🌎 GLOBAL WARMING

[RETIREDFAN1]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/08/the-planet-is-cooling-alarmists-shriek-its-warming/

[Coach Rab]

That damned global warming phenomenon is leaving a lot of Democrats freezing in Hell

[CarthDawg77]

1 minute ago, MavGrad99 said:

That damned global warming phenomenon is leaving a lot of Democrats freezing in Hell

It would be awesome if the polar shift occurred to the point that  LA Became the North Pole, & glaciers reformed  off the present “left coast?”

[Hagar]

Here’s the end all article to combat MMGW believers.  Imo, the Smoking Gun.  No opinionated nonsense, just the facts (Joe Friday would be Proud).  If you read this article and still believe in Man Made Global Warming, unless you can refute the facts here, you’re goofy as a road lizard.

https://www.westernjournal.com/media-hysteria-climate-change-heat-records-huge-data-manipulation/

[KirtFalcon]

10 hours ago, Hagar said:

Here’s the end all article to combat MMGW believers.  Imo, the Smoking Gun.  No opinionated nonsense, just the facts (Joe Friday would be Proud).  If you read this article and still believe in Man Made Global Warming, unless you can refute the facts here, you’re goofy as a road lizard.

https://www.westernjournal.com/media-hysteria-climate-change-heat-records-huge-data-manipulation/

Good article ...

[DaveTV1]

20 hours ago, Hagar said:

Here’s the end all article to combat MMGW believers.  Imo, the Smoking Gun.  No opinionated nonsense, just the facts (Joe Friday would be Proud).  If you read this article and still believe in Man Made Global Warming, unless you can refute the facts here, you’re goofy as a road lizard.

https://www.westernjournal.com/media-hysteria-climate-change-heat-records-huge-data-manipulation/

It's what I've been saying all along, because I do check historical highs and lows in history.  What's amazing is the papers will report a record high and show it being a recent year, yet it only tied the record high of days of yore.  To me that is not a record.  It's similar to Derrick Henry's run, he should be listed second after Tony Dorsett since Dorsett set it first.  What's funny is they don't list Henry's run at all in the NFL Records and have Ahman Green at #2.  It's also similar to Roger Maris 61*.  I have actually seen very mild summers the past 4 years with only 2 100 degree days in that time period.  The winters have been somewhat the same my entire time here.  I can't wait for 3 more weeks and no temps below 40 degrees until next November.  If we have one, it's no big whoop, because it has happened before.  As I've said been simply aren't acclimated to the weather the way people were back in the day.  

[Hagar]

11 hours ago, KirtFalcon said:

Good article ...

You and I know, it ain’t rocket science.  You can look at the facts, as presented by a news article, with no skin in the game, or take information by scientists (?) who are getting a big Govt grant to prove there is MMGW.  NO BRAINER.

[Wild74]

Florida bill would ban plastic straw bans
The Guardian UK ^ | 06 Mar 2019 | Dream McClinton 

Posted on 3/6/2019, 4:31:31 AM by blueplum

The bill, under consideration by lawmakers, would place a five-year suspension on municipalities’ banning of plastic straws, pending a study from the Florida department of environmental protection. Calling the banning of plastic straws “government overreach”, the Florida state senator Travis Hutson also amended the bill to create a $25,000 fine for local governments that regulate the material and another ban on municipal regulation of sunscreens that harm coral reefs../

(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...

[Wild74]

Just the opposite of California 

[Wild74]

1 minute ago, DesiDerata34 said:

So, this legislator wants to make it acceptable or at least make it lawful to litter and damage the coral reefs near Florida? That is government over reach for cities to be concerned about those two things? What ever happened to local control and decision making? Seems like HE is the one doing government overreach. 

No they are saying that straws are not the problem and not buying into the liberal narrative that straws are polluting the oceans or anything else for that matter. Common sense goes a long way sometimes.

[RETIREDFAN1]

Well boys, we got another libtard on here....or an old regurgitated one with a new screenname....be sure to make him as welcome as we do all the rest of the libnuts.......

[RETIREDFAN1]

10 minutes ago, DesiDerata34 said:

I am not sure what you are referencing there, WestHardinfan1. Why the hostility? And really, 'libTARD'? That is purposely offensive, at best; malicious and backwards, at worst. 

