Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming and Humans Are the Cause (npr.org) 415
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming, according to the the most comprehensive study ever of climate science by U.S. government researchers. The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming. The findings contradict statements by President Trump and many of his Cabinet members, who have openly questioned the role humans play in changing the climate. The report states that the global climate will continue to warm. How much, it says, "will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." Without major reductions in emissions, it says, the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit relative to pre-industrial times. Efforts to reduce emissions, it says, would slow the rate of warming.
Just wait (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately the report was basically completed before he took over the reigns of power. He can have it scrubbed from Federal web sites but the report is out in the wild now and he can't do much about that.
Re:Just wait (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the ironic thing, when I see a report about remarking about climage change: It must be something very notable and significant, because it is definitely in the financial interest of the powers that be to play it down.
So, if scientists that will have Hell to pay for climate change are stepping forward with these results, the actual damage being done may be far, far worse than what we see now. Especially areas like the Sahel in Africa where when resources dry up, conflicts start, mainly because it turns to fighting or starving.
Right now, the view in a lot of places may be "who cares about Africa?", but that view only makes groups like Daesh stronger. The world's problems cannot all be solved by bullets (Iraq and Afghanistan have shown the US and USSR that), so it might be in the interest of civilization to at least find ways to mitigate desertification, work on desalination and effective irrigation, and find ways to reclaim arable land from the sea.
Re:Just wait (Score:4, Informative)
Meanwhile, California has just put out fires fueled by climate change. Other deserts are definitely expanding. [esquire.com] China isn't investing in green energy because they're tree-huggers. They're investing because their ruling elites are smart enough to realize climate change is real, is an existential threat, and that green energy is the new oil rush.
Probably not surprising given that their leaders are largely people with science degrees and the Chinese communist party is better educated than the american voting population.
Links to sources (Score:5, Informative)
If you don't like NPR, here are some other sources:
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-climate-real.html
http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachel-licker/what-is-the-national-climate-assessment-the-most-comprehensive-report-on-climate-change-in-the-u-s
http://www.themorningsun.com/article/MS/20170822/LOCAL1/170829886
And links to the actual document:
PDF file draft as of June 2017: https://assets.documentcloud.o... [documentcloud.org]
New York Times link to the draft report: https://www.nytimes.com/intera... [nytimes.com]
National Academy of Sciences Review of the Draft report: https://nas-sites.org/americas... [nas-sites.org]
Re: (Score:3)
You don't say... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm shocked, I tell you. Shocked. How has this been allowed to go on without anyone warning us?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And we know we can trust this report because it's from The Government(TM), and they never lie or have alternate agendas from what they profess publicly.
Damn right. What we need to do is take the job of telling The Truth (TM) away from The Government (TM) and put it where it belongs: in the hands of Big Business (TM). /sarcasm
Re: (Score:3)
After all, they have the same first name!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of childish cynical trolls on Slashdot lately... how about growing up and entering the reasonable discourse among adults again? Do something good to yourself and your country and give rational arguments another try.
Re:You don't say... (Score:5, Insightful)
And of course the solution will be to increase the size of government in order to tackle this difficult problem.
Consider the increase in government we'll need to build massive coastal dikes, relocate 50% of the population, relocate a significant percentage of agricultural production[1], and deal with the security threats caused by big population crises elsewhere[2]. And those are just the foreseeable problems.
Tackling the climate change problem now can probably be done with relatively minimal government intervention. Institute a heavy carbon tax and phase it in over the course of a few years, and then let the market sort it out. To prevent the carbon tax from pushing emissions offshore, institute additional tariffs on goods, services and energy from any country without an equivalent scheme.
Waiting for climate change to raise sea levels, change weather patterns and destabilize marginal economies and then trying to manage the effects of those changes will require much bigger government than would striking at the root of the problem. Fans of small government should be agitating for carbon taxes and carbon tariffs now.
[1] I don't know that the amount of arable land will decrease, but it will probably move.
[2] ISIS probably couldn't have arisen without the massive population upset caused by the years'-long drought in Syria, which was at least partially-caused by climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so you readers know, that very long post above was copypasta'd from an anonymous coward on a Tesla public forum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:100 reasons why climate change is not man-made (Score:5, Informative)
It was also debunked, 3/4ths of that paste is drivel that has no basis in facts, and the last 1/4th require you to have quit studying science after learning step 3 of the scientific method.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the European Foundation?
