Here We Go: New York Lawmakers Pass Aggressive Law To Fight Climate Change

[WCS + 13]

22 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

One decade of CO2 is what I call not much of a dent.

That’s funny , since the rest of the world thinks it is important to plant trees. UN trillion tree campaign says members have planted 15 billion trees 

MIT has a carbon capture research and development program

CBC News May 24/ 2019

“Shell Quest, the first carbon capture project in the Alberta oil sands. In 2016 after just one year of operation it had stored one million tons of CO2 deep underground “

Sure you have to capture more than a million tons but this is just one operation.

To top it off if the government ends up losing taxes from gas and oil then your electric bill will increase to compensate or you will be taxed in some other way.

[Stephenk + 28]

22 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Talk to people living in Miami Florida. Flooding at high tide is becoming a regular thing because of sea level rise due to global warming.

Well like I said I'm not going to say that their not something going on, But just not sure it's man made and you talk about Florida I have a friend that live on the Gulf side and has for over 30 years and she told me she can't tell that it change much if any and she live right on the coast and has a pier and I ask her if she could tell me if it look like the water  was higher She said no not that she could tell, So I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

22 minutes ago, Stephenk said:

Well like I said I'm not going to say that their not something going on, But just not sure it's man made and you talk about Florida I have a friend that live on the Gulf side and has for over 30 years and she told me she can't tell that it change much if any and she live right on the coast and has a pier and I ask her if she could tell me if it look like the water  was higher She said no not that she could tell, So I guess we will have to wait and see what happens.

It is the shape of Miami Beach that amplifies sea level rise there. That is why Miami, Manhattan, and Houston will be the first to be washed out despite many cities being on the coasts.

[markslawson + 1,057]

23 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

You didn’t read what I said.

those additional inches add feet to the storm surge.

Bill - again you didn't understand what I said. I'm well aware of the storm surge business and how its supposed to add feet.. what you have to understand is that there are already foreshore regulations in place that should allow for an increase that includes the storm surge. Try to remember that I've been in the debate since almost the beginning, and I'm well aware of the excuses used. 

That said there will be place like Miami, which you mention, where they have not done their planning properly and have to take remedial action, even with the quite small increases to date. In those cases, incidentally, it would be quite hard to tell the difference between any man made problems and trouble due to building stuff on top of porous limestone. Building walls will not help at all. There are also places like New Orleans that will flood again, with or without climate change.  

Leave it with you.  

[Stephenk + 28]

On 6/25/2019 at 5:56 PM, Bill the Science Nerd said:

It is the shape of Miami Beach that amplifies sea level rise there. That is why Miami, Manhattan, and Houston will be the first to be washed out despite many cities being on the coasts.

Well not sure which city's will wash away first, But still no one has proven that man has anything to do with it! As the world has been warming and cooling as long as it been here, Just in my life time I've been through it was going to be a ice age and then global warming and now they can't even call it that want to call it climate change and if you really look at both sides of it and read from the one's who don't have anything to gain from Climate change you get a whole difference of opinion. I really believe a lot of this is about money and control, when you look at who is saying it not what they say it is people like the guys who started green peace and left because he said what they are doing now is wrong say a lot to me as he has nothing to gain by lying.  

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Stephenk said:

Well not sure which city's will wash away first, But still no one has proven that man has anything to do with it! As the world has been warming and cooling as long as it been here, Just in my life time I've been through it was going to be a ice age and then global warming and now they can't even call it that want to call it climate change and if you really look at both sides of it and read from the one's who don't have anything to gain from Climate change you get a whole difference of opinion. I really believe a lot of this is about money and control, when you look at who is saying it not what they say it is people like the guys who started green peace and left because he said what they are doing now is wrong say a lot to me as he has nothing to gain by lying.  

Yes, climate scientists have shown enough evidence to get a guilty verdict. If you are asking for 100% certainty, there is no such thing in science. But climate scientists are as sure about human caused global warming as scientists are about anything. Climate scientists understand the human contributions to global warming better than physicists understand gravity.