Why not discuss things factually and without name calling? Am I threatening or offensive in some ways? 

[RETIREDFAN1]

13 minutes ago, DesiDerata34 said:

I am not sure what you are referencing there, WestHardinfan1. Why the hostility? And really, 'libTARD'? That is purposely offensive, at best; malicious and backwards, at worst. 

Why not discuss things factually and without name calling? Am I threatening or offensive in some ways? 

IF you are NOT one of our previously banned libnuts and actually a new poster for real, you'll get a public apology on here from me......however, the jury is still out on that one............

[RETIREDFAN1]

4 minutes ago, DesiDerata34 said:

I have never been banned from any forum, but if your expectation is to simply put labels on people during what could be discussions or be dismissive, then I am not sure this would the place for me. I was referenced this site as being a good place for educators to come to, with lots of options for forums. They could have oversold it, possibly. No harm, no foul, I guess. 

We have had some liberal posters find themselves banned because of gross violations of the rules of this site.......they often come back under new screennames and complain about having been censored......again, I'm still investigating....if you are not one of them returned, you are completely welcome here and have my apologies......but you had better get a thicker skin on the political forum.......we don't care if we offend folks on here....this aint a safe space, if you know what I mean........

[Wild74]

2 hours ago, DesiDerata34 said:

So, this legislator wants to make it acceptable or at least make it lawful to litter and damage the coral reefs near Florida? That is government over reach for cities to be concerned about those two things? What ever happened to local control and decision making? Seems like HE is the one doing government overreach. 

First question the answer is no. They are not saying it is ok the pollute the ocean or damage the coral reefs they are saying plastic straws are not the problem

[DaveTV1]

6 hours ago, DesiDerata34 said:

I have never been banned from any forum, but if your expectation is to simply put labels on people during what could be discussions or be dismissive, then I am not sure this would the place for me. I was referenced this site as being a good place for educators to come to, with lots of options for forums. They could have oversold it, possibly. No harm, no foul, I guess. 

If you expect people to buy into your logic then prove it with facts, and not mere rambling of being offended.  As for pollution yes we've had it since the beginning of time, even before man supposedly walked the earth.  It wasn't the modern day plastics or other products that contaminate the planet, but to blame it all on straws is naive at best.  https://www.gainesville.com/news/20180227/mystery-disease-killing-floridas-only-coral-reef .  It seems to be a mystery disease that is effecting the coral more, but I wouldn't know that from the article presented or the bickering on the thread.  It would have been better to discuss this issue with facts of what is happening in Florida.  I don't tend to use straws, but I know many people do.  To limit them is ridiculous.  As for sunscreens as the article mentioned it isn't listed as one of the causes for the coral having the bleaching or whiting problem.  The article I posted is erroneous as well, because there are coral reefs at the Flower Garden Banks Sanctuary 100 miles out in the Gulf of Mexico.  They are also in California at the Coral Reef, Anacapa Island, California.  

 

This coral reef was recently found off the coast of South Carolina :  https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/huge-deep-sea-coral-reef-discovered-south-carolina-coast-ncna904821 .  I actually wanted to vacation in Hilton Head, SC, but they had too many restrictions on what you could and couldn't bring to the beach.  It was ridiculous.  This was the Fourth of July weekend in 2009, and you couldn't have any thing practically but your bathing suit and a towel.  You can find those restrictions online.  I've already posted them here before.  This was long before they even knew about the reef.  Since I was in the Boy Scouts as a kid, I know to police the grounds before I leave an area.  If it wasn't there when you arrived take it with you.  That is the problem with most today, including many that are concerned with the environment, they don't take their trash with them.  Check the garbage that is left behind in parks after my demonstrations.  They're more disgusting.  

[CENTEXFAN]

6 hours ago, WestHardinfan1 said:

We have had some liberal posters find themselves banned because of gross violations of the rules of this site.......they often come back under new screennames and complain about having been censored......again, I'm still investigating....if you are not one of them returned, you are completely welcome here and have my apologies......but you had better get a thicker skin on the political forum.......we don't care if we offend folks on here....this aint a safe space, if you know what I mean........

