After Four Years, US Govt's Climate Change Website is Back Online (cbsnews.com) 79
America's Environmental Protection Agency "just resurrected a website chock full of data, background and science about global warming that the Trump administration had deleted," reports Bloomberg.
EPA Administrator Michael Regan cast the website's revival as part of a broader effort to ensure EPA decisions are grounded in sound science. "Trustworthy, science-based information is at the foundation of strong, achievable solutions," he said.
CBS News reports that the relaunched site "has two simple messages on an image carousel on the home page: The climate crisis is an EPA priority and public understanding of the implications of the crisis are essential to addressing it."
Thursday the agency released this statement: Climate change leads to rising seas, retreating snow and ice, and to changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, and extreme weather events. These changes, occurring as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases due to human activities, are changing the climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural environment. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to climate-related health effects.
CBS News reports that the relaunched site "has two simple messages on an image carousel on the home page: The climate crisis is an EPA priority and public understanding of the implications of the crisis are essential to addressing it."
Thursday the agency released this statement: Climate change leads to rising seas, retreating snow and ice, and to changes in the frequency and intensity of heat waves, precipitation, and extreme weather events. These changes, occurring as a result of the buildup of greenhouse gases due to human activities, are changing the climate at a pace and in a way that threatens human health, society, and the natural environment. Children, the elderly, and the poor are among the most vulnerable to climate-related health effects.
Did they have to reconstruct it from scratch? (Score:2, Interesting)
Or did some fool forget to wipe the backups? Pretty sure they didn't get it from archive.org. Shouldn't have taken two months in that case.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. The problem didn't go away when we stopped talking about it. Today's top example would seem to be the floods in Australia.
Reminded of a sign in a shop: "Nice to look at, nicer to hold, but if you break it, consider it sold."
We broke the planet. Where's the register?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Gore and Bill Gates live in mansions and fly in private jets!
So your main problem is you're massively butthurt that some people live better lives than whatever pathetic excuse for a life you have, therefore "fuck the entire world!" is your atittude? Very mature of you, AC. Have you considered, oh, I dunno, fucking growing up, acting like an adult, and not like a selfish spoiled child? Other people live on this planet, too, and there'll be people living on this planet after you're dead, so how about you consider what's going to happen to them instead of just what YOU
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Al Gore and Bill Gates live in mansions and fly in private jets!
So your main problem is you're massively butthurt that some people live better lives than whatever pathetic excuse for a life you have, therefore "fuck the entire world!" is your atittude? Very mature of you, AC. Have you considered, oh, I dunno, fucking growing up, acting like an adult, and not like a selfish spoiled child? Other people live on this planet, too, and there'll be people living on this planet after you're dead, so how about you consider what's going to happen to them instead of just what YOU want, mmkay?
This is the problem the deniers have now. THey've been shut down at every step of the game, so in their illogical thinking, attacking individual people somehow makes them "right"
It doesn't matter if Gore rolled coal on the way to speeches, that does not make his message or the science wrong.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Very mature of you, AC. Have you considered, oh, I dunno, [etc.]
This doesn't move anything forward. And those recommendations are sufficiently subjective that deniers can use 40% (or more) of their peers as a reference in meeting them.
Re: (Score:2)
And the identical problem the believers have, as well, when it comes to attacking individual people.
Very mature of you, AC. Have you considered, oh, I dunno, [etc.]
This doesn't move anything forward. And those recommendations are sufficiently subjective that deniers can use 40% (or more) of their peers as a reference in meeting them.
Your logic is that if someone stabs me, witnesses and myself cannot accuse them, because that's the same thing.
Move things forward? At some poin t - w ehave to stop telling peopel tat the world is not flat, tha viruses work and don't cause autism.
At some point, we either follow the laws of physics and iunderstand that atmosphere's store - or sometimes reject energy based on what they are composed of.
Sorry muchacho - if we have to start all over again from zero, we'll never get anything done.
Peop
Re: (Score:2)
People who deny the energy retention qualities of an atmosphere are as likely to be trolls, utterly stupid people, ones who have a pecuniary interest or the useful idiots that The politicians bought by the pecuniary interests convince that science is fake. How exactly does one convince those people. You don't.
I agree. Instead, you find a way to fool or entertain that ~40% of the voting base into going along with science's best estimates. Our biggest problem now is convincing the people who *do* believe in the science, that reiterating facts in a table aren't the instrument of changing public sentiment (maybe a couple nice [scientificamerican.com] animations [climate-lab-book.ac.uk] would help, though).