If you don’t believe that, you can look at the NASA and NHOAA websites. If their wasn’t something to what they were saying, you can bet the conservatives in charge of them would have done something about it over that last few years. 

In the 60s climate scientists realized that nearly all the natural cycles were pushing the Earth’s temperature down and an ice age could have been approaching. Some even proposed burning fossil fuels as a way to reverse it. That is exactly what happened and in the 1970s, the natural trend was reversed by our burning of fossil fuels.

The scientists don’t get that much money from climate science. The money is all with those who make money on fossil fuels.

The evidence of the cause of global warming or whatever name you want to use now all points to human causes. We are changing the global climate 10x faster than natural cycles can cause. And those natural cycles are still pushing temperatures down, we are just overwhelming the natural climate signal by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. The last time something like this happened was the eruption of the Siberian Traps 250 million years ago. And that wiped out 95% of all species on Earth.

It is about money. Those that have it do not want to lose it even though it is hurting everyone. Those people have a lot to gain by lying. A climate scientist would get famous if he could disprove human caused warming, and he would have all the oil money he wanted to back up his research, but this has not happened because global warming is real and humans are causing it.

[Stephenk + 28]

18 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Yes, climate scientists have shown enough evidence to get a guilty verdict. If you are asking for 100% certainty, there is no such thing in science. But climate scientists are as sure about human caused global warming as scientists are about anything. Climate scientists understand the human contributions to global warming better than physicists understand gravity.

If you don’t believe that, you can look at the NASA and NHOAA websites. If their wasn’t something to what they were saying, you can bet the conservatives in charge of them would have done something about it over that last few years. 

In the 60s climate scientists realized that nearly all the natural cycles were pushing the Earth’s temperature down and an ice age could have been approaching. Some even proposed burning fossil fuels as a way to reverse it. That is exactly what happened and in the 1970s, the natural trend was reversed by our burning of fossil fuels.

The scientists don’t get that much money from climate science. The money is all with those who make money on fossil fuels.

The evidence of the cause of global warming or whatever name you want to use now all points to human causes. We are changing the global climate 10x faster than natural cycles can cause. And those natural cycles are still pushing temperatures down, we are just overwhelming the natural climate signal by adding so much CO2 to the atmosphere. The last time something like this happened was the eruption of the Siberian Traps 250 million years ago. And that wiped out 95% of all species on Earth.

It is about money. Those that have it do not want to lose it even though it is hurting everyone. Those people have a lot to gain by lying. A climate scientist would get famous if he could disprove human caused warming, and he would have all the oil money he wanted to back up his research, but this has not happened because global warming is real and humans are causing it.

Well not going to say that your all wrong but look at the past and the one's who said the earth would be gone in 12 years and in 10 years if we didn't change our ways and they were wrong then but they made a lot of money pushing it and if you look at how many grands are given to people who could disprove it next to the one who are saying it fact it one sided, So as far as what your point to that part go I'm not buying it. Also the part about we are causing it is done by a model that they put together that they think could come to past the problem with they model is what the Oceans are doing by warming and what they think they will do but it all a guess not fact and History has already proven that we go threw heating and cooling periods. you need to watch this video will prove my point a little better. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mark+Levin+TV+Show+Free&&view=detail&mid=C1E9CCF0CE811848135FC1E9CCF0CE811848135F&&FORM=VRDGAR

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Stephenk said:

Well not going to say that your all wrong but look at the past and the one's who said the earth would be gone in 12 years and in 10 years if we didn't change our ways and they were wrong then but they made a lot of money pushing it and if you look at how many grands are given to people who could disprove it next to the one who are saying it fact it one sided, So as far as what your point to that part go I'm not buying it. Also the part about we are causing it is done by a model that they put together that they think could come to past the problem with they model is what the Oceans are doing by warming and what they think they will do but it all a guess not fact and History has already proven that we go threw heating and cooling periods. you need to watch this video will prove my point a little better. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Mark+Levin+TV+Show+Free&&view=detail&mid=C1E9CCF0CE811848135FC1E9CCF0CE811848135F&&FORM=VRDGAR

I hope you didn’t really fall for that blatant attempt at manipulation.

