Dog Wonder
Veteran
Can't we just blame BP? They have already forked over $25 billion.
Glo-Bull Warming and Science
- Thread starter signals
- Start date
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
It's called an accident. Look it up Ms Progressive smart power.
Glenn Quagmire
Veteran
- Apr 30, 2012
- 4,809
- 4,343
"STOCKHOLM – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international body established by the U.N. in 1988, presented a summary of its latest assessment on climate change on Friday. Here are the key findings:
— Global warming is "unequivocal," and since the 1950's it's "extremely likely" that human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise.
— Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40 percent increase in C02 concentrations since the industrial revolution.
— Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C, or 0.5-8.6 F, by the end of the century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions.
— Most aspects of climate change will continue for many centuries even if CO2 emissions are stopped.
— Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century.
— The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass over the past two decades. Glaciers have continued to melt almost all over the world. Arctic sea ice has shrunk and spring snow cover has continued to decrease, and it is "very likely" that this will continue.
— It's "virtually certain" that the upper ocean has warmed from 1971 to 2010. The ocean will continue to warm this century, with heat penetrating from the surface to the deep ocean."
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/27/key-findings-ipcc-report-on-climate-change/
— Global warming is "unequivocal," and since the 1950's it's "extremely likely" that human activities have been the dominant cause of the temperature rise.
— Concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have increased to levels that are unprecedented in at least 800,000 years. The burning of fossil fuels is the main reason behind a 40 percent increase in C02 concentrations since the industrial revolution.
— Global temperatures are likely to rise by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees C, or 0.5-8.6 F, by the end of the century depending on how much governments control carbon emissions.
— Most aspects of climate change will continue for many centuries even if CO2 emissions are stopped.
— Sea levels are expected to rise a further 10-32 inches (26-82 centimeters) by the end of the century.
— The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass over the past two decades. Glaciers have continued to melt almost all over the world. Arctic sea ice has shrunk and spring snow cover has continued to decrease, and it is "very likely" that this will continue.
— It's "virtually certain" that the upper ocean has warmed from 1971 to 2010. The ocean will continue to warm this century, with heat penetrating from the surface to the deep ocean."
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/27/key-findings-ipcc-report-on-climate-change/
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
I don't always talk to Obama voters but when I do I order large fries.
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
* Carbon Dioxide (CO2) has been increasing. In 1960 it was 0.032% of the atmosphere, today it is 0.039%.
* There has very probably been warming of average global temperatures in the last 150 years.
* There is a greenhouse effect and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The best scientific estimate of this effect (for doubling CO2) is about 1C warming.
* People think there are mechanisms that could increase warming further than the direct effect of CO2. This is not supported by the evidence.
* Current estimates of about 0.8 C temperature rise in the past 150 years are very likely too high.
* There is compelling evidence of malpractice, urban heating and poor instruments & siting. A figure of 0.5-0.6C warming appears more likely.
* Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2, however scientific analysis shows part of the increase is natural and no one is certain how much or little of this rise is man-made.
* Water in the atmosphere is far more important than CO2 in determining global temperature.
* The harmful effects of warming have been exaggerated as shown e.g. by the absence of substantial evidence for increasing weather extremes.
* Known benefits have been hidden. It is estimated there are more than 20,000 extra winter deaths each year in the UK and increasing fuel costs will make this worse. CO2 is essential for plant growth and increasing levels are beneficial to plants.
* Even under the worst case scenario warming, when the usual method of comparing the cost and benefit of policy is used, it is more cost effective to deal with any problems that occur than to pay to try to stop them.
* Climate proxies are not reliable. If we consider all the evidence including historical records, the evidence suggests the world was warmer during the “medieval warm period” as well as being cooler during the “little ice age”.
* Climate varies naturally. Most of the CO2 rise occurred in the latter half of the 20th century. If this change were man-made the global temperature change for the early and latter 20th century should be very different. They are not. This suggests a natural cause for much of the 20th century warming.
* In 2001 the IPCC stated with a high degree of confidence that global temperature would warm. It has not. In science a theory is not valid unless the data supports it. Climate scientists must accept this theory is not validated and acknowledge that the IPCC confidence in warming was greatly overstated.
