Climate March this Saturday at Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History

[KJ5]

Well,that is simple enough then, if 70% believe and are following through with the passion of their beliefs then why are we even having this discussion as surly the remaining 30% would probably have the CO impact of a couple of large cities at best.

Or are we saying even though 70% believe only 20% care enough to alter their lifestyle to change it,or feels it needs to be addressed but it is not that big of an issue.

30% of the US population is over 96 million people, hardly a couple of large cities

[bust]

Richard, your upside down logic is remarkable.

That is why we are where we are at today,instead of working toward solutions we devote energy to change the system...

The people not working toward solutions are the ones who currently hold the White House, the EPA, and the majority in Congress. Voting them out of office is the best path towards progress.

Trump signs order dismantling Obama-era climate policies
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16Z1L6

Trump signs executive order to expand offshore oil and gas drilling in Arctic and beyond
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/28/15451652/donald-trump-executive-order-offshore-oil-gas-drilling-climate-change

Trump's EPA to reconsider oil and gas emissions rule
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-idUSKBN17L215

Trump aims deep cuts at energy agency that helped make solar power affordable
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-it-massively/

Trump slashes Great Lakes funding by 97 percent in early budget plan
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/..._epa_cuts.html

Trump’s Sledgehammer to Clean Energy Budgets Hurt Americans
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/elizabe...hurt-americans

Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politi...trump-approve/

Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Fuel Economy Standards
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/auto...ndards-n734256

[[I wonder how the people enticed by Russia Today and fake news bots to vote for Jill Stein feel about all this. SMH.)

...we devote energy to change the system so the like minded rule in order to force what we believe in on those who do not wish to comply.

Kinda like a dictatorship.

You should look up the definitions of democracy and dictatorship. You've got them mixed up.

I advocated people expressing their opinions, sharing them with their representatives, and voting to elect people who will work for us instead of their country club pals and next election campaign. That's what participatory democracy looks like.

If climate change experts are unable to convince the majority, maybe they need to rethink their approach verses forceful compliance.

By the way, here are the facts on public opinion about climate change:

Public views on climate change and climate scientists
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/0...te-scientists/

That's one part of a much larger research project, here:

The Politics of Climate
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/0...cs-of-climate/

Only 20% of Americans think our climate is not changing. Among the 80% who do think our climate is changing, more than 60% think it's due to human activity. That's about half of us overall.

But that part of the survey grossly oversimplifies things by asking respondents whether they believe climate change is due to one thing or another with no possibility of a combination of factors.

And I'll trust the opinion of an expert over an average Joe, particularly when it comes to complex matters like science, any day.

[bust]

If you're interested in a rational debate, you might read this new op-ed columnist in the Times: Climate of Complete Certainty

Southen... please take a read and give me your thoughts. It think it presents ideas worth considering.

Wesley, I don't believe in absolutes. I'll grant that. Neither do scientists. They work in degrees of uncertainty. But the lack of absolute certainty is no excuse for inaction. Especially when "inaction" is anything but. Inaction on climate change means continuing activities the vast majority of scientists believe with minimal uncertainty are powerfully affecting our future.

The op-ed article by Bret Stephens? Here's one analysis that seems to sum it up pretty well:

The NY Times promised to fact check their new climate denier columnist — they lied
https://thinkprogress.org/the-ny-times-promised-to-fact-check-their-new-climate-denier-columnist-they-lied-72ad9bdf6019

TL;DR: His facts are wrong. He sets up a false comparison. He uses straw men arguments.

And that quote from the Times reporter he used to back up his argument? He cherry-picked it in a way to suggest something the reporter had not intended. Andy Revkin is that reporter. Here's his reaction to Stephens' article:

https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revk...56090701266040

Revkin shares the quote in its intended context here:

https://twitter.com/Revkin/status/858155840091688960

[Zacha341]

Based on the level of pollution belching out of mainland China alone there has be increased global man made impacts on climate!!

The problem is that politically and ideologically speaking the left vs right take on unyielding and extreme appositional perspectives based on their split in other areas.

Soooo, there can be no agreement or understanding of emphasis.

