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

[allisongraw]

Hello!
I didn't see a thread about this so forgive me if it's already been brought up, but there is a sister climate march this weekend to complement the one going on in DC. If anyone is interested it starts at noon Saturday the 29th at the Charles H. Wright Museum of African American History on 315 E. Warren.
I believe this is an issue that impacts everyone, "red" or "blue" so I felt like I should try to get the word out.

Thank you.

[belleislerunner]

Just to be clear, is this for those on the fringes who think "climate change" is real?

[Bham1982]

Just to be clear, is this for those on the fringes who think "climate change" is real?

Science, reason and fact are apparently only for "libtards". Thankfully our American Taliban leadership is doing its best to poison our air, water and land.

Whatever happened to the Republican party? When did it go from the Rockefeller Republican ideal to basically a party of inbred, fact-averse nuts?

[KJ5]

Science, reason and fact are apparently only for "libtards". Thankfully our American Taliban leadership is doing its best to poison our air, water and land.

Whatever happened to the Republican party? When did it go from the Rockefeller Republican ideal to basically a party of inbred, fact-averse nuts?

Fighting name calling with more name calling only further cheapens the debate. One ought to attack the argument, not the people doing the arguing.

[gumby]

Just to be clear, is this for those on the fringes who think "climate change" is real?

Guessing sarcasm?

[southen]

Just to be clear, is this for those on the fringes who think "climate change" is real?

Stop. Just stop.

[Richard]

kinda like having a woman's rights march but only women that agree with what rights i want you to agree with can attend.

Although some are just causes all of these marches are starting to blend and lose their effectiveness,it seems like.

[Bham1982]

kinda like having a woman's rights march but only women that agree with what rights i want you to agree with can attend.

Yeah, why would a science march be for science and not fabricated fantasy? Unfair! And why would a woman's march be against trolling marchers trying to subjugate women? Boo!

Funny that the radical right are the biggest snowflakes around. Reality's a bitch.

[Richard]

Yeah, why would a science march be for science and not fabricated fantasy? Unfair! And why would a woman's march be against trolling marchers trying to subjugate women? Boo!

Funny that the radical right are the biggest snowflakes around. Reality's a bitch.

You are the only one here with two waaaaaaa posts so far.Snowflake

How do you decide on something based on scientific results when the scientists cannot even agree with each other.

The part that does not take any scientific proof is the fact that it is a climate change march ,if you believe in it then by all means join them with your support if you do not believe in it then hit up a strip joint or have a cup of coffee or a beer and support your local independent business and help them.

It really is not that complicated and to say that those that do not believe in your opinion is an inbred,well, that is just dumb.

[Bham1982]

How do you decide on something based on scientific results when the scientists cannot even agree with each other.

If there were such a scenario, then there would be no scientific consensus, obviously.

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.

It really is not that complicated and to say that those that do not believe in your opinion is an inbred,well, that is just dumb.

You're half right. It isn't really that complicated.

When it comes to science, do you believe the consensus by virtually every PhD climatologist on the planet, or do believe a bunch of lifelong lying grifters and scam artists preying on racist, easily duped trailer park idiots? I'll take the former.

[Richard]

If there were such a scenario, then there would be no scientific consensus, obviously.

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.



You're half right. It isn't really that complicated.

When it comes to science, do you believe the consensus by virtually every PhD climatologist on the planet, or do believe a bunch of lifelong lying grifters and scam artists preying on racist, easily duped trailer park idiots? I'll take the former.

PHD does not make an expert.

PHD climatologists = there is global warming.

Ivory salesman = Selling ivory is good for the economy.

They both get paid to push their views.

If you are a global warming expert and say that that there is no global warming,how long are you going to have a job? You just kinda talked yourself out of one.

Freon is bad for the ozone and is causeing global warming.

Or was it DuPont held the patent for freon,freon kills the ozone which breaks DuPont patent then all of the sudden the next day there are 50 companies selling freon and costing Americans millions as they are forced to convert over to "non ozone killing freon" .

All because somebody with a phd said it was killing the ozone.Higher ups loved it because they made hundreds of millions really fast.

If you have one made in China product in your house then you are not a global warming supporter because the emissions that one trip took to bring it into port is equal to the emissions put out by 50 million cars,yes that one trip one way.

Now trace the path from the port to the store.