I assume a made up organisation that sounds vaguely official?
It's ok... (Score:3)
"the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit"
It's ok, we just build some more coal power stations, turn up the air-con, and it's all good..
Re:It's ok... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, tons of people are building coal plants. The Chinese are planning 700 more coal plants:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This doesn't tell the full story.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-08/14/c_136525357.htm
China is also halting the construction of many new coal plants as well.
In addition China is also closing down a lot of plants that were inefficient and polluting too much in favor to newer versions. Lastly, a lot of these coal "plants" that are being constructed are actually just an expansion of another coal plant that already existed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, tons of people are building coal plants. The Chinese are planning 700 more coal plants:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
While not an optimal solution building new coal plants that can be fitted with modern carbon and sulfur dioxide scrubbers is a damn sight better than keeping old highly inefficient coal plants in operation. So if people have their hearts set on building more coal plants at the very least I'd prefer them to build the new, more efficient and reasonably clean variety. Plus, there is always the option of punishing coal plant building countries with carbon tariffs on their exports if they slack off on scrubber i
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, there is always the option of punishing coal plant building countries with carbon tariffs on their exports if they slack off on scrubber installation.
Good luck doing that under WTO rules. Also enjoy your trade war.
Actually, the WTO has rules about tariffs because some country is unfairly subsidising or otherwise favouring domestic industries but I wasn't aware that the WTO had any regulations on punitive tariffs on a country's exports because they are dumping their carbon/acid-rain and/or toxic sludge onto your territory. Of course if turns out that WTO rules guarantee a country the right to pollute without any limits I'm willing to stand corrected. However, as climate change gets worse and the damage from it increas
Re:It's ok... (Score:5, Informative)
Reports of China's coal-fetish are greatly overstated.
https://www.americanprogress.o... [americanprogress.org]
TL;DR version is that a lot of those plants won't get built or will be white elephants. China is aiming for 1000GW of renewable energy capacity by 2030 as part of its Paris agreement, although so far they are exceeding that by a wide margin.
Same with their nuclear programme. Basically everything that wasn't already being built has been cancelled. As their battery production ramps up basically everything other than renewables is looking shakey, with profitability looking increasingly unlikely.
And even the coal plants they are building are better than the US ones, because they have stricter emissions standards for them.
All Too Late (Score:2)
The reason why the report had such an easy passage out the door, all too late, no stopping it now, damage done, all we can do now is attempt to mitigate harm. No deny it, because it will be worse next year and the year after that et al and in fact realy catastrophic years could be in there, really catasrophic. Denial and fucking around and fuck everyone I wont more money now, too late even for that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]. You are already sinking and it will start to happen faster, done deal, you
Notice the split? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The assessments are required by an act of Congress; the last one was published in 2014. "
So we have these laws requiring the government workers to model climate change and make assessments of it, those models are used by military and civil planners to anticipate flooding, food shortages, etc. Driven by the best models the scientists can build from all the data.
And we have Scott Pruit, head of the EPA, climate change denier, essentially driven by Hannity of Fox News, who in turn is simply sponsored propaganda of a dying coal industry. Pruit repeats basic flawed logic and misdirections to pretend its not happening.
Notice the split? Scott isn't working from the science or the data from under him, he's working from the sponsored commentary on Fox News. But then that's just paid for propaganda, it's not science. So you have one group working from real data and models that bypass his agency, and his agency working from PR puff pieces written by industries looking for favors.
That's not healthy.
What if the head of the Defense Department did that? Suppose US was at war with Russia and Russia hired Hannity to push its propaganda. Instead of making choices based on all the data and science the government could muster, you'd have a military undermined from the top by its own boss. You can see that now with the Russian cyber attacks against USA, Fox is doing a full on deflection. Not a denial, a deflection. They know Russia is doing that, yet trying to get their viewers to ignore it as a non-story.
Re: (Score:2)
Errrrmmm...you mean Hannity hasn't already been hired by the Soviets? I guess we call them Russians now. How will we know when he stops being in their employ?
Debate.. (Score:5, Funny)
Cue the level headed debate with a focus in facts, solutions and mutual respect.
Massive? (Score:2)
Is this a report by a massive government or is the report itself massive? How big does a report have to be to be called massive?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not both?
