Global Warming
- Started
- Last post
- 643 Responses
- utopian1
California has about one year of water stored. Will you ration now?
- nb5
"Come with me if you want to live."I see your questions.
Each and every time I post on my Facebook page or tweet about my crusade for a clean energy future, I see them.
There are always a few of you, asking why we should care about the temperature rising, or questioning the science of climate change.
I want you to know that I hear you. Even those of you who say renewable energy is a conspiracy. Even those who say climate change is a hoax. Even those of you who use four letter words.
I've heard all of your questions, and now I have three questions for you.Let's put climate change aside for a minute. In fact, let's assume you're right.
First - do you believe it is acceptable that 7 million people die every year from pollution? That's more than murders, suicides, and car accidents - combined.
Every day, 19,000 people die from pollution from fossil fuels. Do you accept those deaths? Do you accept that children all over the world have to grow up breathing with inhalers?
Now, my second question: do you believe coal and oil will be the fuels of the future?
Besides the fact that fossil fuels destroy our lungs, everyone agrees that eventually they will run out. What's your plan then?
I, personally, want a plan. I don't want to be like the last horse and buggy salesman who was holding out as cars took over the roads. I don't want to be the last investor in Blockbuster as Netflix emerged. That's exactly what is going to happen to fossil fuels.
A clean energy future is a wise investment, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either wrong, or lying. Either way, I wouldn't take their investment advice.Renewable energy is great for the economy, and you don't have to take my word for it. California has some of the most revolutionary environmental laws in the United States, we get 40% of our power from renewables, and we are 40% more energy efficient than the rest of the country. We were an early-adopter of a clean energy future.
Our economy has not suffered. In fact, our economy in California is growing faster than the U.S. economy. We lead the nation in manufacturing, agriculture, tourism, entertainment, high tech, biotech, and, of course, green tech.
I have a final question, and it will take some imagination.
There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I'm guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice - who would ever want to breathe those fumes?This is the choice the world is making right now.
To use one of the four-letter words all of you commenters love, I don't give a damn if you believe in climate change. I couldn’t care less if you're concerned about temperatures rising or melting glaciers. It doesn't matter to me which of us is right about the science.
I just hope that you'll join me in opening Door Number Two, to a smarter, cleaner, healthier, more profitable energy future.
- Arnie
- Well put Arnie!inteliboy
- +1OBBTKN
- Come with me if you want to live. Hahah. He should have written that.monospaced
- everytime you try to save the world via interwebs the climate suffers due to large carbon footprint of internetsDillinger
- Great stuff. The sooner we stop burning shit, the better. Don't you think Arnie?Ianbolton
- why electric and not fuel cells? plus anyone who cares about the manmade cc change should be happy people die because it helps solve the climate problem. IRONYdeathboy
- yuekit3
The environmental activism group Greenpeace today disclosed that it led an undercover investigation to expose how easy it is for big oil, gas, or coal companies to pay academics at leading U.S. universities to write research that sheds doubt on climate science, and promotes the commercial interests of the fossil fuel industry.
The scientist involved is speaking at Sen. Ted Cruz's Senate hearing on promoting climate denial this afternoon, on Capitol Hill.
- Typical Big Oil Republicans!
Typical Big Oil Republicans!
Typical Big Oil Republicans!
Typical Big Oil Republicans!utopian
- Typical Big Oil Republicans!
- uan0
- utopian2
The North Pole was about 40 degrees above the seasonal average high on Wednesday, according to the Washington Post's weather team.
- Now they are saying more like...
Storm 'Unfreezes' North Pole, Causing Temperatures to Rise 50 Degrees Above Normal.utopian - https://gma.yahoo.co…utopian
- Now they are saying more like...
- utopian3
Probe of Exxon's climate change disclosures expands
The top attorneys from Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands said on Tuesday they will investigate whether Exxon Mobil Corp misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change.