15 of the worlds largest container ships emit sulfur oxides equal to 760 million cars.

We do not go to war that costs American lives to protect oil interests in Saudi Arabia why? because 85% of Saudi Arabia crude goes directly to the shipping industry.

We go to war that costs American lives in order to protect the shipping industry so we can buy cheap goods.

So now you take it from inbred to trailer parks,thank you for diligently helping to put President Trump in office you have done your job well.

I actually only replied because I nothing better to do for a few seconds.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...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.

You're half right. It isn't really that complicated.

When it comes to science, do you believe the consensus by virtually every PhD climatologist on the planet, or do believe a bunch of lifelong lying grifters and scam artists preying on racist, easily duped trailer park idiots? I'll take the former.

For most issues today, we have a problem agreeing on definitions. Are we discussing 'climate change' or 'global warming'. Are we discussion models or facts.

A lot of the debate about 'settled science' is based on shaky ground. So the majority of a sample of scientists think that global warming is real. Does this mean we should stop fracking and install solar panels? Does this mean we should tax carbon, and give money to the government to fund Universal Basic Income?

I happen to believe that the scientists are right. There is evidence of man-made global warming.

I also believe that the climate-modelling is inaccurate. And believe that there's little evidence that a warming climate is sure to have caused more or less rainfall or cracking of ice in some remote corner of the world. And I further believe that we don't know enough about what may be happening to go crazy and start taking dramatic action to 'save the planet'.

We all want to save the planet. We just don't agree on the scale of this threat, and whether dramatic action needs to be taken today. Maybe its better to keep our growth trajectory and rely on future reductions in emissions. We have proven history of success -- why mortgage the farm against a possible future problem that we can avoid?

So let's agree to start reducing CO2 where we can, and keep our eye on things. But let's not go crazy and assume that some debatable degree of global warming is going to cause climate change and kill us all on Wednesday if we don't stop using oil yesterday.

So as to Detroit -- this has nothing much to do with Detroit except that some folks want to march for action. Let them march. I think they're wrong to focus so much on 'climate change', but I applaud their energy and respect their right to be deluded by group-think.

[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.

[KJ5]

How do you decide on something based on scientific results when the scientists cannot even agree with each other.

Oh, well I definitely believe the 3% of scientists who are paid by oil companies and billionaires to shill for them. ��
I'd like to see some stats on how much coverage the corporate media is giving Trump's first 100 days vs. the amount of coverage it gives the climate march.

[bust]

Oh, well I definitely believe the 3% of scientists who are paid by oil companies and billionaires to shill for them. ��

Exactly. The only professors raking it in for their opinion on climate change are the handful running amok in funding from polluters to cast doubt about it. Shame on them.

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nergy-industry

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/u...Hock-Soon.html

U. of Delaware Refuses to Disclose Funding Sources of Its Climate Contrarian
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/1...ate-contrarian

Delaware professor caught in climate change controversy
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ersy/24090273/

Greenpeace exposes sceptics hired to cast doubt on climate science
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...limate-science

Not Just the Koch Brothers: New Drexel Study Reveals Funders Behind the Climate Change Denial Effort
http://drexel.edu/now/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

I encourage you to march Detroit. But don't stop there. It would be a lot more effective to call your representatives, send them a post card, write them an email, organize voter registration, and work to replace the climate change deniers in office with people who support science, not their campaign donors.

[southen]

Just going to leave this here since some people think that climate scientists are out there raking in the big bucks and propping up cushy jobs through their research...

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 the median annual salary for atmospheric scientists including climatologists was $89,260 with a salary range between $49,120, and $134,730."

I wonder what those big fossil fuel companies are pulling in who might be motivated to kill the climate discussion and green jobs... hmmmm.

[Richard]

Just going to leave this here since some people think that climate scientists are out there raking in the big bucks and propping up cushy jobs through their research...

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2012 the median annual salary for atmospheric scientists including climatologists was $89,260 with a salary range between $49,120, and $134,730."

I wonder what those big fossil fuel companies are pulling in who might be motivated to kill the climate discussion and green jobs... hmmmm.

I think that like everything else in this country that requires research in anything there is funding involved,when there is funding involved, politics become involved and the need to retain the funding stream.

You can have the smartest people in the world working under you but is is detrimental to your existence to find a solution.That is on both sides.

If you have a PHD in Theology can you convince an Atheist strictly because you have a PHD and considered an expert?