Doesn't matter one bit to me because despite the attempts by some folks, we don't hold a vote on the laws of physics.
My mistake. I incorrectly assumed that you were a human living in the US (or Earth, really) rather than a sentient being of some sort whose quality of life is
Re: (Score:2)
My mistake. I incorrectly assumed that you were a human living in the US (or Earth, really) rather than a sentient being of some sort whose quality of life is directly connected to the laws of physics, and not at least in part determined by how public policy chooses to integrate/ignore those laws.
I long ago abandoned any idea that humans would pay attention to the science, and that they would choose by their inaction or antagonism to end up having to deal with the results of their denial.
Nothing will happen until the crisis is upon us.
And it won't be very pretty. Probably a race between water access, or crop failures in the breadbaskets of the world. The first brings war, the second a massive contraction as nature takes care of the issue for us.
And there will be a huge shift in power. The inter
Re:Climate Scam is Back, Baby! (Score:5, Interesting)
You might have noticed a surprising uptick in selfishness over the past few years. It's as though a good third of the country has decided that common courtesy is a sin, and that greed, cruelty, and indifference are the height of virtue.
A few months ago I was following a pick-up truck on the highway. It was a new extended-cab model, clearly not intended to actually haul anything. He had just passed me, doing about 70 in a 55 zone, and tossed two empty cans out of the drivers-side window. I thought I had traveled back in time to the 70's. I haven't seen anyone litter like that in at least 30 years!
I thought about it, and I've come to the conclusion that the unsafe driving and the shameless littering can only be explained by selfishness.
I live in a rural area. One of the best things about being out here was how quick people were to help one another. Over the last two years, I've seen a growing distrust between neighbors, and increasing isolation. I suspect the cause is the same.
This is unsustainable. These attitudes can not last -- we're tearing ourselves apart. The only question is what our communities will look like after we've move beyond this.
Re: (Score:3)
You might have noticed a surprising uptick in selfishness over the past few years. It's as though a good third of the country has decided that common courtesy is a sin, and that greed, cruelty, and indifference are the height of virtue.
If you look at who controlled the White House for the past four years, and the messages coming out of the White House such as "it's no worse than the flu" or making a point to not wear a mask, and then see in the public the same "muh freedoms!" or "I won't be muzzled" or even
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or did some fool forget to wipe the backups? Pretty sure they didn't get it from archive.org. Shouldn't have taken two months in that case.
Surprise, surprise, surprise. The problem didn't go away when we stopped talking about it. Today's top example would seem to be the floods in Australia.
Reminded of a sign in a shop: "Nice to look at, nicer to hold, but if you break it, consider it sold."
We broke the planet. Where's the register?
IIRC, after Trump was elected, US climate researchers scrambled to archive a lot of material.
Both far left and far right have a real problem with the Truth. They both try to suppress it.
Re: (Score:3)
Fake equivalence. Both sides are NOT the same.
For example, fake conservatives think the cops and army AND the guns are on their side. It's only AFTER the leftists become right-wing false-flag conservatives that they can start mass killings. (And even though extremists on both sides can commit small-scale atrocities, it is only the right-wingers who can too often get off scot free as Fearless-Leader-loving "patriots".)
Just now reading See You Again in Pyongyang about the Stalinist lunatics of North Korea.
Re: (Score:1)
Fake equivalence. Both sides are NOT the same.
For example, fake conservatives think the cops and army AND the guns are on their side. It's only AFTER the leftists become right-wing false-flag conservatives that they can start mass killings. (And even though extremists on both sides can commit small-scale atrocities, it is only the right-wingers who can too often get off scot free as Fearless-Leader-loving "patriots".)
Just now reading See You Again in Pyongyang about the Stalinist lunatics of North Korea. Karl Marx would have to laugh at the rebranding.
Y'all just want to argue, eh? First thing you have to do is point out that I was in any way shape of form making an equivalence.
Here's a listing of banned books Twarn't no liberals doing this. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bb... [ala.org]
Another list - https://nypost.com/article/ban... [nypost.com] also not liberals.
You were so busy getting triggered that you completely jumped over my point that the far right is just as anxious to keep people from reading what they don't think is proper thought as the far left.
Both sid
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is NOT what I said. What part were you unable to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is NOT what I said. What part were you unable to understand?
Your reply to me: "Fake equivalence. Both sides are NOT the same.