He literally just put out a stream of scary sounding words and implied a lot without making any real claims or using any facts what so ever.

I can go over the transcript with you line by line with you to show you the manipulation techniques he is using if you want. But if you look closely, any seeming claim is so broad and general as to make a horoscope feel specific.

[Stephenk + 28]

5 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I hope you didn’t really fall for that blatant attempt at manipulation.

He literally just put out a stream of scary sounding words and implied a lot without making any real claims or using any facts what so ever.

I can go over the transcript with you line by line with you to show you the manipulation techniques he is using if you want. But if you look closely, any seeming claim is so broad and general as to make a horoscope feel specific.

Well if he was the only one who was saying it, I could understand but he one of many saying the same thing if you look around and not in the same words like the one's on the other side are. Every time the one who holler that the world going to end in 12 years they all say the same thing just about word for word, They sound like Democrats when they are trying to push something on everyone that they want you to believe. I look at all sides not just one side and make up my own mind, It's just like they say all the ice is melting and that winter come around and it grows more than it did the year before or is the same  and I do keep up with this because I look to see every year on how many miles of ice is at each poll and for the past 3 years it gone back to where it was in size many not in the same places but it grows some where or the total square miles would change and it hasn't look for yourself. 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

2 hours ago, Stephenk said:

Well if he was the only one who was saying it, I could understand but he one of many saying the same thing if you look around and not in the same words like the one's on the other side are. Every time the one who holler that the world going to end in 12 years they all say the same thing just about word for word, They sound like Democrats when they are trying to push something on everyone that they want you to believe. I look at all sides not just one side and make up my own mind, It's just like they say all the ice is melting and that winter come around and it grows more than it did the year before or is the same  and I do keep up with this because I look to see every year on how many miles of ice is at each poll and for the past 3 years it gone back to where it was in size many not in the same places but it grows some where or the total square miles would change and it hasn't look for yourself. 

It’s funny. You just said, almost word for word, the same thing I have been hearing from your side for the last few years. You guys need to get a new script. 

At least the script from the left is backed up by science. Am I saying “the science is settled”? Yes, I am. Because on the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature up was scientifically settled 30 years ago. Anyone who tells you they know otherwise is lying.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

The science is settled that jet chemtrails cause global warming and ZOMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

https://www.newsgram.com/airplane-contrails-global-warming-triple-impact-climate-2050

"The study, published on Thursday in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that due to increased air traffic activity, contrail-induced warming was expected to be thrice larger in 2050 than what it was in 2006. Contrails change global cloudiness which creates an imbalance in the Earth’s radiation budget – called radiative forcing – that results in warming of the planet. The larger this radiative forcing, the more significant the climate impact.  ..."

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 6/29/2019 at 9:49 AM, Bill the Science Nerd said:

It’s funny. You just said, almost word for word, the same thing I have been hearing from your side for the last few years. You guys need to get a new script. 

At least the script from the left is backed up by science. Am I saying “the science is settled”? Yes, I am. Because on the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature up was scientifically settled 30 years ago. Anyone who tells you they know otherwise is lying.

The science is settled? 

Scientifically settled? 

Perhaps some settling of contents may have occurred during packaging?

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The science is settled? 

Scientifically settled? 

Perhaps some settling of contents may have occurred during packaging?

 

So that’s how you got trained. Explains a lot.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

2 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

The science is settled that jet chemtrails cause global warming and ZOMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!

https://www.newsgram.com/airplane-contrails-global-warming-triple-impact-climate-2050

"The study, published on Thursday in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that due to increased air traffic activity, contrail-induced warming was expected to be thrice larger in 2050 than what it was in 2006. Contrails change global cloudiness which creates an imbalance in the Earth’s radiation budget – called radiative forcing – that results in warming of the planet. The larger this radiative forcing, the more significant the climate impact.  ..."

And how has this work been received?

Has it been challenged? Supported by other studies?

How much time has the scientific community had to review the work?

Your comments suggests you don’t read the paper but just the media headlines.