Re: (Score:2)
The Bible used to purge the EPA (Score:3, Interesting)
Here we go:
https://www.nrdc.org/trump-wat... [nrdc.org]
And what does Mr Trump think about that? (Score:2)
Enough about the problem, bring me solutions (Score:2)
Okay, enough already! I got it. We are all doomed unless we lower our carbon footprint and the reason for out carbon footprint is the burning of coal, petroleum oil, and natural gas.
We'll we can't just turn everything off, that's just asking for death. We can scale back our energy consumption in some ways. We got our LED lights, low flo toilets, four cylinder aluminum cars running on ethanol (which is alcohol abuse in my mind), we got public busing running on natural gas (better than diesel but not best
Re: (Score:2)
Saying "safer than wind" or "safer than solar" is "trolling".
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our climate-changing overlords!
Seriously, it's way too cold out there.
You can contradict a question? (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure a question can't be contradicted, only answered with some form of, "you're wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Retard news. (Score:5, Insightful)
News for 'tards; Jewish propaganda.
Jeezuz, the trolls are getting pathetic. Do you think you can sow doubt by sounding like a third grader on Ritalin? Thanks for playing though.
Re: (Score:3)
on Ritalin
I think you mean off Ritalin.
Re:Retard news. (Score:5, Funny)
I thought he was being generous with 'third grader'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ritalin in Russian is spelled with a 'V'.
"Vodka"
Re: (Score:2)
on Ritalin
I think you mean off Ritalin.
Good correction!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I suspect that
Translation: I don't actually know this, but I want to say something that sounds smart (to me at least), so I'm going to move my head aside far enough to pull this statement out of my ass.
Re:1.8 deg F is like 1Kelvin (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about average temperature - daily temperatures that swing wildly by up to 20 degrees F or more every day. If that averages out to a half a degree higher per year on average, it's absolutely measureable.
Re:That's an interesting statement to make now (Score:5, Informative)
Want to see something cool?
Even with your cherry picked data, guess what?
http://init.sh/wp-content/uplo... [init.sh]
Re:That's an interesting statement to make now (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok. Feeding the troll here, but I have a super serial question then:
Obviously when we dump shit into the atmosphere, it creates a net positive increase in temperature. Even if it's not the primary contributor, why the fuck are you retards so hell bent on doing nothing about it?
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
You just proved that sometimes sensible things actually get posted on /. Thank you. The approach you suggest ought to satisfy most anyone ... but of course it won't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not reduce emissions? I'm a skeptic: CO2 is a minor problem - there is exactly zero evidence of positive feedbacks. Nonetheless, you are absolutely right - there is no reason not to reduce emissions. However, it is a question of price. Where emissions can be reduced with a reasonable effort, then absolutely, there is every reason to do so. However, I disagree with efforts that are disproportionately expensive.
What I'm not seeing - from either side - is any attempt to produce a prioritized list. Either i
Re: (Score:2)
Where emissions can be reduced with a reasonable effort, then absolutely, there is every reason to do so. However, I disagree with efforts that are disproportionately expensive.
It's also a smart move to transition away from fossil fuels before they get too expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
But what if we accidentally create a better world for no reason?!
Re:That's an interesting statement to make now (Score:5, Informative)
The American public is strongly influenced by lobbyists without being aware of it.
On a conference we've hosted in July, I've seen research on the disinformation infrastructure of the US oil companies. The researchers used web scraping and data mining software (basically the same as what intelligence agencies would do, just on a smaller scale) to trace the funding and organization of the networks of the petrochemical industry in the US. The graph of their network is huge. There are more than a hundred different lobby organizations, including fake research institutes, strongly biased "think tanks", and various P&R institutions cleverly disguised as interest groups that are all directly sponsored by millions if not billions of dollars from the petrochemical industry. It's a complicated network, but all of these organization have as their main purpose to further the interests of their sponsors. But some of them are very sneaky about it, you wouldn't realize their real agenda by looking at their web page.
The US chemical and petrochemical industry and corresponding political groups spends a lot of money on this in the US. It's no wonder that the perception of ecological topics is so different in the US from the rest of the world. I believe that they spend way less in Europe and other regions but have to admit that I haven't been able to check that - the research I've seen was only about the US.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There are a few reasons, some are economic like the direct costs and concerns about competitiveness, but there's also the problem of how it was presented. Concerns about pollution impacting the climate began to rise back in the late '60's and early '70's. At first they gained real traction among co
Re: (Score:2)
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
Of course it can hurt -- it's more expensive to build fuel efficient cars. It's less comfortable to live in a house heated to 68F rather than 72F in the winter, or cooled to 78F instead of 75F in the summer. It's nice to fly over oceans to visit other continents, to eat a nice steak or drive a fast car.
