The 2018 UN Climate Report

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Red, Oct 7, 2018.

  1. jazzrule

    jazzrule Well-Known Member

    1,339
    165
    113
    Jul 9, 2010
    According to liberal environmentalist Martha's Vineyard is going to sink and not exists in 10 years, if this is true WHY would the Obamas buy a house located there? Some other person known for climate change just bought oceanfront property on the west coast. Can someone help me with who that was?
     
  2. jazzrule

    jazzrule Well-Known Member

    1,339
    165
    113
    Jul 9, 2010
    Never mind I found it...Al Gore west coast beachfront mansion, obama east coast beachfront mansion; that settles it . Climate change is OVER . Why else would they buy mansion on the beachfront knowing the seas are rising? By the way football season is starting, so I will be spending less time on here for a while.
     
  3. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    This is simply not true, not sure where you're getting that. MV has some good elevation to it. Unless the sea rises several hundred feet in 10 years, lol, MV is fine....
     
  4. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
     
  5. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    IMHO, the so-called "uncontacted tribes" of the Amazon, as well as in other areas of the world, have the right to continue to live at a cultural level representing a level as early in the development of our species as currently exists. In other words, modern civilization has no right to exterminate people living as close to the true "Stone Age" as still exists in the human condition. Should a world wide catastrophe, be it natural or man made, end civilization as we know it, it is these very "uncontacted tribes" that will stand the best chance of continuing the existence of the human race. The video at this link offers a perspective of one such tribe in the face of the fires presently ravaging Amazonia:

    https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/23/amazon-tribe-looks-helplessly-rainforest-destroyed-man-fire-10617538/

    This particular clip was filmed several years ago, well prior to the election of Brazil's current president...



    And additional perspective from the people most affected:

     
  6. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    I want to thank you for declaring climate change to be officially OVER. I just wish you could have done so a tad sooner, like maybe a year or two ago. As you probably know if you've seen the news at all this morn, my home state of RI sank beneath the waves of the Atlantic last night. I'm writing this from a vessel anchored off Block Island, which, miraculously, appears to still be above the waves. Well, we'll miss you during football season. You'll have to excuse me for a bit, I need to beach this thing, and go about putting my sorry life back together again...

    OK, heading for the Block. Got to call the Obamas and recommend the Block, Martha's Vineyard is a tourist trap...

     
  7. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    The Amazon fires are worse then WMDs...

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/08/amazon-fires-show-limits-sovereignty/596779/

    When Jair Bolsonaro won Brazil’s presidential election last year, having run on a platform of deforestation, David Wallace-Wells asked, “How much damage can one person do to the planet?” Bolsonaro didn’t pour lighter fluid to ignite the flames now ravaging the Amazon, but with his policies and rhetoric, he might as well have. The destruction he inspired—and allowed to rage with his days of stubborn unwillingness to douse the flames—has placed the planet at a hinge moment in its ecological history. Unfortunately, the planet doesn’t have a clue about how it should respond.

    If a country obtains chemical or biological weapons, the rest of the world tends to react with fury—or at least it did in the not-so-distant past. Sanctions rained down on the proliferators, who were then ostracized from the global community. And in rare ( sometimes disastrously misguided) cases, the world decided that the threat justified a military response. The destruction of the Amazon is arguably far more dangerous than the weapons of mass destruction that have triggered a robust response. The consequences of the unfolding disaster—which will extinguish species and hasten a worst-case climate crisis—extend for eternity. To lose a fifth of the Amazon to deforestation would trigger a process known as “dieback,” releasing what The Intercept calls a “doomsday bomb of stored carbon.”

    It is commonplace to describe the Amazon as the “world’s lungs.” Embedded in the metaphor is the sense that inherited ideas about the sovereignty of states no longer hold in the face of climate change. If the smoke clouds drifted only so far as the skies of São Paulo, other nations might be able to shrug off the problem as belonging to someone else. But one person shouldn’t have the power to set policies that doom the rest of humanity’s shot at mitigating rising temperatures.

    What makes Bolsonaro’s behavior so galling is the pointlessness of it. Of course, he has ties to agribusiness, which would like to raze the forest for its cattle and crops. And he campaigned on the promise of damming the river and developing the region into the country’s economic engine. But there are even baser motives driving Bolsonaro’s gleeful policy of deforestation: The man has a demonstrable record of racism, and he’s compared the indigenous people who live on protected lands to animals in a zoo. And like Donald Trump, he squeezes personal joy from his confrontations with foreign leaders and NGOs, posing as the manly enemy of the effete elites. In other words, he’s letting the fires burn, at least in part, to troll his enemies. He’s cutting out the world’s lungs for the sake of owning the libs.
     
    JazzGal likes this.
  8. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    What the Amazon fires mean for the animals....

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/28/americas/amazonian-wildlife-future-in-fires-intl/index.html

    Expect a significant loss of wildlife, says Roberto Troya, Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean at the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The Amazon contains one in 10 known species on earth, including at least 40,000 plant species and more than 400 mammal, 300 reptile, 400 amphibian and 3,000 freshwater fish species, according to the WWF.
    While it is impossible to know which species are at risk until scientists assess the size and distribution of the fires and animal populations, we already know that animals native to the Amazon are not adapted to cope with such blazes.