....But there is no such situation. Climate change is established scientific fact, embraced by essentially all climate scientists. Denial of climate change makes as much sense as believing in werewolves and Tinkerbell. It's like denying the earth is round or water is wet.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wesley, I don't believe in absolutes. I'll grant that. Neither do scientists. They work in degrees of uncertainty. But the lack of absolute certainty is no excuse for inaction. Especially when "inaction" is anything but. Inaction on climate change means continuing activities the vast majority of scientists believe with minimal uncertainty are powerfully affecting our future.

I respect that opinion, but I disagree with the conclusion. I have not seen that the majority of climate scientists agree that immediate and dramatic action is required to address the changes the vast majority of climate scientists see. I believe there is a reasonable and responsible case to be made for inaction -- especially given that we have already passed some of the tipping point deadlines handed out by scientists of the past.

We don't need to agree. Respect is enough.

The op-ed article by Bret Stephens? Here's one analysis that seems to sum it up pretty well:

The NY Times promised to fact check their new climate denier columnist — they lied
https://thinkprogress.org/the-ny-times-promised-to-fact-check-their-new-climate-denier-columnist-they-lied-72ad9bdf6019

TL;DR: His facts are wrong. He sets up a false comparison. He uses straw men arguments.
...snip...

You read proof of 'lies'. I read a slanted argument from a radical POV that looks to destroy Mr. Stephens. [[And frankly, use deniers see a lot of effort to attack anyone who disagrees, even modest disagreement -- as I do -- as I do believe in man-made climate change.)

Do you think a strong argument should attack his use of the word 'modest'?
--thinkprogress.org: Fact: The 0.85°C is not “modest.” Maybe its not 'modest', but its not a strong argument that he's a liar. He just has a different opinion about this situation, and what policies we should adopt.

Nobody has asked scientists whether they believe the given the amazing progress in reducing pollution, do they think its likely that we will find ways of addressing climate change in the near future before it is a disaster? That question isn't on the table. I think we'll never find common ground here, unless we start looking at the arguments of the other side with respect, and we stop demonizing those who disagree -- as thinkprogress.org seems to think is justified.

[bust]

...You read proof of 'lies'. I read a slanted argument from a radical POV that looks to destroy Mr. Stephens....)

Wesley, neither I nor thinkprogress called Mr. Stephens a liar. That's a fact. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't like the headline. It's amateurish. But it's important to note that's the only place in the entire article the word "liar" or "lie" appears in any of their forms. And it's leveled not against Mr. Stephens but against the New York Times for failing to fact check Mr. Stephens' article.

The jist of the thinkprogress article is that Mr. Stephens supports his argument with few facts, the few he cites he got wrong, and that the NY Times editorial page staff should have done a better job fact checking the article before letting it print.

I agree with that.

Facts matter. But they're not facts any more when you twist them or pull them out of context to support your argument. Mr. Stephens did that. You just did too.

[Wesley Mouch]

Wesley, neither I nor thinkprogress called Mr. Stephens a liar. That's a fact. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I don't like the headline. It's amateurish. But it's important to note that's the only place in the entire article the word "liar" or "lie" appears in any of their forms. And it's leveled not against Mr. Stephens but against the New York Times for failing to fact check Mr. Stephens' article.

The jist of the thinkprogress article is that Mr. Stephens supports his argument with few facts, the few he cites he got wrong, and that the NY Times editorial page staff should have done a better job fact checking the article before letting it print.

I agree with that.

Facts matter. But they're not facts any more when you twist them or pull them out of context to support your argument. Mr. Stephens did that. You just did too.

I re-read the article, and your are 100% correct. Neither thinkprogress nor you used the word 'lie'. My apologies.

The 'L' word is over-used today, and applied to any situation where we read facts differently. I misread the words. Don't think I misread their meaning. Stephens isn't called a liar -- they do say that the column by "extreme climate science denier Bret Stephens is riddled with errors, misstatements, unfair comparisons, straw men, and logical fallacies." But not a liar.

The case that 'modest' global warming requires immediate climate action isn't made by calling people names for their earnest efforts.

Again, apologies for my error.

[Richard]

Richard, your upside down logic is remarkable.



