Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My apologies. The link I first gave was broken. I fixed it now, and you should be able to read the entire story, including this sentence:
Monday’s conference is designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region’s tourism and fishing industries.
Oceans everywhere are not only being over-fished, they are increasing in sea water temperature due to global warming. Cold water loving species of fish - wild salmon, for example - are declining in population numbers, and some are going extinct. This is bad news not only for those who like the occasional fish fry, but also for peoples like the Inuit whose diet is heavily supplemented by ocean going species of fish.
i still don't see a scientist to thank in this scenario. shouldn't i thank a fisherman instead?
Ah, the words of an Exxon shareholder. Democrat, republican or Steve Bannon, the words should be "redistribute our carbon footprint on our one and only planet."
Prior to becoming Secretary of State, Exxon's Rex Tillerson was actually on record as supporting a carbon tax. The proposal he put forward back then wasn't much, but at least it was a start.
Exxon hasn't issued a detailed policy position addressing these proposals or outlining how high such a tax should be to slow or halt global warming, how the tax should be structured, or what the revenue would be used for. The company has said only that it favors a revenue-neutral tax, meaning revenue from the tax would be returned to the public or businesses through tax cuts or some sort of rebate.
Under Mr. Pruitt’s leadership the E.P.A. also has removed most mentions of the words “climate change” from its website. He has declined to link carbon dioxide emissions to global warming, and in an interview with Time magazine last week said he intended to assemble a team of independent experts to challenge established climate science because, Mr. Pruitt asserted, it has not yet been subject to “a robust, meaningful debate.”
You'll find out when all the bees and other insects are completely decimated. How do you think you get your food? Climate change is a real thing. And Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about who believes that.
Yep, not surprising. Scott Pruitt is basically an avowed hater of the EPA, and most conservatives think climate change is a hoax.
It's one thing to disagree with the evidence; it's another to censor it altogether if it doesn't align nicely with your agenda.
I've been saying on here that elevated censorship at the hands of conservatives is in the works. They'll see if their efforts to censor scientific research float, and if they do, they'll expand on that. You know Trump has no respect for the right to criticize his administration, and most of his supporters are happy to mindlessly rubber stamp anything he does.
You'll see that by the end of the Trump admin, we will have less freedom to express and criticize. And that's how Trump and conservatives are, in fact, enemies of America.
Scientists are interested in the pursuit of knowledge. If they were interested in politics, they'd be running for office. You can believe that the speed of light is actually 1,000,000 miles per second because you are hoping to get funding for a spaceship to travel to Alpha Centauri, but the law's the law. 186,000 miles per second is not only a safe space flight velocity, it's the LAW whether you believe it or not.
The science of climatology has its bedrock in the laws of physics. For example, you cannot pick out which laws of thermodynamics are convenient for your own purposes and disregard the rest. The laws of thermodynamics don't give a damn what any human thinks about them, they remain the same, regardless.
It is the politicians and the big carbon energy companies who stand to lose billions of dollars who have decided to politicize science in the name of short-term profits, and future generations on this earth can go to hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
The conclusion of the overwhelming number of scientists and many thousands of rigorous academic studies that mankind's burning of fossil fuels is rapidly altering our weather and climate. Those conclusions are "truly honest," factual, objective and free from politics.
Manmade climate change is common sense -- the world is burning over 1,000 barrels of oil per second. You can't pump that much CO2 into the air and not have the climate change. The atmosphere is not an unlimited resource; seen from space, you can see how thin the layer of air is around the globe.
you guys are thinking i dont believe in science, but as i have noted MANY TIMES i do in fact believe in science. perhaps one day you will get that through your thick heads, but probably not.
what i object to is the politics being pushed by scientists for what ever reason. we have some on one side pushing the man made climate change so they can continue getting their government grants and other funding, and we have scientists on the other side pushing the natural climate change so they can continue getting their grants and other funding.
the problem though is that as a result we dont get the ENTIRE story behind climate change, as so much is left out by both sides. add to that the the science of climate change is still in its infancy, and as we all know a little knowledge is dangerous, and that is what we have now, a little knowledge.
man puts out a tiny fraction of the CO2 introduced to the atmosphere, and CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total make up of our atmosphere. also note that we are only 15,000 years out of the last period of glaciation, and as the science of geology has noted, we have periods of glaciation, and inter glaciation and during periods of inter glaciation the planet has warming, makes sense if you were to look at all the science WITHOUT the politics, and WITHOUT the conclusions of scientists with an agenda.
i still don't see a scientist to thank in this scenario. shouldn't i thank a fisherman instead?
You can thank them both. Suppose a fisherman notices that his catches have been decreasing for quite a few years now. He's still the best fisherman ever with a lifetime's worth of savvy and the most modern equipment available installed on his boat. What to do? His fisherman pals have been having the exact same problem, so they all get together and decide to hire a fisheries biologist.
The biologist they hire is extremely competent and very concerned. She conducts a study which shows that fish populations are being adversely impacted by a combination of climate change and an increase in pollution in the rivers and streams which feed into the bay which had once been a paradise for both the fish and the fisherman who caught them and for you because you happen to enjoy a meal of fresh caught flounder.
The biologist tells the fishermen that while she can't stop the climate change for them, the level of pollutants in the bay can be reduced by better water treatment facilities. These are built and the flounder population begins a recovery since it has one less environmental stressor to deal with. The fishermen experience increased catches and you notice that fresh flounder is the evening special at your fav seafood joint again.
Or Donald Trump could come along and put out a gag order on the biologist, so the fishermen never get to hear the real explanation for their problem, hence they all go out of business, and one day your grandchildren will ask you, "Grandpa whatza fwounder?"
You'll find out when all the bees and other insects are completely decimated.
give us the date when that's supposed to happen, so i can anticipate my question being answered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
How do you think you get your food?
farmers. ranchers. fishermen. certainly not EPA scientists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trobesmom
Climate change is a real thing. And Mother Nature doesn't give a damn about who believes that.
well good for her. uncaring females are a dime a dozen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