I made no such equivalence, and never even said that far left and far right are the same. That both far left and far right want to eliminate words that they do not like, the words they do not like are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
And how do you prevent the next anti-science administration from just undoing it again? Too much in government is supported only by the fickle whims of the guy at top. Sure there are "norms" but all it takes is one leader with a lack of shame or embarrassment and then the norms are out the window too.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Easy answer. Impeach him, but we saw how that worked. NOT.
There should be a sanity check requirement on the president AND members of congress. Heck, judges, too. Just too bad there's no way such an amendment would ever pass.
But I do think it would be helpful to get rid of the filibuster. How about 55% of the voters as the basis for cloture? Turns out the Democratic Senators (plus Is) currently represent more than 55% of the voters. Presto Chango. No filibusters.
Hey, once the actual majority of the populatio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Elections matter (Score:4, Insightful)
To think that 72M people voted for four more years of science suppression.
This is a small development but at least it is the right direction.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's worse than that. Some megachurches are little different from Ponzi schemes. They promote the prosperity theology: give money to the church and you will end up wealthier. They are not Christians, since the bible teaches adherents not to pursue financial wealth.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear hear! I like the Dr. (they are all Drs now) Mike Murdoch, he's riot to listen to. First hear him honk on about Jesus and ministry and whatever other zephyrs cross his mind at the moment, even showed his side kick pictures of his "first" horse once. Monty Python is purely bush league compared to this guy. Next, he'll put out the usual disclaimer that no one can buy "miracles". No, you would be planting a "seed" which is suspiciously sent to his "ministry". There is the usual list of people who have mail
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Add to that the religious dogma that they KNOW with no doubt how the world will end, and it won't involve something so mundane as global warming. And all those unbelievers DESERVE to die anyway, even though scripture don't say the part about hating your neighbors for voting the wrong way but this is implied from listening to the televangelists. And forget floods, god made a promise never to destroy the world with floods, and the rainbow is the literal sign of that promise. Apparently not driving a big as
Re: Elections matter (Score:2)
It's not that they know how the world will end but rather they know it's God's plan. It's actually much worse than you suggest. You can begin to get them to admit in climate change and they will still shrug off efforts to mitigate it claiming it's not man's fault but rather preordained. It's little different than times past and concepts like manifest destiny.
It's like how many consider salvation instant magic. You could virtually be Hit1er and on your deathbed, all you gotta say is "I accept your Jesus"
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You don't belong here. I have never seen you post on a non-political topic. You aren't a nerd. You have a very high UID.
You should just leave this nerd site alone.
Re: (Score:1)
It was more like "we don't/can't understand 'science', and our religious leaders tell us that it's all lies being spread by Satan to sway the faithful from the Path of Righteousness, plus LGBTQ people scare us, so we'll vote for the large loud old white man who tells us what we want to hear, and not those evil Democrats". Then the anti-vaxxers amplify all that, the Q-Anon trolls from 4chan and similar places on the internets chime in with their Trolling A-Game best efforts, and besides which you've got some almost literal Boomers who want the 'good old days' to come back (which they're viewing through rose-colored glasses, either not acknowledging or just not remembering that things were never as 'good' as they think they were) staunchly supporing Trump, because he's the 'Great White Male' type, and that's what they think is 'good'.
You can believe that if you want. Actually, please do. That's why he won in the first place - insane rantings like yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Curious what you call "science".
Well to begin with I don't consider "science" to be just climate science. There are many other branches.
You seem to be interested in climate science. If so you will probably want to visit here [realclimate.org], which is one source for real climate science information without all the political positioning such as in your posting above. If someone posts an article there I will pay attention, whether it is just raw data, a new hypothesis, or an update to an older hypothesis.
So as far as your theory goes, if you can fi
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the person I was responding to, as well as the OP, were specifically referencing climate science, yeah?
Please, refute my actual point if you can. Or bring in an expert to do so. I'll wait.
The end of my post got chopped off: "In fact, I will *absolutely* concede...that humans are negatively affecting the environment. I wholeheartedly refute both the idea that anthropogenic causes are the majority of what's driving climate change, and that we don't have better things to do with the resources that are
Re: (Score:2)
If you were watching all those other threads (and this one) you will have noticed that each time I've ALSO referenced that they're wrong.
There have been dozens, if not hundreds, if not thousands of examples in earth history of FASTER radical changes in both temperature and CO2 - meteorite impacts and periods of major vulcanism that have BLANKETED the planet more or less in soot, ash, and fire in a span of days, weeks, months, or years.