I'm not saying that we can't live without those things, but holy hell it will surely hurt to reduce emissions. And if I didn't fully believe in climate change, there's no way I could support any of these prop
Re:That's an interesting statement to make now (Score:5, Interesting)
Double my expenses? Sure. I've lived in a country where most of my expenses were up to 5x what I'm currently paying in the USA. Medicine? Don't take any. Insurance? that's already 4x the norm for the rest of the world here. How far would I be willing to go? Whatever it takes. You short term thinkers have no place in the world. Most of the things you take for granted, and complain that they are already too expensive, like gasoline and electricity, are downright dirt cheap by the rest of the world's standards. I say remove the government subsidies in the USA and let you people discover what it's like in the rest of the civilized world.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you don't realize how good you have it. Without those subsidies, gasoline costs north of $8/gal (~$2/l) at the pump. Just like it does in the rest of the world. You're changing your argument again. Nobody was talking about clean energy in the thread you're responding to. We were talking about the price of gasoline and electricity. People in the USA bitch about electricity being $0.10 per kWh. Try around $0.80+ for the rest of the world.
I have a 5 bedroom 4 bath house in the USA and my electri
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So here's the discussion and I'll keep it brief.
When you have "elites"; UN, Government Officials, Corporate Tycoons; all proposing a carbon tax in order to reduce CO2 emissions. It takes a really special kind of a-hole, who's lived such an ivory tower kind of life that they've never experienced a discussion with a truly innovative and intelligent person, to think a tax is actually going to save the world.
Literally, the reason why that one gets proposed is because innovation in energy sourcing and energy tr
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline and electricity are cheap in the USA because we're sitting on one of the largest pockets of natural gas in the world
Do you actually believe your own bullshit? For both oil and natural gas the USA barely scrapes in the top 10 in reserves, which is kind of why you're now trying to shatter the earth under your feet to look for more.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, how is your standard of living right now?
Pretty good.
Mind you, I'm not a blue collar worker who lives in a single-industry town where the industry was closed due to globalisation. So I don't really need the low-carbon economy so that new industries get kickstarted as much as many do.
Can you afford to double your expenses?
No. Your mileage may vary, but my expenses lowered when we started buying low-emission electricity and got a lower-emissions car.
Double the cost for medicine, insurance, etc.?
Erm... are you living in a country without a real public health system or something?
Re:That's an interesting statement to make now (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation: You want me to pay for your low-cost lifestyle by externalizing your costs.
Fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ahh, so you're moving the goalposts now. It's no longer about long term trends, but that the news is claiming it's the "hottest year on record"
You do you. Good job!
Re: (Score:2)
Satellites don't measure surface air temperatures. They measure troposphere.
Re:And Just WTF Do You Think... (Score:4, Interesting)
Here in the Netherlands all electric trains ride on wind energy.
Re: (Score:3)
That's poetic in a way. Riding on the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't help the USA a bit. Hardly anyone here rides trains. If we did, we'd still need to rent a CAR(!) to get where we're going from the nearest train station, and that might STILL be 500 miles.
Re: (Score:3)
Here in the Netherlands all electric trains ride on wind energy.
No, they don't. All that "100% wind" comes down to reality is about whom do they pay their electricity bill, nothing more.
To elaborate on why it's impossible for NS to run on "100% wind":
1. It gets its electricity simply from the grid and thus it is impossible to control or even to tell where the actual electricity does come from - however, knowing the actual dutch electricity mix, an overwhelming majority of it comes from burning coal.
2. Wind is a rather unreliable source of power - it may happen that the
Re: (Score:2)
about whom do they pay their electricity bill, nothing more.
That is all you need. When you preference giving company extra money over their competition because they are greener then the competition starts dying. You can see this too in the Netherlands who just opened a new coal plant last year. The company who did so immediately wrote down 2.9bn euro off their value and questioned the long term viability of what they just built as the cost of wholesale electricity plummets due to customers literally gifting the greener part of the industry in exchange for killing th
Re: (Score:2)
Stepping aside from what happens with the wind isn't blowing (I'll assume they have some other 'green' source of energy for those times, although maybe they don't?)...
