That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://garbi.online/forum/
Because Global Warming is just for Americans.em2nought wrote:Those possible "future" folks were going to have very unhappy lives anyway, having no social security income in their senior years.coopasonic wrote:Hmmm, it's too hard so I guess we just forget it and let the world burn. Why should I care, I'll be dead.
Because Americans are expected to be the one's that pony up the dinero for the fight.Paingod wrote:Because Global Warming is just for Americans.
That's due to labor cost - nothing altruistic.Isgrimnur wrote:And China is leading the world in solar panel production.
They also have more capacity installed than we do. And that's from four years ago.stessier wrote:That's due to labor cost - nothing altruistic.Isgrimnur wrote:And China is leading the world in solar panel production.
This is a country that built whole cities that stand empty to keep it's economy moving. They bet big on solar production and heavily subsidized it's deployment. There's no where else in the world that could compete with their prices - so now we all buy our panels from them. I'm not really complaining about that or the results - but this is not something they did planning to help the environment - they wanted a high tech business and made sure they would win.Isgrimnur wrote:They also have more capacity installed than we do. And that's from four years ago.stessier wrote:That's due to labor cost - nothing altruistic.Isgrimnur wrote:And China is leading the world in solar panel production.
Some people are not amused by his ridonkulosity. https://twitter.com/alroker/status/905454753622216704Limbaugh also claimed the storm was being used to push an environmental agenda. He said, “People in all of these government areas” are “hell-bent” on proving climate change.
“You can accomplish a lot just by creating fear and panic,” he said. “You don’t need a hurricane to hit anywhere. All you need is to create the fear and panic accompanied by talk that climate change is causing hurricanes to become more frequent and bigger and more dangerous, and you create the panic, and it’s mission accomplished, agenda advanced.”
Even Hurricane Harvey, which devastated portions of the Gulf Coast of Texas, was part of this conspiracy.
“Hurricane Harvey and the TV pictures that accompany that go a long way to helping further and create the panic,” Limbaugh said.
After spending the entire segment politicizing storm preparations and coverage, Limbaugh lamented how political everything has become.
“I wish that not everything that involved news had become corrupted and politicized, but it just has,” he said.
Limbaugh made similar comments about hurricanes last year, claiming the storms were being used to push a political agenda.
“It’s in the interest of the left to have destructive hurricanes because then they can blame it on climate change, which they can desperately continue trying to sell,” he said in October 2016.
@alroker wrote:To have @rushlimbaugh suggest the warnings about #Irma are #fake or about profit and to ignore them borders on criminal. #ShameOnRush
It's not a new thing. Serious meteorologists are always quick to say that we shouldn't point to just one event as evidence of climate change.Unagi wrote:OK Rip, but hurricane folks are describing the 3 lined up to be a new thing.... what's your counter?
This is not the first time Rush has gone on a spiel like that. While Rush is peddling shit his audience wants to hear, it's incredibly wrong.Rip wrote:Wow, way to totally muck up what he was saying.
Yeah, but when comparing the pictures above... what stands out to me is that those older historic hurricanes were all mostly white. These are RED.pr0ner wrote:There were FOUR hurricanes active at the same time in 1998. And in 1893.
You should probably Google the differences between infrared/computer enhanced satellite imagery and visible satellite imagery and get back to me.Unagi wrote:Yeah, but when comparing the pictures above... what stands out to me is that those older historic hurricanes were all mostly white. These are RED.pr0ner wrote:There were FOUR hurricanes active at the same time in 1998. And in 1893.
pr0ner wrote:You should probably Google the differences between infrared/computer enhanced satellite imagery and visible satellite imagery and get back to me.Unagi wrote:Yeah, but when comparing the pictures above... what stands out to me is that those older historic hurricanes were all mostly white. These are RED.pr0ner wrote:There were FOUR hurricanes active at the same time in 1998. And in 1893.
Any good Trumpista loves a map with lots of red on it, and (incidentally) hates blue skies. It's no wonder that they're perfectly fine with all of this.Unagi wrote:Yeah, but when comparing the pictures above... what stands out to me is that those older historic hurricanes were all mostly white. These are RED.pr0ner wrote:There were FOUR hurricanes active at the same time in 1998. And in 1893.