The people not working toward solutions are the ones who currently hold the White House, the EPA, and the majority in Congress. Voting them out of office is the best path towards progress.

Trump signs order dismantling Obama-era climate policies
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN16Z1L6

Trump signs executive order to expand offshore oil and gas drilling in Arctic and beyond
http://www.theverge.com/2017/4/28/15451652/donald-trump-executive-order-offshore-oil-gas-drilling-climate-change

Trump's EPA to reconsider oil and gas emissions rule
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-idUSKBN17L215

Trump aims deep cuts at energy agency that helped make solar power affordable
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-it-massively/

Trump slashes Great Lakes funding by 97 percent in early budget plan
http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/..._epa_cuts.html

Trump’s Sledgehammer to Clean Energy Budgets Hurt Americans
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/elizabe...hurt-americans

Trump administration approves Keystone XL pipeline
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/23/politi...trump-approve/

Trump Rolls Back Obama-Era Fuel Economy Standards
http://www.nbcnews.com/business/auto...ndards-n734256

[[I wonder how the people enticed by Russia Today and fake news bots to vote for Jill Stein feel about all this. SMH.)



You should look up the definitions of democracy and dictatorship. You've got them mixed up.

I advocated people expressing their opinions, sharing them with their representatives, and voting to elect people who will work for us instead of their country club pals and next election campaign. That's what participatory democracy looks like.



By the way, here are the facts on public opinion about climate change:

Public views on climate change and climate scientists
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/0...te-scientists/

That's one part of a much larger research project, here:

The Politics of Climate
http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/0...cs-of-climate/

Only 20% of Americans think our climate is not changing. Among the 80% who do think our climate is changing, more than 60% think it's due to human activity. That's about half of us overall.

But that part of the survey grossly oversimplifies things by asking respondents whether they believe climate change is due to one thing or another with no possibility of a combination of factors.

And I'll trust the opinion of an expert over an average Joe, particularly when it comes to complex matters like science, any day.

Ahhh yes upsidedown logic

But yet you are using PEW as a basis.

The same PEW that was set and funded by SONOCO ... ummmm an oil company.

Actually as an alt right conservative company that pushed for less government intervention in business.

The same PEW that told cities that they should eliminate city pension funds and teachers,police,firefighters,city workers should all invest in 401K and it would be critical for the cites in order to survive to do this.

Part of PEWs funding is received from hedge funds who with no surprise offer 401Ks.

401K = trust me with your retirement money and good luck trying to figure out how it is actually invested.

Read the thread in the non Detroit section about the transfer of wealth.

It is about making billions,that is what they do,create a need get in make billions and get out.

It started with solar,build up a perceived need,create government funding streams making billions then it crashed and the scraps were handed over to the Chinese who now control the majority of solar panel assembly in the US.I say assembly because they are no longer manufactured here,they just assemble the parts here to circumvent the requirement for government contracts to be made in America.

People have no problem supporting causes that sell them and their fellow Americans out for a dollar after they are done with them.

I have a friend that made millions on the clean air act in the UK in the 70s,he built and installed air scrubbers for factories for major corporations that then closed shortly afterwards,at least the workers had clean air to breath while they were standing in the bread line.

Sad part is it was discovered in the 1980s that the formula that was based on scientific data was incorrect and the factories were not producing the level of pollution as first thought.It was to late by then as the factories had already moved away,how many lives were impacted? How many cities were devastated as their base of revenue disappeared?

http://oilsandstruth.org/can-pew039s-charity-be-trusted

http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1473

Is it not a bit contradictory to fund oil sands opposition when you actually the one developing the oil sands,you see how that works?
Climate change may be very well an issue or it may just be another revenue stream generator fueled by the public that pays for it with no results,but as long as big money is using it to create more big money at others expense,I guess it is something maybe we may never know.

Nothing should be taken at face value because at the end of the day it is always about money,it does not grow on trees and it needs to come from somewhere and usually it goes from the bottom up.