Oh and the same rules don't apply for conservatives.

[RETIREDFAN1]

21 minutes ago, CENTEXFAN said:

Oh and the same rules don't apply for conservatives.

I refer you to greezy....lol....he's got it a few times too .... And I hide as many of his inappropriate memes as I do your bud screamers .....

[Wild74]

The biggest county in America doesn’t want big solar or wind projects.

It may be the largest county in America by land area, but San Bernardino County, Calif., has decided it doesn’t have enough room for big wind or big solar projects. On February 28, the county’s board of supervisors approved a measure that bans large renewable-energy projects on more than 1 million acres of private land.

 

 

The move provides yet another example of how the energy sprawl that inevitably comes with large-scale renewable-energy deployment is colliding with the interests of rural landowners and local governments that don’t want “green” projects in their neighborhoods. Of course, there’s no small irony that that collision is happening in California, which passed a law last year that requires utilities to be getting 60 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030.

As Los Angeles Times reporter Sammy Roth drily noted, achieving those renewable-energy goals “will require cooperation from local governments — and big solar and wind farms, like many infrastructure projects, are often unpopular at the local level.” All across the country rural landowners and governments have been rejecting or restricting renewable projects, and they’re doing so at the very same time that left-leaning politicians and some of the country’s biggest environmental groups are claiming that the U.S. must quit using hydrocarbons and nuclear energy, and instead rely solely on renewable energy for our electricity.

In January, some 600 environmental groups, including 350.org, Food & Water Watch, Friends of the Earth, and the Environmental Working Group, submitted a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which said that the U.S. must shift to “100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier.” It continued, saying any “definition of renewable energy must . . . exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large-scale hydro, and waste-to-energy technologies.” For good measure, it said this new hypothetical electric grid must have the “ability to incorporate battery storage and distributed energy systems that are democratically governed.”

 

 

That last bit about “democratically governed” is the issue in San Bernardino County and elsewhere. The new regulation requires that more than half of the energy produced by new renewable projects in San Bernardino County, which covers more than 20,000 square miles, must be used in local communities. If they don’t meet that standard, the projects won’t be approved. In other words, San Bernardino County, which is already home to two big thermal-solar projects, including Ivanpah and Abengoa Mojave, doesn’t want to be an energy plantation for people who live in other places.

 

 

NOW WATCH: 'McConnell Says Trump Will Sign Bill and Declare National Emergency'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Volume 0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This isn’t the first time that California regulators have rejected renewables. In 2015, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously in favor of an ordinance banning large wind turbines in the county’s unincorporated areas. During a hearing on the measure, then-supervisor Michael D. Antonovich said that “wind turbines create visual blight.” In addition, he said, the skyscraper-sized turbines would “contradict the county’s rural dark skies ordinance which aims to protect dark skies in areas like Antelope Valley and the Santa Monica Mountains.”

 

 

There are numerous other examples of the growing land-use conflicts around renewable-energy projects. Rural residents in Spotsylvania County, Va., are fighting a proposed 500-megawatt solar project that, if built, would cover nearly ten square miles. According to the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star, local residents believe “the project is too big to be near homes and that it poses potential health and environmental risks. They also are concerned about impacts to property values.”

In Henry County, Ind., more than half a dozen small communities have passed measures banning wind turbines within four miles of their borders. In an article last year titled “County Towns Putting Up Walls Against Wind,” Darrel Radford, a reporter for the New Castle Courier-Times, wrote that “there’s still lots of anti-turbine activity” in the county and that “as many as half” of the incorporated communities in the county had passed anti-wind measures.

 

 

 

The land-use fights over renewable energy reflect the urban–rural divide in American politics — a divide that was obvious in the 2016 presidential race. Hillary Clinton won big in urban areas; Donald Trump dominated in rural areas. Big environmental groups and urban liberal voters like the idea of renewable energy and want more of it. But the all-renewable scenario they are pushing depends on what I call the vacant-land myth: There’s an endless amount of unused, uninteresting territory out in the boondocks that’s ready and waiting to be covered with energy infrastructure.