Given how Unagi's argument with Rip was going (describing 3 hurricanes lined up to be a "new thing" when it's not), it's hard to tell if he was being serious or joking.Zaxxon wrote:.gif snippedpr0ner wrote:You should probably Google the differences between infrared/computer enhanced satellite imagery and visible satellite imagery and get back to me.Unagi wrote:Yeah, but when comparing the pictures above... what stands out to me is that those older historic hurricanes were all mostly white. These are RED.pr0ner wrote:There were FOUR hurricanes active at the same time in 1998. And in 1893.
No harm and you're response was perfectly reasonable.pr0ner wrote: Given how Unagi's argument with Rip was going (describing 3 hurricanes lined up to be a "new thing" when it's not), it's hard to tell if he was being serious or joking.
Hey Scott, just asking for a friend but are you bringing up climate change and politicizing it here? I know he's right though. After the great Chicago fire it was rightfully considered insensitive to talk about causes of the fire or how to prevent a future one via building codes, etc. And heaven forbid we identify a murderer while a family is still grieving. It's just so hard to chew gum and walk at the same time for poor Pruit.Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt told CNN in an interview about Hurricane Irma on Thursday that the time to talk about climate change isn't now. "Here's the issue," Pruitt told CNN in a phone interview. "To have any kind of focus on the cause and effect of the storm; versus helping people, or actually facing the effect of the storm, is misplaced."
He continued: "What we need to focus on is access to clean water, addressing these areas of superfund activities that may cause an attack on water, these issues of access to fuel. ... Those are things so important to citizens of Florida right now, and to discuss the cause and effect of these storms, there's the... place (and time) to do that, it's not now."
The mechanisms that drove the TX event are well understood. The storm's intensity owed to elevated temperatures in the Gulf (especially high for a non-El Nino year). Its rain content owed to the unusual depth of the warm water, which usually loses energy as it churns up colder deep water. The system stalled because the weather patterns that would ordinarily push it along are weakening due to the reduced temperature gradient with northern latitudes. All of these are consequences of global warming.Jaymann wrote:No, radical weather events are not "proof" of global warming, and can certainly happen without it. However, as global warming continues, the prediction is we will see more radical weather events of all types, both in frequency and intensity. And even if we take immediate, substantial action to curb CO2 emissions, it won't be enough to re-freeze the polar ice caps. Another serious risk is desertification of the world's bread baskets as we hurl towards massive overpopulation. The future looks very grim indeed.
Welcome to OO, El Rushbo!Holman wrote:Bah. "Scientists" will say whatever Big Hurricane pays them to say.
This is almost poetic.Daehawk wrote:Rush has flown the coup and ran away.
Don't get too excited...The 2015 Paris agreement's ambitious goal of limiting global warming to 1.5C remains within reach, a study suggests.
The study is one of several to address the "carbon budget", which - among other things - determines how much CO2 the planet can emit and still reach a given limit for global warming.
It indicates the 2015 target, perceived by some as tough, could be met with very stringent emissions cuts.
It used computer models that project climate behaviour into the future.
The aim of the Paris deal was "holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5C."
But scientists admit they were taken by surprise by the ambition of the 1.5C figure.
The results of the work with computer models have been published in Nature Geoscience. This type of work necessarily contains uncertainties regarding the way the Earth's climate will respond in future and how quickly societies can move away from fossil fuel use.
But the study authors say: "Pursuing 'efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C' is not chasing a geophysical impossibility".
Co-author Michael Grubb, from University College London, said: "This paper shows that the Paris goals are within reach, but clarifies what the commitment to 'pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5C' really implies."
A number of media reports have asserted that our recent study in Nature Geoscience indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent.
Both assertions are false.
Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial (See figures 2c and 3a of our article which show the IPCC prediction, our projections, and temperatures of recent years).
What we have done is to update the implications for the amount of carbon dioxide we can still emit while expecting global temperatures to remain below the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 degrees. We find that, to likely meet the Paris goal, emission reductions would need to begin immediately and reach zero in less than 40 years’ time.
While that is not geophysically impossible, to suggest that this means that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are now unnecessary is clearly false.
A new generation of see-through solar cell technology could soon be used to harvest the massive energy potential of building and car windows, cell phones as well as other objects with a transparent surface.
Scientists at Michigan State University detailed in a paper in the journal Nature Energy how highly transparent solar applications could “nearly meet U.S. electricity demand” and drastically reduce reliance upon fossil fuels.
And now he's retiring.Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Mar 29, 2017 1:30 pm [Science Committee] Committee Members
Chair: Lamar Smith Texas ~ 21
He's a lawyer and a career politician.