And 100% (logically irrefutable) they have all 'evened out' back to the h
Re: (Score:2)
You have to go back at least 14 million years to see atmospheric CO2 like we have today. Those swings you are referring to are only around 90 ppm and they occur over a period of thousands of years. We have undergone a a change of ~80 ppm in the past 40 years.
I have at least 3 million years of climate history showing a repeating cycle of very sudden climate and CO2 spikes about every 120,000 years. At least 30 cycles like that. The last one was about 140,000 years ago.
You do see a trend when you look at data for the past 3 million years. And for the past 50 years we have been breaking that trend. And not by a bit but by a significant amount. That is what has people worried. If those trends continued and we w
Re: (Score:2)
But if you go back 14 million years, you DO see levels like today, and they were ultimately mitigated by entirely natural processes, yeah?
And we have ample records of even more sudden climactic change with major impactors and volcanic phases in which ambient CO2 increased even faster than today, and TIME AND AGAIN the system robustly returned to nominal levels.
An objective view of any system that is the result of 5 BILLION years of disturbances is that it cannot conceivably be as chaotic as the panty-wettin
Re: (Score:3)
Don't be daft. The temperature is rising now faster than anytime in the past. Once Greenland melts, say hello to at 10ft of sea level rise. No 1000 or more years getting accustomed to it. Think 2080 at the outside and enough to cause havoc in the meantime.
I doubt you and your ilk will concede anything, you'll just cling to the next bit of flotsom floating by that "supports" your beliefs.
Re: Elections matter (Score:2)
Holy fucking shit... look at this guy. He thinks an election is rigged because the stand president does have enough Twitter followers. Seriously, God, if you are listening, please put us out of misery.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not saying that those who voted for Trump are crazy. Indeed in other posts about Trump I have commented that his core message, that the US government works for US corporations and the wealthy does not work for most American people, is correct.
What I am saying is that the number of Twitter followers someone has is not indicative of presidential popularity (among many other things that Twitter followers is not indicative of). There are many, many people, myself included, who vote but have no use whats
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably won't happen in our lifetime, or get bad enough in our childrens' lifetime, but if it's all ignored it WILL happen, and some later generation is going to curse all of us for ignoring it.
The fact of the matter is that it's not necessary for us to continue polluting the planet at the ever-increasing rate we've been doing that, especially when it's out of just pure laziness and greed
Re: (Score:1)
Trust me, bro, it can't be done! You should just take my advice and ignore it all, drive a 10mpg V8 SUV and build more coal-burning power plants!
STFU idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [carbonbrief.org] is (UK based) web site, funded by the European Climate Foundation, which argues the opposite of your claim. (I am not saying you are wrong, just that there seems to be quite convincing evidence that disputes what you say).
I'd be interested to know if you can cite your sources please?
Thank you.
Re: Waste of time/effort (Score:1)
The electrical generating capacity is barely functioning in California. The Texas fiasco is added concern.
New generation facilities are out of the question courtesy of California environmental rules and a huge amount of nimby.
The carbon footprint of an EV is freaking huge, not to mention the new raping of Africa for materials to make them. As are the ongoing costs of battery replacements and disposal.
Regular people will NEVER be able to afford them. So, if you have to commute to work you are pretty much un
Re: (Score:3)
Which is very nearly one-third of all of California's electricty usage.
In fact, it looks as though the only "line item" which produced more electricity in 2019 was Natural Gas.
However, there is also this rather interesting 2020 report [deadline.com] in which Governor Gavin Newsom suggests that part of the reason for the outages being reporting last ye
whew! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't have anything to do with the data collection method statement on the new website or, I dunno, the invention of modern firefighting methods such as aerial firefighting. Nope, it's Al Gore and the Illuminati trying to cover something up!
Now, how about the petition? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wonder when it will come back, if it does.
Bullshit (Score:2)
Is the relatively recent swell of humanity who no longer live in poverty a reasonable price to pay for a slightly more uncertain climate.
I'm thinking if you ask them, they'll tell you to fuck off. Of course, they want the net positive that has come from a really statistically abberative fluctuation in the climate.
CO2 went from somthing like 320ppm to 420ppm in about 100 years.
That's 100ppm, difference . 1/10th of a percent ! It's so small it's actually almost immesurable - and we won't get into how the meas
Re: (Score:2)
Excuse me:
That's 100ppm, difference . 1/100th of a percent !