Letting the media tell you how to think is not very smart. But it explains a lot of your comments.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Just now, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Your comments suggests you don’t read the paper but just the media headlines.

Letting the media tell you how to think is not very smart. But it explains a lot of your comments.

You really don't know anything about me. 

Your obstinance can be amusing though.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Tom Kirkman said:

You really don't know anything about me. 

Your obstinance can be amusing though.

I know the comments of yours I have read and they all follow the same pattern of repeating the right wing talking head agenda of the day.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

11 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I know the comments of yours I have read and they all follow the same pattern of repeating the right wing talking head agenda of the day.

Sheesh, give it a rest, Bill.   Nobody tells Tom Kirkman what to think.   Nobody.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Sheesh, give it a rest, Bill.   Nobody tells Tom Kirkman what to think.   Nobody.

He follows the right wing media script too close to be having real independent thoughts.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

6 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

He follows the right wing media script too close to be having real independent thoughts.

Bill, what media script are you following?

I really don't have any axe to grind here.  When I see what you write, you come across as a man obsessed. It is no longer rational. You chronically complain when anyone strays from your anointed personal path.  I gently remind you that you are not appointed God of the natural world.  Mr. Kirkman has made interesting observations about politicians, in this instance about politicians and their forays into "climate legislation."  He points out, accurately in my view, that this is a farce, and is going nowhere.  You disagree.  And that's fine.  You seem to be arguing that Mr. Kirkman is a member of the John Birch Society.  OK, so let's take that as a given, a starting point.  So what?  Who cares?  I don't.  It makes no difference. Let's assume you are a member of (take your pick)  the Young Socialist League.  So what?  Who cares?  Not me.  See, your politics are not what is the defining criterion, not here, not anywhere.  Either you have something novel and interesting to add or you don't. I am not intending to be harsh with you, but let's cut out the objectification crap, that is not productive. 

Tom is a perfectly reasonable guy.  He doesn't agree with me, on most things, and that's fine.  That does not mandate that you cannot have an interesting discussion with him.  I suggest you try listening and hey, who knows, perhaps you learn something new.  Do you seriously think these New York Politicians have The Truth and The Light?  Come on, you are a bright guy, you know better. Those New York politicians are fair game for criticism, all you have to do is look at the dismal State balance sheet to see what a total, confounding mess they have made of one of the richest States in the entire USA.  How they can manage to wreck the place is baffling.  Criticize them for myopic thinking?  You bet!

[Stephenk + 28]

On 6/28/2019 at 8:49 PM, Bill the Science Nerd said:

It’s funny. You just said, almost word for word, the same thing I have been hearing from your side for the last few years. You guys need to get a new script. 

At least the script from the left is backed up by science. Am I saying “the science is settled”? Yes, I am. Because on the idea that humans are driving the Earth’s temperature up was scientifically settled 30 years ago. Anyone who tells you they know otherwise is lying.

Well then tell me something how come in the 80's when they were saying we had a global cooling and they were trying to say we were going into a small ice age because of the air being so polluted that it was blocking the sun causing it to cool down and they were just a few people that keep saying that we were just going through another cycle and they were told they were wrong and it never came to pass and then we went to global warming and they couldn't prove that but a few say they were wrong then to and were told they were wrong and now here we are at climate change which in my mind is the easy way for them to say if the weather is bad blame it on climate change and it cover. Like I said I'm not saying the world not changing I'm just not sure that man is the main cause of it and that it not about money and control as they have been trying to push one kind of world ending deal of some kind all my life and that been over 60 years.     

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 6/30/2019 at 12:32 PM, Jan van Eck said:

Bill, what media script are you following?

I really don't have any axe to grind here.  When I see what you write, you come across as a man obsessed. It is no longer rational. You chronically complain when anyone strays from your anointed personal path.  I gently remind you that you are not appointed God of the natural world.  Mr. Kirkman has made interesting observations about politicians, in this instance about politicians and their forays into "climate legislation."  He points out, accurately in my view, that this is a farce, and is going nowhere.  You disagree.  And that's fine.  You seem to be arguing that Mr. Kirkman is a member of the John Birch Society.  OK, so let's take that as a given, a starting point.  So what?  Who cares?  I don't.  It makes no difference. Let's assume you are a member of (take your pick)  the Young Socialist League.  So what?  Who cares?  Not me.  See, your politics are not what is the defining criterion, not here, not anywhere.  Either you have something novel and interesting to add or you don't. I am not intending to be harsh with you, but let's cut out the objectification crap, that is not productive. 