When you say they can't work out where the power comes from, do they not have some sort of electricity meter? Surely they must have to pay an amount of money for an amount of usage to some sort of electricity company, right?
Can that electricity company not say "they used X units of electricity last year, and we bought Y units of electricity fr
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the Netherlands have solved only one small part of the problem. We are very good with localised initiatives (getting cars out of the cities, polluting cars out of the population, running green trains, powering energy efficient homes), but we suck quite badly on the broader country policy. A policy that emphasises making it easy to get around by bicycle, but also does nothing to stop people driving literally halfway across the country for their daily commute to work with more cars per capita than
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You need to get your priorities figured out. CO2 is on track to wreck society in a way far more serious than not being able to easily drive your car 9000 miles in 10 days.
Re: (Score:3)
Most people don't need to drive 9000 miles. 20 to 50 a day will work. We can still use some fossil fuels but not more than can be absorbed by the environment. Energy can be stored in many ways. My favorite Idea is to use excess production of wind and solar to pump water into reservoirs (fishing anyone?) and then release as needed, e.g. at night.
Battery tech keeps getting cheaper and more capable. We can already move submarines for a week on lithium batteries. Over time more batteries will show up in heavy e
Re: (Score:2)
If it won't do that - if it won't perform as well as a 1987 Yugo, people will not buy it. If they don't buy it, then you have no solution to your problem. Hey, I'm just re-stating the problem, and noting that it has no solution. There's no point in whining about the problem unless you can provide a viable solution.
Want a solution? OK, here's one. Build the hyperloops big enough to carry cars. Build it out so it covers the entire USA such that there's a terminal within 50 miles of absolutely every
Re:Fake News (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, globally it is cooler than 2016 and may or may not end up being cooler than 2015 but that's all. 2017 is going to end up being the 2nd or 3rd warmest year in the temperature record.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say believe the opposite of corporate propaganda.
Re:Got lucky! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. You can't legislate or decree away reality. Reality always wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Got lucky! (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the problem with the treaties is that because the large polluters (US included) have such a varying level of enerfy infrastructure the treaties signed are not binding. The Paris agreement is about common emission goals that countries ought to strive to reach, there are no mechanisms in it to impose sanctions on nations that fail to meet theirs. So to speak of 'exemptions' in such a treaty is nonsense to begin with, you can't be 'exempt' from sanctions that do not exist in the treaty. Would it be good to have some kind of sanction system in place? Yes, yes it would, but if you think the US government would ever agree to internationally binding treaties that would impose sanctions on US trade should its goals not be reached, you're occupying an entirely different political reality than I am.
Second of all: why do you think it'd be realistic not to account for the fact that massive infrastructure overhaul will not happen immediately and give these countries realistic timeframes in the treaties? China at the moment gets roughly 2/3rds of all its energy from coal and has 4 times the population of the US with increasing private car ownership and you think giving them 13 years time to turn their greenhouse emisions downward (the paris agreement limit for when China's promised it will reach peak CO2 emissions is 2030 and they've also agreed to reduce their carbon intensity by 60 % by the same date, which means they have 13 years time to essentially redo the majority of their energy production) is somehow excessive? Wtf?
Thirdly, do you realize that China has very much woken up to the fact that it is within their own national interests to cut down on emissions? The level of pollution in many Chinese megacities is so bad (quivalent to smoking 1.2 packs of cigarettes just for breathing the air) its having significant adverse health effects leading to increased health care costs and declined productivity if they are not addressed. It's a major issue in domestic Chinese politics because the people don't like the status quo at all, which means if they keep making things worse they'd push the country towards increasing political instability which is certainly not something they want. The idea that China will just keep building polluting tech even though they're already struggling with massive pollution issues is not based in reality. They're building massive amounts of nuclear power plants and heavily focusing on renewables, but as is obvious to anyone with half a brain, this level of change will take a few years to accomplish. They're currently on the track to meeting their 2030 goals. [nytimes.com]
Re: Got lucky! (Score:5, Informative)
You realize the USA has some of the most aggressive environmental protection than all of the world, right?
Do you realize that Americans emit twice as much CO2 per capita as China, and eight times as much as India? Expecting them to make equal cuts is ridiculous. The cuts need to be where the waste is.