- It's not nice to call people a troll and then post similar content. J_Jdrake-von-drake
- drake-von-drake-4
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jame…Global warming alarmists frequently make false and deplorable assertions (see, for example, my recent column debunking false claims that global warming is causing a decline in wheat production), but the Environmental Defense Fund’s recent fund-raising mailer, “10 Global Warming Effects That May Shock You,” may well set a new low. However, climate realists can make lemonade from EDF’s preposterous mailer by using it to show open-minded people the difference between global warming alarmists and global warming truth-tellers.
- Stop trolling troll!utopian
- You're really clueless aren't you. There are about 10 people here that DO NOT agree with your BSdrake-von-drake
- Name all 10 Yurimon.utopian
- lol @ Forbe's...that's like asking Exxon for it's top 10 list of lies as well.utopian
- and so are the lefty mags that support their agendas, let's face it. maybe not in your brain, but that's spot ondrake-von-drake
- ^ what utopian said ++moldero
- drake-von-drake-4
Albeit non-anthropogenic (not exactly a cause of climate change), seems the invasive plant Kudzu is a cause for ozone layer depletion.https://www.sciencedaily.com/rel…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku…- Doesn't deplete ozone, makes ozone.detritus
- ^ you're right. increases of the pollutant surface ozonedrake-von-drake
- utopian3
‘And then we wept': Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached.
Expansive aerial and underwater surveys show that 93% of the Great Barrier Reef system has been ravaged by coral bleaching.
Researchers flew over 911 reefs to map out the extent of bleaching along all 1400 miles of the world's largest coral reef system, according to a report released by the Australian Research Council Center (ARC) of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies. The survey found that only 7% of the reef system was not affected by coral bleaching.
- drake-von-drake-5
So that was China's ploy the entire time!
China wants ships to use faster Arctic route opened by global warming
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china…- Yeah this is interesting. Imagine if the next war was over control of the Arcticyuekit
- Who fucking knows, but there are loads of claims to the same oil-rich areas. The Chinese are the biggest violators of green laws out there man.drake-von-drake
- so dumbmoldero
- drake-von-drake-6
LMFAO!
Sanders' Energy Policies Would Actually Increase Global Warming
https://pjmedia.com/trending/201…“Wouldn’t those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil, and actually undermine your fight against global warming?” Errol Louis, one of the debate moderators, asked Sanders during Thursday’s debate in Brooklyn, New York.
“No, they wouldn’t,” Sanders shot back. He called for a massive increase in the use of renewable energy, especially solar power, and said that if the United States took the climate threat as seriously as it did the Nazis in World War II, the country could in a few years radically transform its entire energy system.
Energy analysts, if not Sanders supporters, view askance his proposals that could undermine the twin pillars of the progress that the United States has made. Fracking for natural gas has helped utilities mothball dirty coal plants. And nuclear power provides 20 percent of U.S. electricity — and all of it is emissions free. Both energy sources would be targeted by Sanders, yet very hard to replace.
“There is a basic reality here, which is that nuclear energy is the single-largest source of zero-emissions electricity in the United States,” Josh Freed, vice president of clean energy at Third Way, a centrist think tank, told Foreign Policy. “If you care about climate change, that should be a very significant influence on your policy.”
- zero emissions until that shit explodes, then you would wish they were only emissionsmoldero
- climate changes all the time. its a cycle.yurimon
- ^ undisputeddrake-von-drake
- utopian0
Big Oil Finally Admits Climate Risks — To Its Business AND The Planet
For decades, oil companies have tried to ignore the truth about climate change.
After decades of denial, and in some cases outright coverup, a few of the world’s largest oil companies may be waking up to the realities of climate change.
American giants Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Valero Energy have started to tell investors that they face financial and physical risks as the planet warms and the world begins to use smaller amounts of fossil fuels, according to a review of their recent public filings with securities regulators.
These risks include increased government regulation aimed at making dirty energy more expensive to produce or limiting how much of it can be burned. Extreme weather, another danger, could disrupt operations or damage company assets.
A report published last November found that more than half of the 20 largest public U.S. energy and industrial companies had not disclosed information about the potential risks of climate change to their businesses. Since then, negotiators have reached a historic agreement in Paris to try to limit climate change, a new report found that sea levels could rise even faster than researchers had previously anticipated and state attorneys general continued to investigate companies that may have withheld information about the dangers of climate change.
