism on activists and politicians. The science may not support their position, but they might be able to recruit more AGW deniers sceptics if they criticise the hyperbolic rhetoric of leftist champions like Al Gore and Greta Thunberg. Make climate change part of the culture war rather than a question of science. Conservatives and right wing populists around the world have done this to great effect.
 
ExxonMobil on Twitter: "We are aware of the President’s statement regarding a hypothetical call with our CEO…and just so we’re all clear, it never happened." / Twitter
then
Sunrise Movement 🌅 on Twitter: "Ok cool, but lets talk about this https://t.co/xz1oDuSFTz" / Twitter

noting

Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years | Climate change | The Guardian - Wed 8 Jul 2015 16.41 EDT - "A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it"

ExxonMobil misled the public about the climate crisis. Now they're trying to silence critics | Climate change | The Guardian - Fri 16 Oct 2020 08.42 EDT - "Newly leaked documents reported by Bloomberg News show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought"
Newly leaked documents, reported recently by Bloomberg News, show that ExxonMobil’s climate dishonesty is even worse than we thought. While the company privately has an internal “plan for surging carbon emissions…by as much as the output of the entire nation of Greece,” according to Bloomberg, ExxonMobil executives “shield their carbon forecasts from investors.” In other words, ExxonMobil drew up plans to expand fossil fuel production, internally calculated how much this would increase their carbon dioxide emissions, then failed to disclose those estimates to investors. Indeed, the company has never publicly disclosed its emissions forecasts. In response to the Bloomberg report, ExxonMobil claimed that the leaked documents were not up-to-date, but declined to provide “any details on the new projections,” according to Bloomberg.

...
Unable to disprove our findings, ExxonMobil’s critique has resorted to quoting a non-peer-reviewed report commissioned and paid for by the company. Instead of subjecting their positions to the independent scrutiny of academic peer-review, as we (and all scientists) do, ExxonMobil found a backdoor, so that they could then claim that our work has been refuted.

These Big Tobacco-style tactics – doubt-mongering, character assassination, intellectual hitjobs, and undisclosed conflicts of interest – are precisely the sort of product-defense maneuvers that ExxonMobil perfected while attacking climate science and climate scientists. The only difference now is that they are coming after the social sciences, too.

The second one noted
Exxon Carbon Emissions and Climate: Leaked Plans Reveal Rising CO2 Output - Bloomberg - "Internal projections from one of world’s largest oil producers show an increase in its enormous contribution to global warming"
 
Kate Aronoff on Twitter: "It's dishonest and irresponsible at this point for reporters to keep using a job versus environment frame when 100,000+ people have lost their jobs in the oil and gas industry this year" / Twitter
then
Marcus Mizell on Twitter: "@KateAronoff @AOC It's time for a new trade. Solar and electric energy is the future. We have to get the ball rolling You can't keep living in this steam combustion engine world the new world is renewable energy reserved energy and long-lasting and faster powered energy. It's time to end fracking!" / Twitter

That seems mixed up. There are two kinds of engines that this author is mixing up.
  • Steam engines
  • Internal combustion engines
Steam engines are essentially external combustion engines, though some of them are powered by nuclear reactors.

They work by boiling some water, with the resulting steam then driving pistons or turbines or both. They are external combustion engines, because the burning of their fuel occurs outside of those pistons and/or turbines, in separate water boilers.

In internal combustion engines, the burning of their fuel takes places in the engines' pistons or turbines. Yes, jet engines are internal combustion engines, though turbine ones and not piston ones.
 
The Case for Reviving the Civilian Conservation Corps | WIRED
In 1933, with the country deep in the Great Depression, the United States government created the Civilian Conservation Corps, a work program that gave young men jobs transforming the American landscape. They built trails and roads, fought fires, and maintained critical infrastructure, among many, many other projects.

“The CCC was absolutely massive,” says environmental economist Mark Paul of the New College of Florida. At its peak, it employed half a million workers—over its nine-year lifetime, the total figure was 3 million, about 5 percent of the US male population at the time. “So it's really a kind of hallmark program in American history that provided youth with economic opportunity while bringing them close to nature,” he continues.

