10 Climate Executive Actions Biden will take on Day One


GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
A) The graph is about averages. Why would it matter if it were for a year or ten?

B) The entire premise of the article is a joke for anyone with an ounce of objectivity or credibility. Natural disaster deaths have gone down due to the increase of contingency planning, advanced technology, federal/worldwide aid, etc. You really think a drought in the 1920s is compatible to one in the 2000s? That's idiotic beyond belief. Congrats to Bjorn for hooking a bunch of morons. That's how you get your name out there....propaganda for the right.

So with all the planning we've done and the advances we've made which have significantly reduced deaths over the last 100 years, why is climate change now an existential threat to humanity?
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,329
Reaction score
8,118
Points
113
Congrats to Bjorn for hooking a bunch of morons.
That's what it boils down to today, for scientists on Twitter.

You tell the most active audience, whatever they want to hear.


And the most active group is the gross RW'ers.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,329
Reaction score
8,118
Points
113
So with all the planning we've done and the advances we've made which have significantly reduced deaths over the last 100 years, why is climate change now an existential threat to humanity?
Really good point here.

Land sinking under water, rises in temperatures making places uninhabitable, changing temperatures causing massive changes to weather patterns.

None of that amounts to jack squat, quite obviously. Won't cost anyone a dime.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,324
Reaction score
8,553
Points
113
So with all the planning we've done and the advances we've made which have significantly reduced deaths over the last 100 years, why is climate change now an existential threat to humanity?

You serious? Guess greenhouse emissions have been level since the 1920s.
 




Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
50,780
Reaction score
4,669
Points
113
You know it's going to be a really non-biased article when....in order to make 2020 seem lesser....they make the bar thinner. Lol.
+1. If they made the bar fatter for 2020, deaths would be increasing exponentially.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,324
Reaction score
8,553
Points
113
Significantly less people are dying. We've never been safer from the climate than we are today.

SafeR from isolated incidents. How does that mesh with emissions accelerating climate change? I get that you are looking for proof of a greenhouse gas hunting down a family and killing them in their sleep....but that's just stupid.
 




GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
SafeR from isolated incidents. How does that mesh with emissions accelerating climate change? I get that you are looking for proof of a greenhouse gas hunting down a family and killing them in their sleep....but that's just stupid.

It doesn't, and that's not what I'm looking for.

The graph should be trending the other direction to justify the amount of money we are spending to solve a problem that really isn't a problem.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,324
Reaction score
8,553
Points
113
It doesn't, and that's not what I'm looking for.

The graph should be trending the other direction to justify the amount of money we are spending to solve a problem that really isn't a problem.

No. The graph is trending in the correct direction because forecasting has improved, response time has improved, contingency planning has evolved, federal/state/local assistance has expanded and improved, etc. Worldwide natural disasters are assisted with aid, both financially and in labor.

Climate change is a long term deal. Again....greenhouse gases aren't toxic to humans.....so asking the question of "why isn't climate change killing people" is stupid. You know it is.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
No. The graph is trending in the correct direction because forecasting has improved, response time has improved, contingency planning has evolved, federal/state/local assistance has expanded and improved, etc. Worldwide natural disasters are assisted with aid, both financially and in labor.

Climate change is a long term deal. Again....greenhouse gases aren't toxic to humans.....so asking the question of "why isn't climate change killing people" is stupid. You know it is.

So that justifies spending trillions in the US alone to reduce something that's not toxic to humans and isn't leading to more human death and suffering?
 



MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
31,329
Reaction score
8,118
Points
113
So that justifies spending trillions in the US alone to reduce something that's not toxic to humans and isn't leading to more human death and suffering?
You just lost, by including the word suffering, which wasn't in the original Tweet, at all.

Just blew it.
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
27,324
Reaction score
8,553
Points
113
So that justifies spending trillions in the US alone to reduce something that's not toxic to humans and isn't leading to more human death and suffering?

Simplistic view. There is evidence that suggests some natural disasters like hurricanes are become more deadly and violent due to early effects of climate change. Again....contingency planning and aftermath aid has been improving to help get people out of the lines of disasters.....and to more quickly respond after they hit. So deaths due to the disasters can still go down.....but that also comes at a cost.
 

GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
Simplistic view. There is evidence that suggests some natural disasters like hurricanes are become more deadly and violent due to early effects of climate change. Again....contingency planning and aftermath aid has been improving to help get people out of the lines of disasters.....and to more quickly respond after they hit. So deaths due to the disasters can still go down.....but that also comes at a cost.

Much of that has not come to fruition.
 


ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
559
Reaction score
557
Points
93
So that justifies spending trillions in the US alone to reduce something that's not toxic to humans and isn't leading to more human death and suffering?
It appears that you are being obtuse for simple fun and games. The 'trillions' of dollars spent addressing 'climate change' are inextricably linked with other quality of life improvements such as air and water quality that have indeed reduced human deaths and suffering. What can you say for the 'trillions' of dollars spent extracting fossil fuels?
 
Last edited:


GopherWeatherGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
10,142
Reaction score
4,461
Points
113
It appears that you are being obtuse for simple fun and games. The 'trillions' of dollars spent addressing 'climate change' are inextricably linked with other quality of life improvements such as air and water quality that have indeed reduced human deaths and suffering. What can you say for the 'trillions' of dollars spent extracting fossil fuels?
Speaking of being obtuse for simple fun and games..
 

