Not everyone, Lone. I agree with you. We humans have a big tendency to go overboard when we decide to act.....
While Swampy, here is the conundrum for me. I know you didn’t vote for Hillary for the Democratic Party. The sole remaining climate change agenda as part of the Democratic party seems to allure you. And yet you seem to have fallen head over heels into their mythology. Almost as if the electoral college should recant their vote and vote for Hillary. How does a smart (as far as I can tell based on postings herein) individual succumb to the liberal agenda? Even though I know you voted for Trump as a conservative (presumably a safe bet). Yet you seem to be entangled into this web of left-wing climate claims deception? How do you reconcile that? I know at one time I was a liberal myself thank God I saw the light, I even voted for McGovern. You seem to me to be more conservative in your thought process rising above the crowd and the liberal agenda yet you seem to be so easily persuaded into this climate change propaganda. I would think that an independent thinker could see beyond the Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Obama bull ship. However even the best of us at some point probably turn to the dark side. However, we flee (once liberated as that may be, we nonetheless return to our logic and senses.) Don’t you think it’s time to denounce Darth Vader in the climate change agenda?
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #63 on: Dec 15th, 2016, 7:05pm »
Good questions, Gort! Not sure I can provide good answers. I just have NOT found sound scientific logic that says what we humans are emitting into the atmosphere would NOT contribute to global warming. Additionally, I have not found a legitimate science organization that says global warming is NOT occurring.
I don't really care how much of global warming is attributable to nature and how much is attributable to us. To me, the formula is simple; global warming does not bode well for humans. Accordingly, we should do what we can to minimize/negate it.
I also have another motive; fossil fuels are in limited supply. The sooner we develop replacements, the better off we will be for several reasons. Reasons which include human health and energy costs. Atomic power has been a beneficial stopgap, but it also has some negatives. Wind power is one thing worth pursuing, as is tide power; but ultimately, we MUST end up on solar power. That energy is free, but we have quite a ways to go yet, both scientifically and politically.
Do you know, in the sunny state of Florida, if you invest in sufficient solar panels to go totally "off the grid", you cannot?! You are REQUIRED BY LAW TO MAINTAIN UTILITY HOOK-UP and pay the utility company a monthly fee!
If I sound like an idiot, so be it. I consider myself a conservative. I would not have voted for Hillary if you held a gun to my head. I am not a Trump enthusiast, but I hope he shocks some change into DC politics. I am thoroughly disgusted and disappointed in my Republican party. It is a party in shambles. I hope and pray someone steps forward and starts it on the path to recovery.
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #65 on: Dec 19th, 2016, 3:57pm »
"Refugees From Arctic Thaw" New York Times, Monday, December 19, 2016
"Much of 2016 was warmer than normal, and the Arctic freeze-up came late, in November. The extent of Arctic Sea ice hit a record new low for the month, largely because over a five day period the ice cover lost more than 19,000 square miles, a decline that the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado called 'almost unprecedented' for that time of year.
The continuing loss of ice does not bode well for polar bears, whose existence depends on ice, that is rapidly thinning as the climate warms."
"It would be unsatisfactory, in my opinion, if a world without matter were possible."
Re: How Trump will affect climate change
« Reply #72 on: Dec 21st, 2016, 12:36pm »
Now THIS scares the heck outta me! Let's hope and pray the scientists will have some impact on these idiots people! US Earth scientists plan for uncertain future under Trump
Concerned by president-elect’s choice of advisers, researchers take steps to defend their fields.
Jeff Tollefson & Alexandra Witze 20 December 2016
Incoming US president Donald Trump’s government is beginning to take shape, and Earth scientists are getting nervous.
Trump’s latest Cabinet appointments include former Texas governor Rick Perry, a climate sceptic, for energy secretary, and ExxonMobil chief executive Rex Tillerson for secretary of state — a position that would make him the United States’ lead emissary on climate change. The pair helps to fill out a roster of advisers with strong ties to industry and a distaste for government regulation. Trump’s transition team also asked the Department of Energy (DOE) for the names of employees who had worked on climate-change issues, further unsettling researchers.
“It feels like a war on science, and on climate science in particular,” says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “That’s very upsetting.”
Scientists won a small battle on 14 December, when Trump’s team disavowed the memorandum it sent to the DOE seeking information on climate-change programmes. The request sparked widespread outrage and drew a rebuke from the department after it was leaked on 9 December. At the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) last week in San Francisco, California, some researchers billed the episode as a blueprint for how they might defend their interests after Trump takes office on 20 January.
“There is power, even with an administration that never admits a mistake, in bringing things to light,” says Andrew Rosenberg, who heads the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Other researchers are copying government climate-data sets, to preserve them in case the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress follow through on proposals to cut back Earth-science research at NASA or otherwise restrict studies of global warming. One rescue effort had archived 11 of 91 data sets on its list for preservation as of 16 December; these include a global temperature record maintained by NASA and palaeoclimate archives held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Marcia McNutt, president of the US National Academy of Sciences, says that private foundations have expressed interest in “funding up to the order of billions of dollars” for climate-change research if the Trump administration reduces support for such work. But McNutt — who directed the US Geological Survey (USGS) from 2009 to 2013 — is not ready to give up on government science. “I don’t want that to be an excuse for the government to pull away — to say private philanthropy can do this, the government doesn’t need to fund it,” she told journalists at the AGU meeting.
The road ahead for scientists looks tough. Perry dealt with energy issues as governor of Texas, but he lacks experience with key areas of the DOE portfolio, says John Deutch, a chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. Deutch, who leads the department’s advisory board, says that Trump should identify a deputy energy secretary who understands the agency’s programmes on basic science, nuclear weapons and national security.
And Perry is not the only climate sceptic poised to join Trump’s inner circle. Trump’s pick to lead the US Environmental Protection Agency is Oklahoma attorney-general Scott Pruitt, who has sued the federal government to overturn greenhouse-gas and air-quality rules.
The president-elect has not announced whom he would like to run NASA, NOAA or the USGS, among other science agencies. McNutt says that the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine have provided his transition team with a list of potential candidates, but none of those people has been contacted by Trump staff.
Some scientists argue that even if policies to fight climate change are weakened or struck down under Trump, his latest nominations hint that there may be ways to promote clean energy. Tillerson has said that a carbon tax is the best way to address global warming. And although Perry is a strong proponent of fossil fuels, Texas’s wind-power production grew significantly during his governorship.
“Those are places to insert a progressive agenda into an otherwise kind of ugly and cloudy landscape,” says Daniel Kammen, an energy researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.
McNutt advises scientists to stay clear-eyed as they confront whatever challenges the Trump administration brings. “I see so many people in this country freaked out,” she says. “That is exactly what those who want to disrupt science are hoping to achieve.”