List of countries by per capita CO2 emissions [wikipedia.org]
Re: Got lucky! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Got lucky! (Score:5, Interesting)
We burn carbon in order to do useful things. We measure the usefulness of things with money. "Waste" means burning carbon without doing something useful.
So the relevant metric isn't a country's total CO2 emissions, or CO2 emission per capita, but CO2 emission per dollar of GDP. If one country emits more CO2 per GDP than another one, you can decrease CO2 emissions by moving production from the former to the latter, while maintaining the same total production.
And on that score [wikipedia.org], the US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton. European countries (Germany, Netherlands, UK, etc.) are around $4000/ton.
Re: Got lucky! (Score:5, Insightful)
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that's a pretty stupid point. it seems pretty fucking obvious that it takes more energy to keep 1.4 billion people alive than it does 300 million. ignoring reality is not going to win anyone to your stupid misguided side.
Re: Got lucky! (Score:5, Informative)
China's emissions per year has been falling, and they canceled all new coal power plants 2 years ago.
Re: Got lucky! (Score:3, Informative)
GP's post is slightly inaccurate in that China haven't cancelled all of their plants, but they have massively scaled back [reuters.com]. In the meantime Trump has pulled us Out of the Paris Accord and is actively planning To ramp up coal use.
Tell me again which country is the bad actor?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You're right. The environment doesn't care who you are or where you arbitrarily draw some boundary. So we're back to what is *your* emission, and guess what, it's a fuckload higher than those of your Chinese counterpart.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's too hot down here in the summer.
Plus Donna's crazy claims were debunked as her intentionally lying to sell a book by the DNC producing the actual documents she lied about in under an hour after her claim.
Here's a hint, Donna thought July 2016 was August 2015 and confused two documents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since Republicans are in power, they will stop this socialist global warming in it's tracks . Problem solved!
Since it's all a Chinese hoax, there's nothing to stop. Donald of Orange is always right, right?
I never could figure the Chinese hoax angle. Musta been something he picked up from his Leninist buddy Steve.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we need a new paradigm : anyone retardedly trying to deny global warming at this point gets their non-functioning testicles removed and fed to them with tartar sauce.
You have stumbled upon one positive aspect of global warming without even knowing it. The potential reduction of human population by DANGEROUS GLOBAL TESTICLE WARMING. [dontcookyourballs.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Typical /. response.
A. Study produced by eminent scientists based on lots of research, taking many man-years of effort to produce, shows clear conclusion.
B. Random /. poster, misrepresents article, then says: "nope, I know better".
[Misrepresentation is pointing out the article doesn't explicitly say that most CO2 is produced by humans, but ignores the clear statement at the beginning of the article that says: 'It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming,' ]
Re: More bullshit. Right on time. As expected. (Score:5, Informative)
As Einstein said, everything is relative...
Einstein never said that. He said that inertial motion is relative. Rotational motion is not inertial, and is not relative. Objects move linearly relative to other objects. But objects rotate in an absolute sense.
If you are locked in a black box, there is no way to determine if you have constant linear velocity. There is also no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But you can detect rotation by using a Foucault pendulum [wikipedia.org] or other scientific instruments.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you are locked in a black box, there is no way to determine if you have constant linear velocity. There is also no way to distinguish between gravity and acceleration. But you can detect rotation by using a Foucault pendulum [wikipedia.org] or other scientific instruments.
That's not entirely correct, I think. Acceleration is constant across the entire black box, but gravitational force depends inversely on the squared distance to the attracting mass, i.e. the force should be slightly different at the top and bottom of the box.
Re: (Score:2)
i can't tell if you're deeply stupid, or if you merely think the people reading your post are deeply stupid.
Not or, but and.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, a troll?
No. Absolute disgust.
I know climate change is real and happening.
But conclusions like this help exactly nothing.
It's about as useful to furthering climate science and solutions as the kid from Kindergarten Cop standing up with the "boys and girls" genital line.
Re: (Score:2)
But then you're assuming there's subjective context. Just because the President thinks smoking or leaded gasoline don't cause health problems, doesn't mean objective scientists should be ignored.
Re:Let's be clear about context (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "fuck you". It's reality. It's physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Do you think mother nature has a personal vendetta against you when an acorn falls from a tree and hits you in the head? Or a seagull decides to drop a deuce on you while flying overhead?