[bust]

23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-100-days.html

1. Withdrew a rule that would help consumers buy more fuel efficient tires. Jan. 26
2. Voted to revoke limits on methane emissions on public lands. Feb. 3
3. Approved the Dakota Access pipeline. Feb. 7
4. Revoked a rule that prevented coal mining companies from dumping debris into local streams. Feb. 16
5. Postponed reforms to how oil, gas and coal from federal lands are priced. Feb. 22
6. Cancelled a requirement for reporting methane emissions. March 2
7. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline. March 24
8. Ordered review and "elimination" of rule that protected tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Feb. 28
9. Delayed a rule aiming to increase safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicals. March 13
10. Reopened a review of fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. March 15
11. Delayed rules increasing energy efficiency standards for some appliances and some federal buildings. March 15
12. Delayed rules modernizing the federal highway system, including environmental standards. March 15
13. Revoked an update to public land use planning process. [[The fossil Fuel industry campaigned for this so they can have more access to public land for fossil fuel extraction) March 27
14. Ordered "immediate reevaluation" of the Clean Power Plan. March 28
15. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands. March 29
16. Rejected a ban on a potentially harmful insecticide. The EPA had previously ruled it poses a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. March 29
17. Overturned a ban on the hunting of wolves and grizzly bears in Alaskan wildlife refuges. April 3
18. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate impacts in environmental reviews. April 5
19. Rolled back limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways. April 12
20. Ordered review of rule limiting methane emissions at new oil and gas drilling sites. April 18
21. Ordered review of national monuments created since 1996. April 26
22. Delayed a lawsuit over rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from power plants. April 27
23. Ordered review of offshore drilling policies and regulations. April 28

Jill Stein voters I want to hear from you.

Richard, it was interesting to learn the Pew Charitable Trust was founded by the children of the founder of the Sun Oil Company. But they died a half century ago. Pew is one of the most reputable sources of data today. I trust their surveys of American opinion better than just about any other, despite the fact they were founded in 1948 by Republicans with deep ties to the oil industry. Do you have a better source of information?

Wesley, the author of the article in thinkprogress did in fact say Bret Stephens' article is "riddled with errors, misstatements, unfair comparisons, straw men, and logical fallacies". And then he backed up every one of those assertions with facts. And he still managed not to call Stephens a liar. Just the "climate science denier" that he is.

Doing nothing to change our ways in the face of overwhelming evidence about the effects of greenhouse gases on our climate is analogous to keeping on smoking because the link between tobacco and lung cancer is unproven. Technically the link is still not definitively proven today. I prefer not to take my chances. And I don't want your secondhand smoke either, especially not around my baby. Thank you.

[Richard]

23 Environmental Rules Rolled Back in Trump’s First 100 Days
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-100-days.html

1. Withdrew a rule that would help consumers buy more fuel efficient tires. Jan. 26
2. Voted to revoke limits on methane emissions on public lands. Feb. 3
3. Approved the Dakota Access pipeline. Feb. 7
4. Revoked a rule that prevented coal mining companies from dumping debris into local streams. Feb. 16
5. Postponed reforms to how oil, gas and coal from federal lands are priced. Feb. 22
6. Cancelled a requirement for reporting methane emissions. March 2
7. Approved the Keystone XL pipeline. March 24
8. Ordered review and "elimination" of rule that protected tributaries and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Feb. 28
9. Delayed a rule aiming to increase safety at facilities that use hazardous chemicals. March 13
10. Reopened a review of fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. March 15
11. Delayed rules increasing energy efficiency standards for some appliances and some federal buildings. March 15
12. Delayed rules modernizing the federal highway system, including environmental standards. March 15
13. Revoked an update to public land use planning process. [[The fossil Fuel industry campaigned for this so they can have more access to public land for fossil fuel extraction) March 27
14. Ordered "immediate reevaluation" of the Clean Power Plan. March 28
15. Lifted a freeze on new coal leases on public lands. March 29
16. Rejected a ban on a potentially harmful insecticide. The EPA had previously ruled it poses a risk to fetal brain and nervous system development. March 29
17. Overturned a ban on the hunting of wolves and grizzly bears in Alaskan wildlife refuges. April 3
18. Withdrew guidance for federal agencies to include greenhouse gas emissions and potential climate impacts in environmental reviews. April 5
19. Rolled back limits on toxic discharge from power plants into public waterways. April 12
20. Ordered review of rule limiting methane emissions at new oil and gas drilling sites. April 18
21. Ordered review of national monuments created since 1996. April 26
22. Delayed a lawsuit over rule regulating airborne mercury emissions from power plants. April 27
23. Ordered review of offshore drilling policies and regulations. April 28

Jill Stein voters I want to hear from you.