TRF Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2019
Messages
1,105
Reaction score
568
Points
113
For those who missed it, let’s recap:
1966: Oil gone in ten years
1967: Dire Famine forecast by 1975
1968: Overpopulation will spread Worldwide
1969: Everyone will Disappear in a cloud of Blue Steam by 1989
1970: World will use up all its Natural Resources by 2000
1970: Urban Citizens will requires Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup will make all land unusable
1970: Decaying pollution will Kill all the Fish
1970s: KILLER BEES !
1970: Ice Age by 2000
1970: America subject to Water Rationing by 1974 and Food Rationing by 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming by 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age by 2070
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 years
1974: Space Satellites show New Ice Age coming fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life’
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet cooling, Famines imminent
1977: Department of Energy says Oil will Peak in 90s
1978: No End in Sight to 30- year Cooling Trend
1980: Acid Rain kills life in lakes
1980: Peak Oil in 2000
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC will hit Record Highs
1988: Maldives Islands will be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2000: Children won’t know what Snow is
2002: Famine in 10 years if we don’t Give Up eating Fish, Meat and Dairy
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2004: Britain will be Siberia by 2024
2005: Manhattan Underwater by 2015 (uh, nope)
2006: Super Hurricanes!!
2008: Arctic will be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles says we have 96 Months to Save World ( that’s by 2017, btw)
2009: UK Prime Minister says ‘50 Days to Save the Planet from Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore moves 2013 Prediction of ‘Ice-Free Arctic’ to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days before ‘Climate Chaos’
2019: Hey Greta, we need you to convince them ‘It’s Really Going To Happen THIS Time’
 

Spoofin

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
23,269
Reaction score
7,017
Points
113
It appears that you are being obtuse for simple fun and games. The 'trillions' of dollars spent addressing 'climate change' are inextricably linked with other quality of life improvements such as air and water quality that have indeed reduced human deaths and suffering. What can you say for the 'trillions' of dollars spent extracting fossil fuels?
So using fossil fuels hasn’t led to any quality of life improvements? Okey Dokey ecoperson.
 


Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
5,566
Points
113
So the immigrants are coming to a place that has done a terrible job with Covid and is still doing a terrible job with Covid to get away from Covid?

No its not about Covid, its about what Covid did to the economies where they were.

Its no surprise that when economies tank it hits those at the bottom of the food chain hardest. In S/C America probably no one lower on the food chain than Haitian migrants.
 



bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
45,312
Reaction score
6,277
Points
113
Great work Joe. Wallace! hates middle class working folks.
Yes- that is the story with all the elites- the disdain for the proles in the middle class.

Behind every environmentalist, climate change activist is a hatred for mankind and the desire for there to be less people. There is climate change and there always has been. We won't be dying as a result of climate change nor will we run out of resources. People will die by the millions and perhaps billions as a result of a gross over reaction to climate alarmism.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
12,617
Reaction score
5,566
Points
113
Significantly less people are dying. We've never been safer from the climate than we are today.
What is bad about addressing climate change except that some things will change?

Yea wasting the earths finite resources is fun, but we can do better without lowering our standard of living.
 


ecoperson

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
559
Reaction score
557
Points
93
Yes- that is the story with all the elites- the disdain for the proles in the middle class.

Behind every environmentalist, climate change activist is a hatred for mankind and the desire for there to be less people. There is climate change and there always has been. We won't be dying as a result of climate change nor will we run out of resources. People will die by the millions and perhaps billions as a result of a gross over reaction to climate alarmism.
You paint with such a broad brush that your coloring books in grade school must have only been one color. Define environmentalist for me. Was Teddy Roosevelt an enviro? The Antiquities Act he supported established the basis for the national parks that protect and preserve some of the world's most special places. Did he hate mankind and desire for there to be less people?

Was Richard Nixon an enviro? Some of our most effective environmental legislation was championed and signed by Tricky Dick including the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. Did you know that Nixon established the EPA? Did Nixon hate mankind?

You are being obtuse again by saying that there has always been climate change. Of course, there has always been 'climate change.' The earth is a dynamic planet whose climatic systems have historically changed over many thousands or millions of years allowing for the natural systems to adjust accordingly. We are not concerned with the natural background climate change.

We are concerned about the RAPID changes in the earth's ability to respond due to anthropogenic climate change. The earth's natural systems are less able to adjust to these rapid changes. It leads to the extinction of plant and animal species that are already at a tipping point.

Whether you like it or not, the earth does good things for us. Most people know that the earth provides us with food and fresh water. But our relationship with the earth is MUCH more entwined than simply sustenance. The term is called ecological services.

Natural resources such as coral reefs and mangrove forests protect many coastal cities and communities from flooding and storm surges at a FRACTION of the cost of any manmade constructions. Bees pollinate about a third of our food. Wetlands play a huge role in filtering water enough to allow us to drink it. Mankind has not even come close to being able to replicate these services. This doesn't even account for the role that the earth plays in such essential services as oxygen production from the metabolism of plants.

The earth provides MANY TRILLIONS of dollars in ecological services at no charge. Can you imagine the price of goods and services if we lost these trillions of dollars of free ecological services? It is the classic case of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The sane among us strive to acknowledge and nurture our connection to the earth and not RISK weakening this important relationship.
 




Top Bottom