In 2020, we face massive unemployment and a host of environmental problems that need fixing: wildfires in the West, flood-prone areas along the Gulf of Mexico, all manner of dams on the verge of collapse. Nearly a century after the original CCC came into being, some folks argue it’s time to bring it back.
WIRED Science on Twitter: "If the US brought back the Great Depression’s massive worker program, it could put millions of Americans back to work—and help stave off disasters like wildfires. https://t.co/gmyuPXRGaY" / Twitter

Then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Interesting... like a New Deal, but Green." / Twitter

Mazarin on Twitter: "@AOC As someone who works in the environmental sector, people really underestimate the amount of money and jobs we actually create through cleanup, monitoring, evaluation, and green tech like wind and solar." / Twitter
 
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "If we‘ve been identified as public enemy #1 to the worst president in modern history and an entire party of his sycophants, then we must be doing something right." / Twitter

Noting
Tom Nichols on Twitter: "Trump says “AOC +3“ and Biden burst out laughing. Trump also has now taken the bait on buildings with little bitty windows. #Debates2020" / Twitter

Eddie Martin on Twitter: "@RadioFreeTom Someone help me out -- what is Trump on about with the windows?" / Twitter

Mzakal9108 on Twitter: "@Eddie_NYC @RadioFreeTom He has shares with windows company." / Twitter


Derek West on Twitter: "@UpstateSaucer12 @Cfauvel @eric_cleverpun @Eddie_NYC @RadioFreeTom We just replaced the single pane windows from 1968 with double paned insulated with argon gas. It's amazing how much energy that saved us. Only took 52 years and I know just about every house on our block has the old ones." / Twitter

TessM on Twitter: "@Derek_Westt @UpstateSaucer12 @Cfauvel @eric_cleverpun @Eddie_NYC @RadioFreeTom We have been meaning to replace our 35YO windows but can't agree on several that we think we want to change (some don't open, etc).

I'll show this to my husband and will get the job done." / Twitter


-

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The whole conversation about the GND “killing jobs” is a fossil fuel lobbyist talking point that neglects the fact that MILLIONS more jobs stand to be created by investing in building a national grid, installing millions of solar panels, wind turbines, new infrastructure, etc." / Twitter
 
My latest copy of The Architect's Newspaper and Trump and His Tiny Windows.

Biden administration would move to “abolish the suburbs” and even suggested that it would make windows illegal to scare white suburbanites for natural light, natural ventilation, and other quality-of-life-enhancing features 80 percent of people are uncomfortable we will miss the “good old days” of air conditioning two-thirds of Americans support not against it.
 
I was wondering what that whole bit was about!
 
Thank goodness;

After a three-year delay, the US has become the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. President Trump announced the move in June 2017, but UN regulations meant that his decision only takes effect today, the day after the US election.

BBC
 
Thank goodness;

After a three-year delay, the US has become the first nation in the world to formally withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. President Trump announced the move in June 2017, but UN regulations meant that his decision only takes effect today, the day after the US election.

BBC

We pulled out for the wrong reason.

Paris is a joke, but it's still too much for His Flatulence.
 
What a nasty move.

Trump’s EPA launches surprise attack on Biden’s climate rules - POLITICO - "The rule, finished just a week before the president-elect takes office, would block future limits on greenhouse gases from industrial sources aside from power plants."
In a surprise move, the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday will unveil a climate rule that will effectively prohibit the future regulation of greenhouse gases from any stationary industry other than power plants.

The rule comes just eight days before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, who has pledged a multitrillion-dollar initiative that would combat climate change by making sharp cuts in the United States' carbon dioxide pollution. The new regulation could hamstring much of that agenda, for example by prohibiting Biden's EPA from setting carbon limits on oil and gas wells or refineries.

POLITICO on Twitter: "In a surprise move, the EPA today will unveil a climate rule that will effectively prohibit the future regulation of greenhouse gases from any stationary industry other than power plants https://t.co/qqGncZr5Le" / Twitter
then
Rep. Katie Porter on Twitter: "Not only would this make it easier for polluters to escape accountability; this shady rule was written in secret without the required opportunity for public comment. As a member of @NRDems, I'll conduct aggressive oversight to stop this last-ditch effort to shield polluters." / Twitter
 
What a nasty move.

Trump’s EPA launches surprise attack on Biden’s climate rules - POLITICO - "The rule, finished just a week before the president-elect takes office, would block future limits on greenhouse gases from industrial sources aside from power plants."
In a surprise move, the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday will unveil a climate rule that will effectively prohibit the future regulation of greenhouse gases from any stationary industry other than power plants.

The rule comes just eight days before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, who has pledged a multitrillion-dollar initiative that would combat climate change by making sharp cuts in the United States' carbon dioxide pollution. The new regulation could hamstring much of that agenda, for example by prohibiting Biden's EPA from setting carbon limits on oil and gas wells or refineries.

