Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston



Sunday, June 1, 2014

Sunday Science: Weather vs. Climate Change

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

 Via Darrell Lucus: 

On Thursday, I mentioned that House Speaker John Boehner made a startling admission — even though he opposes proposed rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions at existing power plants, “I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change.” 

Think Progress’ Emily Atkin had a chat with several climate scientists and their reaction was unanimous — Boehner’s statement was ignorant and irresponsible. 

 When Don Wuebbles, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Illinois, heard about Boehner’s comments, his response was blunt: “Personally, I don’t think it proper for any American to use that argument.” 

 Wuebbles said that the NCA was specifically written so that Boehner and his colleagues in Congress could understand the effects of climate change. To his mind, Boehner has no excuse to duck from an issue that should be “readily understood” by any lawmaker. 

Michael Mann, director of Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, was equally aghast at Boehner’s remarks. “What if we asked, ‘Senator: do you advocate drinking toxic sludge?’ Or, ‘Senator: is jumping off the north rim of the Grand Canyon safe?’ or ‘Senator: should I place my head in the jaws of this lion?’ Would the response still be ‘I don’t know, I’m not a scientist?’”


Lisa said...

Emissions are already strict on power plants. This is all a stepping stone to cap and trade,aka dustribute more US money around the world. But unless China and India get their own atmosphere in the near future, cutting back on yet more emissions will have no impact whatsover on the climate and China will continue to pump filth into the air.
So pretty much the people who this will harm the most financially are the poor and the working poor. But we already know the economy is at the bottom of this administration's list regardless of the BS they continue to spew about it.

Shaw Kenawe said...

The Political History of Cap and Trade

How an unlikely mix of environmentalists and free-market conservatives hammered out the strategy known as cap-and-trade

Rational Nation USA said...

Lisa, you are correct with respect to China and India. However, that does not mean we shouldn't have any concern for climate change.

As to cap and trade, as much as we have concerns it is likely only a matter of time until it is here.

Out economy remains fundamentally weak and who knows what the next recession/depression will bring. Current market levels are artificial IMO.

6.0 - 6.5% unemployment is the new norm.

Flying Junior said...

But unless China and India get their own atmosphere in the near future, cutting back on yet more emissions will have no impact whatsover on the climate and China will continue to pump filth into the air.

It's like a tiny part of your brain is still capable of rational thought. Somebody must be paying you to be an agitator. Because there is no way in hell you could actually have any respect or admiration for even one of your extremist bloggy pals that pollute your site.

Here's a crazy idea. Only blog for truth and light.

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

Lisa: “ Emissions are already strict on power plants.

Regulations are not strict enough. The U.S. still consumes 25% of the world’s energy supply and emits 40% of global greenhouse gases.

Lisa: “This is all a stepping stone to cap and trade …

The cap and trade concept was invented by the Koch brothers as a hedge to profit from both sides of the carbon emissions equation. See Shaw’s link.

Lisa: “unless China and India get their own atmosphere in the near future …

To the best of my knowledge, the people in China and India have the same atmosphere we have and breathe the same air you breathe.

Lisa: “China will continue to pump filth into the air.

China also produces photovoltaic panels and dumps them into the U.S. market to harm the American industry. Meanwhile, the nihilist Tea Party refuses to endorse a national green energy strategy.

Lis: “this will harm the most financially are the poor and the working poor.

Environmental inequality begins and ends at the door of economic class. By far, those who suffer the most from pollution are the poorer neighborhoods that border on what is left of industrial America – the very same people whose rates of respiratory disease such as asthma far exceed the incident rate among wealthier Americans. Meanwhile, House GOPers have voted over 50 times to repeal the only universal healthcare system that serves this population.

Lisa, it is no wonder that your comments are always off the wall. Just look at your nose!

Craig said...

Lisa, China leads the world in renewable energy investment. As a leader in contributing CO2 into the atmosphere, shouldn't we lead in reducing it? Why let China lead? If America is exceptional, let's do something exceptional.

The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of moving away from fossil fuels.

Climate change is already contributing to the deaths of nearly 400,000 people a year and costing the world more than $1.2 trillion, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP, according to a new study.

The impacts are being felt most keenly in developing countries, according to the research, where damage to agricultural production from extreme weather linked to climate change is contributing to deaths from malnutrition, poverty and their associated diseases.

It's a canard form the fossil fuel industry that moving to renewables will devastate the economy. It might effect their bottom line. The smart ones are adapting their business model to sustainable energy.

I'm not a big fan of cap and trade. I think tax and dividend is a much smarter idea. Variations of it are working quite well in Germany and Scandinavia.

The clip Shaw posted is from last nights airing of Cosmos. It's good and Neil explains things in terms I think you can grasp. I'm sure you can get the episode free online. I would urge you to watch it, if for no other reason than to know what it is you're denying.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Excellent comments and information. Thank you all.