Richard, it was interesting to learn the Pew Charitable Trust was founded by the children of the founder of the Sun Oil Company. But they died a half century ago. Pew is one of the most reputable sources of data today. I trust their surveys of American opinion about climate change better than just about any other, despite the fact they were founded by Republicans with deep ties to the oil industry in 1948. Do you have a better source of information?

Wesley, the author of the article in thinkprogress did in fact say Bret Stephens' article is "riddled with errors, misstatements, unfair comparisons, straw men, and logical fallacies". And then he backed up every one of those assertions with facts. And he still managed not to call Stephens a liar. Just the "climate science denier" that he is.

Doing nothing to change our ways in the face of overwhelming evidence about the effects of greenhouse gases on our climate is analogous to keeping on smoking because the link between tobacco and lung cancer is unproven. Technically the link is still not definitively proven today. I prefer not to take my chances. And I don't want your secondhand smoke either, especially around my baby. Thank you.

See that is the problem,newspapers post a list with no back story that actually educates the reader so most readers take it at face value without doing any kind of research to educate themselves on the facts.

I will give an example from the list posted.

1.Withdrew a rule that would help consumers buy more fuel efficient tires. Jan. 26

The government is not and should not be in the business subsidizing tires,the taxpayers that do not drive should not be responsible for paying for the tires of those that do.

That would be my reply to that if it actually was the case,but it is not or I cannot find anything that was proposed as government subsiding tire purchases.

What they are actually referring to is a program that required or forced consumers to purchase LRR rated tires.

That was recalled for common sense rules.

I will make it simple,tomorrow everybody in Detroit has to go and buy new LRR rated tires,sorry but you cannot expect them to perform in the rain,snow,or stand up to pot holes,and for the first year that they are installed you can expect a fuel decrease in up to 3 mpg until they get wore in.

If you own a performance car,sports car or pretty much any car that goes around a curve faster then 20 miles an hour,a luxury car,or a truck then you just need to park it and not drive it.

And we want to pass a law to make sure that you comply because it will save the world so it is in your best interest.

You see how that works when you take things at face value with zero regard to the realities.

Now take the other 23 and actually do some research on them and understand the ramifications and effects on pandering legislation.

Richard, it was interesting to learn the Pew Charitable Trust was founded by the children of the founder of the Sun Oil Company. But they died a half century ago. Pew is one of the most reputable sources of data today. I trust their surveys of American opinion about climate change better than just about any other, despite the fact they were founded by Republicans with deep ties to the oil industry in 1948. Do you have a better source of information?

They are bound by the bylaws of the trust,it is totally irrelevant what you want to believe.

They derive a majority of their revenue from SONCO to this day. Fact
Their board of directors contains past hedge fund mangers. Fact
They provide funding to climate change activist until they step on industry toes. Fact

They are a 5 billion dollar a year trust that is derived from oil revenues,you seriously believe that they are going to do everything in their power to eliminate fossil fuels in the interest of climate change ?

My question that keeps getting skirted is,why is nobody saying anything about the 15 container ships that produce more CO then all of the cars in the country combined?

Until I get an answer I will keep believing that people are interested in climate change until it actually impacts their pocketbook directly,they do not have a problem forcing others to pay for it by passing knee-jerk legislation to make them feel good about a cause.

If as many that support climate change is as listed then this country should have no problem funding mass transit because that is one thing that reduces CO , but they do not support that because then they would be providing transportation to those people and they will never ride it anyways.

So either the supporter numbers are skewed or the priorities are.

[SaintMe]

To the person who posted the article from yournewswire.com, please do five seconds of research of that website.

[Jimaz]

To the person who posted the article from yournewswire.com, please do five seconds of research of that website.

I assume you're referring to this post.