The 2018 UN Climate Report

[Eminence]

2. Promote family planning rather than abstinence nonsense. There’s no reason why parents should have 3+ kids anymore. It’s irresponsible.

First part of this one is a no brainer, second part seems like a tough sell and I'm not sure it'd be much worthwhile. The number of people in good financial/life situations looking to have children seems to be consistently shrinking.

*Full disclosure - I plan on having a fair number of kids, because I enjoy interacting with the little people and having the freedom to help them grow.

 

[DutchJazzer]

the climate change believers are Treecist!

they are racist and sexist against trees!

trees live off co2, they want to murder every single tree on earth!

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The number of people in good financial/life situations looking to have children seems to be consistently shrinking.

Illiberals masquerading as liberals. Voting block voting in their personal financial interest. Hey, @Harambe you link whore, read this, you'll like it: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/opinion/how-we-are-ruining-america.amp.html

 

[One Brow]

We will not know the cause of our 1.9F (0.9C) increased warmth within our lifetimes because we are in long-term cycles of natural change that are an order (10X) at least larger than our observed "warming". It will take a thousand years to see if this is part of the normal Ice Age/Interglacial Warm cycle or not.

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Goes back 22,000 years.

 

[Red]

It's humor, Red. Silly, maybe.

OK, so heat is "Red" in the infrared sense. And since we've begun calling conservatives "Red States" it could be that climate change is an attempt to scare the "Reds". Used to mean commies, but who cares. Words mean what we mean when we say them, and anyone who wants to understand what we say needs to know what we mean by the words we choose. But we're always changing meanings.... so here we are.

OK, my bad. Must remember, the world does not revolve around me, lol...

 

[Red]

Trump was asked today his thoughts on the climate assessment released by his administration last Friday. He did not mince words.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/donald-trump-climate-change/index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.

Why, you ask?

"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters on Monday, adding that he had read "some" of the report.



-----------------------------------------------------

This might seem alarming given the consensus among climate scientists who do "believe" the report, but many will breath a sigh of relief knowing that just last month, Trump let us know, in musing on the UN Climate Report that he "has a natural instinct for science". So, all is well. Thank you, Professor Trump!

https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...t-rebuttal-climate-change-global-warming-ipcc

"Only a fortnight after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued what is arguably the most comprehensively damning report on the fate of the planet in the history of science, Trump assured people they don't have to worry, because – basically – he has a gut feeling about stuff like this.

"I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years," Trump told AP when questioned about the looming irreversibility of catastrophic climate change.

"And I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

The comments, which are not encouraging as world leaders prepare to send delegations to the UN's COP24 climate conference in Katowice, Poland in December, come just days after Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes, acknowledging "something" was happening to the climate, but also introducing new doubts.

"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again," Trump told CBS's Lesley Stahl."

 

[DutchJazzer]

Trump was asked today his thoughts on the climate assessment released by his administration last Friday. He did not mince words.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/26/politics/donald-trump-climate-change/index.html

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Monday dismissed a study produced by his own administration, involving 13 federal agencies and more than 300 leading climate scientists, warning of the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change.

Why, you ask?

"I don't believe it," Trump told reporters on Monday, adding that he had read "some" of the report.



-----------------------------------------------------

This might seem alarming given the consensus among climate scientists who do "believe" the report, but many will breath a sigh of relief knowing that just last month, Trump let us know, in musing on the UN Climate Report that he "has a natural instinct for science". So, all is well. Thank you, Professor Trump!

https://www.sciencealert.com/trump-...t-rebuttal-climate-change-global-warming-ipcc

"Only a fortnight after the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued what is arguably the most comprehensively damning report on the fate of the planet in the history of science, Trump assured people they don't have to worry, because – basically – he has a gut feeling about stuff like this.

"I mean, you have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years," Trump told AP when questioned about the looming irreversibility of catastrophic climate change.

"And I didn't talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

The comments, which are not encouraging as world leaders prepare to send delegations to the UN's COP24 climate conference in Katowice, Poland in December, come just days after Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes, acknowledging "something" was happening to the climate, but also introducing new doubts.

"I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again," Trump told CBS's Lesley Stahl."

the 97% consesus is MISSLEADING

i for example believe the climate is changing it is natural. so if i was polled i would fall in the 97%

the 97% is the consensus that man has a part in it. some scientist of that 97% will say man is 100% to blame others will say 1%! that is the consesus. that man has a role in the climate change. i say they have a role but it is not co2. it is concrete jungles building huge lcities. buidlings that eminate wartmh. concrete that warms up the earth.

so this is not alarming it is COMMON sense. climate scoientist have been wrong since the 60's but sudenly the un got it right now. will you apologize to trump in 10-20 years when this proves ******** again! no because then you will scream this time we got it RIGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[One Brow]

i say they have a role but it is not co2. it is concrete jungles building huge lcities. buidlings that eminate wartmh. concrete that warms up the earth.

Please describe how concrete generates or retains heat in the earth, as opposed to ground/plants/etc. Concrete radiates the absorbed energy more quickly back into the atmosphere, and reflects more light, than plants or mud. If anything, ignoring the effects of CO2, concrete fights global warming.