* We condemn the many instances of malpractice seen in climate science and those who condone them.
http://scef.org.uk/index.php/facts
"What would the fracking industry hope to gain by circumnavigating very well established safety, ecological and environmental standards?"
$$$$$$
Don't act like industry, any industry, is pure as the driven snow.
Remember SuperFund
The folks worrying about their water, and other effects of fracking are not typically urban liberals, or Obama voters.
The radicals, maybe.
Most are normal folks and farmers and the like with families who are rightfully and rationally concerned. Conscientious stewardship is a compromise they, and most folks, could support.
Industry, all of them, but especially those concerned with getting stuff out of the ground, does not have a great track record.
Make like an ostrich, turn the other way, blindly accept the full page ads paid for by the industry, or listen to the right wing ranting heads, ( if you believe they care about any.thing.xcpt.the.ad.$$$$. ), or take an honest, critical look around you.
Plenty of info out there.
It is inherently dangerous, and damaging.
That's why it needs to be done "right".
Industry has done a poor job of policing itself
The Bush/cheney era "regulators" were literally sleeping with the regulated, and eagerly rubber-stamped every generic, boilerplate contingency/emergency "plan" put in front of them... Before hopping in the sack.
$$$$$$
Don't act like industry, any industry, is pure as the driven snow.
Remember SuperFund
The folks worrying about their water, and other effects of fracking are not typically urban liberals, or Obama voters.
The radicals, maybe.
Most are normal folks and farmers and the like with families who are rightfully and rationally concerned. Conscientious stewardship is a compromise they, and most folks, could support.
Industry, all of them, but especially those concerned with getting stuff out of the ground, does not have a great track record.
Make like an ostrich, turn the other way, blindly accept the full page ads paid for by the industry, or listen to the right wing ranting heads, ( if you believe they care about any.thing.xcpt.the.ad.$$$$. ), or take an honest, critical look around you.
Plenty of info out there.
It is inherently dangerous, and damaging.
That's why it needs to be done "right".
Industry has done a poor job of policing itself
The Bush/cheney era "regulators" were literally sleeping with the regulated, and eagerly rubber-stamped every generic, boilerplate contingency/emergency "plan" put in front of them... Before hopping in the sack.
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Supersize it, daily.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
Really? An Accident? In your experience, how many corporations plead guilty to criminal charges if it's an 'accident'? They plead guilty to 11 counts of felony manslaughter among other charges.
According to the The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement and the Coast guard said in their report
Yep, sounds like an accident to me.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
I'm glad to see you agree with the IPCC report. Once people read the science out there they understand that man does play a significant roll in the warming trend that is occurring now.
southwind
Veteran
Noticed you say "Supersize" like a pro.................years of experience I take it !
Dog Wonder
Veteran
Just trying to encourage the Just Ain't Right to accelerate their natural deselection process.
southwind
Veteran
How's all that clean energy workin' out for ya' ?
Do I need to list all the clean energy company's that filed for BK after receiving federal funds from BaRack, again ?
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
It takes a while for technology to come into its own. Cars, planes, trains all took time to refine and beckme popular. Just because a small percentage of companies did not make it is no reason to abandon the search. Look at the amount of research put into drug development.
We only get one planet. The air is filthy as is the water and soil. What is wrong with making an investment to not make it worse? Why are people fighting to pollute the planet? They are working against our own self interest.
Knotbuyinit
Veteran
- Dec 12, 2011
- 1,299
- 421
I think your missing our point. Natural gas provides us the opportunity to continue development of alternative energy source without the need of the Government forcing their greedy "green" agenda down our throats. I have nothing against wind, solar or whatever but I'll be damn if this or any other administration is going to take my money and pay off greedy green executives for their vote.
Ms Tree
Veteran
- Jul 13, 2010
- 9,731
- 9,009
I would rather see the money given as prize money or something similar like they did with the Ansari X reward. Given the urgency of the problems we face with energy I also would like to see seed money given out. Perhaps have a board set up with engineers and others with field background to examine the proposals and allocate money based on perceived merit.
Environmental consciousness needs to be broad thinking based. We need to start looking at the way homes are built from materials to design to size. We need to look at energy use in homes and businesses. Advertising signage, street lighting .... it all adds up.
Environmental consciousness needs to be broad thinking based. We need to start looking at the way homes are built from materials to design to size. We need to look at energy use in homes and businesses. Advertising signage, street lighting .... it all adds up.