    Mazeika Sullivan, an ecologist and environmental scientist from Ohio State University who has done fieldwork in the Colombian Amazon, tells CNN that many of the animals that inhabit the rainforest "have not evolved with fire in their evolutionary backdrop." This will make it harder for them to cope, compared to some North American species who have adapted to ecosystems where fires are commonplace, he says. The North American black-backed woodpecker, for instance, is a fire-adapted bird which preys on wood-boring beetles which inhabit burned trees.

    "We know (the Amazon fires) will have a large effect on multiple populations of different animals," Sullivan tells CNN, adding that the fires could put pressure on species that are already endangered, such as the white-cheeked spider monkey, Milton's titi monkey and Mura's saddleback tamarin.
     
  9. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    16,483
    2,818
    263
    Jun 8, 2010


    Weird. We’re having once a century like storms every year now. If only Science could provide us with an explanation as to why we are seeing a great frequency of strong storms and why the storms are becoming increasingly more powerful.

     
    Red likes this.
  10. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    16,483
    2,818
    263
    Jun 8, 2010


    But both parties are the same. I’ve read it countless times here on this very website. Both sides are to blame. Both sides are the same.
     
  11. jazzrule

    jazzrule Well-Known Member

    1,339
    165
    113
    Jul 9, 2010
    Lets see do you believe the bible that anyone not baptised by someone holding the authority goes to hell? What church does baptisms for the dead, so these people will not go the hell without hearing the truth and having an opportunity?
     
  12. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    These people are friends of mine. Leave them alone.

    Do you know the definition of "uncontacted tribes"? It means indigenous people who want no further contact with outsiders. They've made that determination on their own.

    What you're peddling, they don't need; they don't want. Leave them alone. Best advice I could give ya. Same goes for me.
     
  13. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    16,483
    2,818
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    Oof

     
  14. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    The president is on top of things. Gotta be tough being the only guy in existence who has never been wrong about anything, ever....

    https://news.google.com/articles/CA...9qOFCzDSvIIDMLD-hQY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
     
  15. LogGrad98

    LogGrad98 Well-Known Member Contributor

    21,446
    4,195
    263
    Jul 7, 2010
    Are those all adjusted for inflation, population changes, etc. The floods in the Mississippi flood plains have been much more damaging lately, but the population living there has increase quite a bit, increasing the possibility of higher cost. Not to mention inflation. I'm not disputing
    The possibility it's getting worse, but to not adjust for inflation or population is closer to sensationalism.
     
    One Brow likes this.
  16. The Thriller

    The Thriller Well-Known Member

    16,483
    2,818
    263
    Jun 8, 2010
    This is a good post and i think adjusting for these factors will go a long way to better understanding the impact that climate change is having. Not to mention, be more persuasive.
     
  17. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    The article posted, which was an excerpt from Meet the Press, 9/15/19, from which I took the NOAA graphics, said the dollar figures were adjusted for inflation:

    "But the growth of extreme weather extends beyond hurricanes. An analysis of weather disasters that did more than $1 billion in damage from the National Centers for Environmental Information finds that such high-cost events are up markedly since the 1980s. (The dollar figures for the events were adjusted for inflation.)"

    And this: "There could be forces at play under those data: more expensive homes and buildings being hit leading to higher costs in some places, poor construction leading to more deaths in others. Maybe communities are building too much in places that are too prone to dangerous weather events.But the reasons are largely moot.The numbers show much more in the way of financial damage and lives lost this decade than in the past. Those are the kind of numbers that upset constituents and those concerns tend to make their way up to lawmakers and ultimately spur action."
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2019
    LogGrad98 likes this.
  18. Red

    Red Well-Known Member

    3,450
    1,051
    178
    Mar 17, 2015
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/17/epa-california-obama-waiver-1500336

    The Trump administration on Wednesday will revoke California's power to enforce more stringent limits on vehicle carbon pollution than the federal government, sparking a battle with the state that has led a revolt against the EPA's rollbacks of dozens of environmental regulations.

    The long-expected move seeks to neuter California's resistance to President Donald Trump's proposed rewrite of the Obama-era rules that would have required automakers to accelerate the deployment of more fuel-efficient cars and light trucks, a high priority in the state that has led the nation in efforts to fight climate change.

    ....Trump is eager to land a blow against the state that has become a top foe not just on environmental regulation, but also immigration, labor and other contentious issues — even as major business interests worry about the fallout.
     
  19. fishonjazz

    fishonjazz Well-Known Member Contributor 2019 Award Winner 2018 Award Winner

    54,728
    10,282
    388
    Nov 4, 2010
    The first one has nothing to do with population or inflation but ya I thought the same thing about the money related ones and the deaths one.

    Edit: I just saw that red said the numbers were adjusted for inflation so we were wrong about that
    Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
     

Share This Page