Of course, plants/mud retain a great deal of carbon, changing the CO2 into O2, so they are better for global warming. However, that's the effect you are saying does not exist.

 

[Red]

will you apologize to trump in 10-20 years

No, I will not be apologizing to Trump in 10-20 years. No apology from me. It is a wonderful right to criticise power, to speak truth to power even, I would never apologize for that. But I stand ready to hear an apology from him. For being an enemy of life on Earth. He can address all his fellow citizens at that time, and maybe explain what all that was about.

Or maybe in some other future, I should rather expect there will be statues of Trump coast to coast, sea to shining sea. An addition to Mt. Rushmore. And maybe my TV will be watching my every move, if it isn't already.

Red rock houses in canyon alcoves, timeless memories, as ever, in a land called USA. And time erasing just another Ozymandias.

 

[Red]

Another report released on Friday, 11/23/18, by the USGS, found that about a quarter of all greenhouse emissions in the US resulted from drilling on public lands and offshore drilling:

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...ntributes-a-quarter-of-all-greenhouse-gas?amp

"The first-of-its-kind U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) report, released late Friday, found that emissions from fossil fuels produced on federal lands and offshore areas represent an average of 24 percent of all national emissions of carbon, a major contributor to air pollution and climate change.

Wyoming was the top contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Federal lands within the state contributed 57 percent of the climate change contributing emissions across all states and offshore areas combined.

The Obama administration enacted a number of measures making it harder to drill on public land, including creating over 30 national monuments and expanding the boundaries of a number of others - a designation that forbids fossil fuel extraction.

Environmental groups point out that emissions are likely to be higher today due to the Trump administration's more active and supportive approach to drilling on federal lands and offshore.

"The US government has kept the American public in the dark for far too long on the climate impact of subsidized oil and gas drilling and coal mining on our public lands. We know this administration's relentless push to dramatically increase production by recklessly drilling and mining anywhere and everywhere has already threatened important wildlife habitat, recreation areas, and drinking water," said Chase Huntley, senior director for the Energy and Climate Program at The Wilderness Society, in a statement.

"Now top government scientists are clear that this foolhardy favoritism of polluters over people is also making the climate crisis even more severe."

 

[babe]

Please describe how concrete generates or retains heat in the earth, as opposed to ground/plants/etc. Concrete radiates the absorbed energy more quickly back into the atmosphere, and reflects more light, than plants or mud. If anything, ignoring the effects of CO2, concrete fights global warming.

Of course, plants/mud retain a great deal of carbon, changing the CO2 into O2, so they are better for global warming. However, that's the effect you are saying does not exist.

soil is generally moist, whereas concrete is not. any street person could tell you how hot asphalt and concrete get when the sun's out. But Dutch is putting too much on concrete, which may be a noticeable effect in urban areas or near big freeways, but it's not significant globally. On an even less significant fact, concrete when it is poured is essentially a mix of oxides of calcium, magnesium plus impurities tolerated in the formulation, and does absorb and sequester about the same amount of carbon dioxide as was required to be driven off in the manufacture of the mix. net neutral on co2, chemically, but given the general scientific expertise of climate scientists, I am surprised so little attention has been given to the idea that we should ban production of concrete mixes to reduce atmospheric co2.

The whole idea that burning fossil fuels or wood is the cause is pursued on that level of science sensibilities. The reality is that whatever co2 comes from burning fuels will be soon sequestered in new growth or new carbonate rock under shallow warm seas somewhere. If we are seeing the rise in co2 predicted from hand-waving estimates of our burning amidst volcanic emissions and sea releases because of geological upper crustal warming or increases in upper atmospheric debri impacts and natural fires, our sensibilities are lost when we fail to actually measure those inputs and just start screaming "See!!!!!". Nothing is proven, yet. Scientists are doing some measurements, but not nearly enough. At the present time the scientific professionals are scamming the world for fat checks from the political establishment.

I call them professional liars, nothing more.

 

[babe]

No, I will not be apologizing to Trump in 10-20 years. No apology from me. It is a wonderful right to criticise power, to speak truth to power even, I would never apologize for that. But I stand ready to hear an apology from him. For being an enemy of life on Earth. He can address all his fellow citizens at that time, and maybe explain what all that was about.

Or maybe in some other future, I should rather expect there will be statues of Trump coast to coast, sea to shining sea. An addition to Mt. Rushmore. And maybe my TV will be watching my every move, if it isn't already.

Red rock houses in canyon alcoves, timeless memories, as ever, in a land called USA. And time erasing just another Ozymandias.

I don't think you would praise Trump if he had real scientists doing real research to determine the truth. You would be still cheering for the fake political scientists who are gratuitously "Proving" the "truth" desired by our political class. You would never give up your dream, or the hope that science will ultimately prove the political cause you love to be the right one, even after 50,000 years into the next ice age.

yah yah, no doubt there are disbelievers in anthropological climate impacts with the same kind of determined boosterism for the truths they love.

I don't think Trump is like that. I think he listens to both sides and just isn't really convinced, yet. But he definitely does see the impacts the political class project on global governance will have on our economy. I think that is what fuels his skepticism.

I think he will try to get a better deal for the US.