I do not have a PHD in anything and probably not even considered close to being the smartest cookie in the box.

What I do have is a lot on an island in the Gulf Of Mexico and with a budget of $5 a ruler and a thermometer I have discovered in 10 years,

The tide comes in and the tide goes out.
The weekly temperature rises and it falls and really has not changed much on the average from the 1950s.
The yearly sea levels rise and it falls usually a variance of about 1/2 inch at best.

So my concern about Florida being under water due to climate change is minimal.

I agree we do need to be complacent in the way we deal with the environment as it seems to me anyways when man decides to mess with the natural nature of things in the past, bad results happen.

Change the course of a river and find out 40 years later it was not such a good idea.
Of course at the time experts said it was a good thing to do.

Dam a river to provide power with no concern with the thousands of residents below,it goes on and on.

I think we need to be aware of our impact in this earth and work towards leaving it in a better place for future generations.

My only gripe is the millions and millions of people that believe in climate change,which is their right if they practice and support what they believe in without placing the insane restrictions of those who do not believe in it.

I do not put much stock in believers that .....

Do not also support mass transit to reduce emissions.

Live 30 miles from their job spending lots of time and burning emissions sitting in traffic.

Like I mentioned in above post buy products that have to travel 5000 miles in ships that have no restrictions on emissions,if they actually placed restrictions on those emissions then one would not be able to buy them cheap,so they conveniently look the other way.But lobby against blood diamonds which most cannot afford anyways so it would have had zero impact in their life.

Push to pass restrictive regulations based on climate change that may or may not effect the singular person.

Example: To reduce co the EPA says it is illegal to sell a house with a wood burning fireplace built before 2012 that has not been decommissioned.

Want to have a romantic evening with your significant other snuggled up next to a warm fireplace on a cold winters night in your restored vintage house,be careful,you can now be arrested for that.

Borderline insanity results.

The Freon fiasco based on climate change cost the average homeowner between $6000 to$12,000 in having their A/C systems changed out verses repaired.

How many owned cars back then and were given a choice of no A/C or spending hundreds to retrofit to 134A .

It is okay to have a cause to believe in but when decisions are made that cost consumers hundreds of millions of dollars it becomes sketchy.

If one wants to support climate change as portrayed by the experts,by all means have at it,but practice what you preach and do not get upset when your support for something effects others detrimentally,because it is also their right not to live in a bubble.

[CassTechGrad]

Top Obama Official Squeals: ‘We Faked Climate Change Data’
April 26, 2017 Baxter Dmitry

Officials from the Obama White House are starting to speak out against the corrupt administration now that it is safe to come forward. It’s about time!

The most recent official to come forward is Steven Koonin, the former Undersecretary of the Department of Energy. He is accusing President Obama of fabricating scientific evidence proving “climate change”.
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin told the Wall Street Journal.
According to Koonin, multiple departments responsible for environmental science either misrepresented data or completely fabricated results to justify the policies of the Obama administration.
Scientists at NASA and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration [[NOAA) colluded with press officers to create misleading press releases that supported the former president’s agenda.
Koonin isn’t the only Obama-era official claiming wrongdoing by the Obama administration. Retired principle climate scientist Dr. John Bates testified before a House Committee in February claiming that the NOAA was manipulating data.

[Honky Tonk]

Top Obama Official Squeals: ‘We Faked Climate Change Data’
April 26, 2017 Baxter Dmitry

Officials from the Obama White House are starting to speak out against the corrupt administration now that it is safe to come forward. It’s about time!

The most recent official to come forward is Steven Koonin, the former Undersecretary of the Department of Energy. He is accusing President Obama of fabricating scientific evidence proving “climate change”.
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin told the Wall Street Journal.
According to Koonin, multiple departments responsible for environmental science either misrepresented data or completely fabricated results to justify the policies of the Obama administration.
Scientists at NASA and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration [[NOAA) colluded with press officers to create misleading press releases that supported the former president’s agenda.
Koonin isn’t the only Obama-era official claiming wrongdoing by the Obama administration. Retired principle climate scientist Dr. John Bates testified before a House Committee in February claiming that the NOAA was manipulating data.

I followed the link @ the end of your article, CTG, and I found this article by Baxter Dmitry even more disturbing:

http://yournewswire.com/north-korea-nuclear-children/8

[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.