POLITICO on Twitter: "In a surprise move, the EPA today will unveil a climate rule that will effectively prohibit the future regulation of greenhouse gases from any stationary industry other than power plants https://t.co/qqGncZr5Le" / Twitter
then
Rep. Katie Porter on Twitter: "Not only would this make it easier for polluters to escape accountability; this shady rule was written in secret without the required opportunity for public comment. As a member of @NRDems, I'll conduct aggressive oversight to stop this last-ditch effort to shield polluters." / Twitter

WTF is a "rule"? And what does "unveiling" consist of?
If it's not a law, Biden should issue a new blanket "rule" that all Trump's stupid "rules" are to be disregarded.
 
Will corporations lead the way when it comes to climate change?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/business/dealbook/larry-fink-letter-blackrock-climate.html

A year ago this month, the BlackRock chief Laurence D. Fink wrote a letter to the world’s C.E.O.s with an urgent message: Climate change will be “a defining factor in companies’ long-term prospects.” Underscoring his point, he added, “We are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance.”

Coming from arguably the world’s most powerful investor — BlackRock controls nearly $9 trillion, making it far and away the largest such firm — this letter landed with seismic force in boardrooms across the globe. In the weeks that followed, Microsoft announced a plan to be carbon-negative by 2030, Salesforce pledged to conserve or restore 100 million trees over the next decade and even Delta Air Lines announced a $1 billion effort to be carbon-neutral in 10 years.

Still, skeptics argued that Mr. Fink’s support for the reform-minded E.S.G. movement — which stands for environmental, social and governance — was a marketing gimmick that companies would back in an economic boom but shun in a crisis. If corporate America had to pick between cutting sustainability programs or dividends for investors, the thinking went, sustainability programs would be the first to go.

Then the Covid-19 pandemic arrived and something unusual happened: E.S.G. didn’t collapse, it accelerated. In particular, the emphasis on climate change became an even greater focus within companies and among investors, who piled into the stocks of sustainable companies en masse — driving up the values of companies like Tesla and doubling the money invested in sustainability-oriented mutual funds. This gave fuel to Mr. Fink’s thesis: Green investing is profitable.

Regardless of whether their motivation if profit or not, I think this is a positive thing. Government and corporations are all lead by humans, so I don't care which group of humans do positive things to move forward in regards to climate change.
 
Earth is now losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice each year. And it’s going to get worse.
Ice is melting faster worldwide, with greater sea-level rise anticipated, studies show.


Global ice loss has increased rapidly over the past two decades, and scientists are still underestimating just how much sea levels could rise, according to alarming new research published this month.

From the thin ice shield covering most of the Arctic Ocean to the mile-thick mantle of the polar ice sheets, ice losses have soared from about 760 billion tons per year in the 1990s to more than 1.2 trillion tons per year in the 2010s, a new study released Monday shows. That is an increase of more than 60 percent, equating to 28 trillion tons of melted ice in total — and it means that roughly 3 percent of all the extra energy trapped within Earth’s system by climate change has gone toward turning ice into water.

“That’s like more than 10,000 ‘Back to the Future’ lightning strikes per second of energy melting ice around-the-clock since 1994,” said William Colgan, an ice-sheet expert at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “That is just a bonkers amount of energy.”
 
Earth is now losing 1.2 trillion tons of ice each year. And it’s going to get worse.
Ice is melting faster worldwide, with greater sea-level rise anticipated, studies show.


Global ice loss has increased rapidly over the past two decades, and scientists are still underestimating just how much sea levels could rise, according to alarming new research published this month.

From the thin ice shield covering most of the Arctic Ocean to the mile-thick mantle of the polar ice sheets, ice losses have soared from about 760 billion tons per year in the 1990s to more than 1.2 trillion tons per year in the 2010s, a new study released Monday shows. That is an increase of more than 60 percent, equating to 28 trillion tons of melted ice in total — and it means that roughly 3 percent of all the extra energy trapped within Earth’s system by climate change has gone toward turning ice into water.

“That’s like more than 10,000 ‘Back to the Future’ lightning strikes per second of energy melting ice around-the-clock since 1994,” said William Colgan, an ice-sheet expert at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland. “That is just a bonkers amount of energy.”

We all have to make sacrifices, and I'm doing my part. Having my bourbon straight up instead of on the rocks.
 
Back
Top Bottom