Influence Map, a nonprofit group that examines the corporate influence of climate change policies, released both the November and April reports.
The recent disclosure by Exxon is perhaps the most significant. The story that the company tired to hide evidence of climate risks was first revealed by the L.A. Times and Columbia University’s Energy & Environmental reporting program and is now the subject of investigations by state attorneys general.
“ExxonMobil believes the risk of climate change is real and warrants action. ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options,” said company spokesman Alan Jeffers.
In its annual report to investors, released in February, Exxon said it assumes “governments will enact policies that impose rising costs on energy‑related CO2 emissions.” It also assumes carbon emissions will be priced at $80 per ton in 20 years, as governments around the world enact policies to make fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy even more competitive.
Currently, there is no stated, national price on carbon in the U.S., but some states have implemented carbon pricing plans, and hundreds of companies are using internal carbon prices to make investment decisions.
U.S. companies are not currently required to disclose climate change risks to investors.
Financial regulators are doing “almost nothing” to push companies to disclose climate risk, Mindy Luber, head of sustainable investing coalition Ceres wrote earlier this month. Previously, the Securities and Exchange Commission seemed poised to enact rules requiring that companies tell investors about the climate risks their businesses face. But that was in 2010, when the SEC was headed by Mary Shapiro. Under the current leadership of Mary Jo White, the agency has not moved forward with that effort.
In contrast, the Financial Stability Board, a group of national regulators, is working with executives to develop voluntary climate change disclosure standards.
“It’s encouraging to see the energy sector providing greater disclosure,” Timothy Smith of Walden Asset Management, a sustainability-focused investment firm, said in a release. “This is an indicator that post-Paris, companies are increasingly aware of new realities that will inevitably affect their business.”
Reached for comment, Chevron referred The Huffington Post to its proxy statement, where it recommends investors vote against proposals requiring additional climate change reporting. ConocoPhillips, Valero and the SEC did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
- How much gas is burnt in the driving of that truck ?yurimon
- I'm sure all oil companies understand the risks to their business as they're dealing with a finite source. They're not total idiots.Ianbolton
- ^^ HA HAdrake-von-drake
- yurimon-2
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-…
Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'
- And the environmentalists attempting to "Save the Rainforests" cheer loudly!!! Hooray...drake-von-drake
- Hmmm thought you guys were saying above it wasn't caused by CO2 and just "natural warming cycle"...yuekit
- Its more along the path that plant life benefits from co2's im not sure about the other info they are throwing in, in trying play up the warming.yurimon
- nothing to see here, just your average, cyclical shit, previously captured in the rock recorddrake-von-drake
- If CO2 emissions cause such a dramatic change in plant growth, why wouldn't it affect climate as well?yuekit
- there is talk that we are preventing an ice age but i dont know. I think there are so many factors for climate, im not sure we will have down in a decade.yurimon
- climate models are faulty. so you guess as good as any, only thing as big concern is false politics in all this driving this issue more then the science.yurimon
- No doubt there are some green and alternative energy companies that stand to benefit. But overall self interest would lie much more on the side of not doingyuekit
- anything so that you don't slow economic growth. No politician wants to be the one that slows the economy, even if the long term consequences end up havingyuekit
- a much higher cost. So there's your conspiracy, much more realistic than a bunch of scientists around the world all making stuff up.yuekit
- Such the contrarianutopian
- you mean the email debacle with fake data being used to prop up global warming? stuff like that?yurimon
- There was no fake data, just emails showing scientists debating over what their research showed, exactly what you would expect.yuekit
- when you examine how money, politics, university grants, corps work together with science you will understand.yurimon
- What part of the science do you think is wrong? It's well established that gases like CO2 and methane produce a greenhouse effect when added to atmosphere.yuekit
- That's one of the reasons why the Earth's climate is different from those of other planets, and also different from how it was in the past.yuekit
- Considering the amount of CO2 and other emissions pumped into the air by billions of people driving cars, factories, etc. it's a pretty basic cause and effect.yuekit
- how many particles per billion?yurimon
- RealDonaldTrump3
- lolmonospaced
- Trumps boy Chachi!utopian
- What a fud,face_melter
- Charles (in charge), NOOO!!!ideaist
- monospaced4
- If I ever wanted to become a dictator and have a country full of surfs I would make sure the members of QBN were citizens of my great country,Hayoth
- Does this NASA link mean anything to you or are you going to go from global cooling to global warming to climate change?Hayoth
- http://www.nasa.gov/…Hayoth
- LOL chill. I'm not Brian Coxmonospaced
- ah yes, hayoth the Alex Jones loyalist.inteliboy
- because out of all the manipulation and scheming that surrounds climate change it's those evil scientists at Nasa.inteliboy
- Things can only get better?Chimp
- utopian3
Scientists disprove global warming took a break
Washington (AFP) - A reported pause in global warming between 1998 and 2014 was false, according to US-British research published Wednesday that confirmed the findings of a controversial US study on ocean warming.
Scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of York, England, corroborated the results of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) research paper in 2015.
Their findings were reported in the US journal Science Advances.
The NOAA paper had shown ocean buoys now used to measure water temperatures tend to report slightly cooler temperatures than older ship-based systems.
The switch to buoy measurements had hidden some of the real-world warming during the 1998-2014 period, the NOAA scientists concluded.
The NOAA paper had drawn outrage from some scientists who insisted there had been a "global warming hiatus" and from critics who consider global warming a hoax.
The US House of Representatives, controlled by the Republican Party, had even demanded the NOAA scientists provide lawmakers with their email exchanges about the research.
The US government agency agreed to transmit data and respond to scientific questions but refused to hand over the emails of the study's authors, a decision supported by scientists worried about political interference.
"Our results mean that essentially NOAA got it right, that they were not cooking the books," said Zeke Hausfather, a graduate student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group and lead author of the new study.
- 'Hiatus' debunked -
The International Panel on Climate Change, in a report published in September 2013, said the average global warming between 1951 and 2012 had been 0.12 degrees Celsius (0.22 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade.
But between 1998 and 2012, warming had amounted to only 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade, indicating a 'global warming hiatus.'
The 2015 NOAA analysis, which was adjusted to correct for the "cold bias" of buoy measurements, found there was no detectable slowdown in ocean warming over the previous 15 years.
Reporting in the journal Science, the NOAA scientists said the oceans has actually warmed 0.12 degrees Celsius per decade since 2000, nearly twice as fast as the earlier estimates of 0.07 degrees Celsius per decade.
That brought the rate of ocean temperature rise in line with estimates for the previous 30 years, between 1970 and 1999.
The new study uses independent data from satellites and Argo floats, a worldwide satellite-based location and data collection system, as well as from buoys.
The information gathered confirmed the NOAA results in 2015 were correct, the scientists said.
"We were initially skeptical of the NOAA result, because it showed faster warming than a previous updated record from the UK Met Office," said Kevin Cowtan of the University of York.
"So we set out to test it for ourselves, using different methods and different data. We now think NOAA got it right, and a new dataset from the Japan Meteorological Agency also agrees," he said.
Science is not a belief system...it's a system of facts.
- don't worry too much about this shit, look at your "California has 1 year of water stored" post from over a year ago._niko
- the 5 year stretch was the worst ever but it's had its ups and downs historically.
http://www.laalmanac…_niko - Thanks for posting fake news again.Hayoth
- I found the article on Breitbart Newsutopian
- utopian2
Iceberg the size of Delaware to break off from Antarctica
A large sheet of ice is set to break away from Antarctica and scientists say it will be one of the largest breaks of its kind recorded.
Larsen C -- a sprawling sheet of ice in western Antarctica -- is currently attached to its parent shelf by 20 kilometers (12.4 miles) of ice, according to UK-based research team Project MIDAS.
Once it splits, the crack will produce an iceberg around 5,000 square kilometers (1,930 square miles) -- approximately the size of the state of Delaware.- As reported on Breitbart Newsutopian
- I don't get the image.teh
- https://www.youtube.…imbecile