This is from Frances Beinecke of the HuffPost:

"The EPA's initial proposal calls for reducing carbon pollution by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. The agency has laid out a solid blueprint for how to achieve these reductions. Most important, the blueprint invites greater reductions, and NRDC will be encouraging the EPA to set the strongest limits possible when the agency issues the final carbon standards in 2015.

Most Americans are ready for strong climate action. The public supports government steps to limit carbon pollution by a 2-1 margin, according to an April survey by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Support holds steady in purple states. A recent Harstad poll found that 67 percent overall and 53 percent of Republicans in the nine closest Senate races favor the EPA's efforts to reduce carbon pollution from power plants."

okjimm said...

“I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change.”

Boehner is being disengenous again. He is not an econonmist, social scientist, medical physciain and yet weighs in and helps make decisions on all of the above.

Liza is just being stupid. "If China and India do not do anything, why should we?"


Common sense,if nothing else, tells us we know the earth is a finite entity and that we are sucking oil out of it and burning it up and a rapidly increasing rate. That there would be NO impact what so ever is being deliberatedly obtuse. That we should do stupid.

Anonymous said...

The banality of evil concerning climate change:

A tendency of ordinary people to obey orders and conform to mass opinion without a critical evaluation of the consequences of their actions and inaction.

skudrunner said...

The one thing about global warming other than changing the name to "climate change" is absolute it has made a number of people very rich. Other than that it is still an opinion not shared by everyone.

The latest obama speak is just another tax that will mostly hurt the middle class and the poor.

Dervish Sanders said...

But you have to remember that Galileo was right! The climate change denying scientists are the Galileos of today. Or so some might say.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Other than that it is still an opinion not shared by everyone."

Completely wrong, but you, like your fellow travelers, insist on comforting yourselves with the nonsense that there's no global warming.

Others have moved on to reality.

And if nothing is done about the release of green house gases it will be the middle class and the poor will will suffer the most.

I Rest My Carcass said...

It's interesting that whenever Shaw puts up a post, the dimwit Baggers come here, copy and then paste her posts and comments in all their favorite Bagger blogs, and then their semi-literate half-wits complain about what she says. No one forces them to read shaw's blog, but they can't stop themselves. They've made her the most talked about liberal blogger on their blogs. Nothing can explain that sort of stupidity. They hate Shaw (and now they're attacking someone, RN USA, who isn't part of their tribe), and they keep talking about her so that people come and read her blog.

How to explain something as crazy as that? The Baggers have been labled as nuttier than a bag full of squirrels, and then they prove it by acting like squirrels on meth.

Who's surprised they're the party who admires Beck, Bachmann, Palin, West, Gohmert, Nugent, Vladamir Putin, Victoria Jackson --all their heroes!

boomer bob said...

Sometimes it takes someone with the cajones to simply ignore Congress and take matters into their own hands

At least someone's working in DC

(O)CT(O)PUS said...

I Rest My Carcass says: “It's interesting that whenever Shaw puts up a post, the dimwit Baggers come here, copy and then paste her posts and comments in all their favorite Bagger blogs, and then their semi-literate half-wits complain about what she says.

If these cross-blog transactions were merely one-way, I would have no disagreement with you; but there is more to this nuttery than meets the eye. These transactions are more bidirectional than merely one-way. Have you noticed how many readers of this forum --liberal and moderate and libertarian alike -- visit the “The Fringe” and engage them conversation?

Please note: I sometimes visit those Fringe sites just to read their mad rants but NEVER, NEVER leave a comment or engage them in conversation. Yet, how many followers of this forum – without naming names -- engage The Fringe in mutual conversation (and all too often find themselves on the receiving end of verbal abuse and other acts of chicanery)?

Why? What is the allure? Are these mutual transactions the Internet equivalent of Dungeons and Dragons among combatants who get high on adrenaline and abuse?

Notwithstanding my refusal to engage chuckleheads on their own home turf, I am forced by default to confront them here – their cherry picking of half-truths, outright deceptions, taunts, and sheer ignorance lurking beneath misspellings and fractured grammar.

Speaking for myself, I consider these mutual exchanges as the moral equivalent of ENABLING addicts, abuse junkies, misogynists, racists, and more! I want no part of these people; yet my friends and colleagues – here and elsewhere – engage this garbage and force me to deal with it.

Can you explain this phenomenon to me?

I Rest My Carcass said...

I don't speak for shaw, but maybe she was trying to encourage people with different political positions to join in a discusion instead she gets trolls and insults. I don't get the ones who copy and paste hers and her other people who comment here opinions on the conservativs blogs. but maybe its part of the sickness they've been sufferening from since January 20, 2009.

Shaw Kenawe said...


I have tried to invite differing p.o.v.s, which often veer into troll territory.

I don't have a clue why anyone would copy what I or anyone here says and paste it into a conservative blog.