Tom is a perfectly reasonable guy.  He doesn't agree with me, on most things, and that's fine.  That does not mandate that you cannot have an interesting discussion with him.  I suggest you try listening and hey, who knows, perhaps you learn something new.  Do you seriously think these New York Politicians have The Truth and The Light?  Come on, you are a bright guy, you know better. Those New York politicians are fair game for criticism, all you have to do is look at the dismal State balance sheet to see what a total, confounding mess they have made of one of the richest States in the entire USA.  How they can manage to wreck the place is baffling.  Criticize them for myopic thinking?  You bet!

No media script here. Just a rational reaction to the real science data.

And honestly, I have no idea what a “John Birch Society is” And I don’t remember that coming up in the conversation. I follow science publications, I only follow politics where it crosses science and conservative politics crosses science a lot. At least liberals pay lip service to the science.

Politics is not the issue here. The science is. And one thing Tom here does is deride any science that disagrees with his politics just like the the talking heads he listens to tell him to.

These are dangerous times and not confronting people who are being unreasonable and irrational about subject that endanger us all would be  unreasonable and irrational on my part.

Tom is anything but reasonable, especially when he resorts to insults toward those who present him with facts not from a politician’s mouth. I have tried reason with him before and he does not care about facts, just his political ideology.

And you can keep your New York politicians, they do not go far enough.

If you want to know who I listen to, it is NASA and NOAA and the Union of Concerned Scientists. And before you try to say anything about those sources, remember, they have had conservative politicians in charge of them for over 2 years now and if there was any fraud or incompetence on the part of those scientists, you can bet it would have been exposed and they would have been fired.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

1 hour ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

Politics is not the issue here. The science is. And one thing Tom here does is deride any science that disagrees with his politics just like the the talking heads he listens to tell him to.

These are dangerous times and not confronting people who are being unreasonable and irrational about subject that endanger us all would be  unreasonable and irrational on my part.

Tom is anything but reasonable, especially when he resorts to insults toward those who present him with facts not from a politician’s mouth. I have tried reason with him before and he does not care about facts, just his political ideology.

And you can keep your New York politicians, they do not go far enough.

Thanks for the laugh this morning : )

It's amusing to me that you view the Green New Deal as insufficiently radical.

I really wish AOC would throw her hat in the ring and run for President.

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

15 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Thanks for the laugh this morning : )

It's amusing to me that you view the Green New Deal as insufficiently radical.

I really wish AOC would throw her hat in the ring and run for President.

 

Typical that you just try to make fun of politics that disagree with yours with any serious rebuttal. It would be nice if you would deviate from the Right’s script and have some thoughts of your own.

As for the Green New Deal, if you read it, you would see that it is nothing more than a list of problems to address, the time left to address them, and some suggested paths to deal with them. It made no legal requirements at all. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

36 minutes ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

As for the Green New Deal, if you read it, you would see that it is nothing more than a list of problems to address, the time left to address them, and some suggested paths to deal with them. It made no legal requirements at all. 

No, the Green New Deal is a Socialist wet dream to bankrupt America and have a totalitarian government sieze control of pretty much everything.  Venezuela would be child's play compared to what would happen to the U.S. if the Green New Deal was implemented.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

30 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No, the Green New Deal is a Socialist wet dream to bankrupt America and have a totalitarian government sieze control of pretty much everything.  Venezuela would be child's play compared to what would happen to the U.S. if the Green New Deal was implemented.

As I pointed out, there is nothing in it to be implemented.

you have been completely brainwashed by the conservative talking points without doing any independent research of your own.

Try actually looking into the claims of the people you listen to before parroting without thinking.