The urban–rural divide is particularly obvious in New York, which has a 50 percent renewable-electricity mandate by 2030. Despite the mandate, three upstate New York counties — Erie, Orleans, and Niagara — as well as the towns of Yates and Somerset, have been fighting a proposed 200-megawatt wind project called Lighthouse Wind for four years. In an interview on Wednesday, I asked Dan Engert, the supervisor in Somerset, about the urban–rural divide and how it affects the promotion and siting of renewable-energy projects.

 

 

 

“Those urban voters will never have to deal with the reality of a wind project in their backyard,” Engert told me. “As these projects move closer to humans and where people live, you are seeing resistance in places” across rural America.

6

The punchline here is obvious: The urban–rural divide in American politics is growing, and a key part of that divide is the debate over climate change and what we as a society should be doing about it. The anti-hydrocarbon, anti-nuclear Left fastidiously ignores the land-use implications of their all-renewable plans. But rural residents in places such as San Bernardino County, Somerset, and Henry County are not going to be ignored.

As Sara Fairchild, a resident of Pioneertown in San Bernardino County, told the supervisors during the hearing last week, “These vast open areas are precious for their natural, historical and recreational qualities . . . . They are fragile, and no amount of mitigation can counter the damage that industrial-scale renewable-energy projects would cause.” She added: “Once destroyed, these landscapes can never be brought back.”

[Wild74]

They called it a global warming election. It was. They lost (Australia)
news.com.au ^ | 19th May 2019 | Andrew Bolt 

Posted on 5/18/2019, 9:26:54 AM by naturalman1975

This election is huge. Consider.

 

Greens leader Richard Di Natale:

 

This is a climate change election.

 

Labor leader Bill Shorten:

 

This election is all about climate change.

 

Guardian Australia editor Katherine Murphy:

 

2019 is the climate change election.

 

It was indeed, and they lost.

 

The Liberals look like being returned in a miracle come-from-behind performance, although they will have to form a minority government.

 

In Queensland, where Labor seemed set to stop the giant Adani coal project, Labor went from picking up an expected three or four seats to losing three instead.

 

(Adani will now almost certainly proceed. The Queensland Labor Government will be too scared to keep blocking it now. The massive anti-Adani protests have backfired.)

 

In the outer suburban seats of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney, where poorer voters can't afford the higher power prices caused by global warming zealots, Labor's predicted swing evaporated.

 

This election has changed the climate. But it's the intellectual climate that's changed.

 

Labor, for one, will have its confidence in its global warming policies and gurus shattered.

 

Brilliant.

(Excerpt) Read more at heraldsun.com.au ...

[Wild74]

 

• Glacier National Park quietly removed a visitor center sign saying its iconic glaciers will disappear by 2020 due to climate change.
• Several winters of heavy snowfall threw off climate model projections the glaciers would all disappear by 2020, according to federal officials.
• A blogger first noticed the signage change and noted other signs warning of “impending glacier disappearance have been replaced.”

The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change.

As it turns out, higher-than-average snowfall in recent years upended computer model projections from the early 2000s that NPS based its claim glaciers “will all be gone by the year 2020,” federal officials said.

 

“Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park speeds up and slows down with fluctuations in the local climate,” the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which monitors Glacier National Park, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Those signs were based on the observation prior to 2010 that glaciers were shrinking more quickly than a computer model predicted they would,” USGS said. “Subsequently, larger than average snowfall over several winters slowed down that retreat rate and the 2020 date used in the NPS display does not apply anymore.”

NPS updated signs at the St. Mary Visitor Center glacier exhibit over the winter. Sign changes meant the display warning glaciers would all disappear by 2020 now says: “When they completely disappear, however, will depend on how and when we act.”

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/national-park-glacier-warnings/

[CarthDawg77]

21 minutes ago, Wild74 said:

 

• Glacier National Park quietly removed a visitor center sign saying its iconic glaciers will disappear by 2020 due to climate change.
• Several winters of heavy snowfall threw off climate model projections the glaciers would all disappear by 2020, according to federal officials.
• A blogger first noticed the signage change and noted other signs warning of “impending glacier disappearance have been replaced.”

The National Park Service (NPS) quietly removed a visitor center sign saying the glaciers at Glacier National Park would disappear by 2020 due to climate change.

As it turns out, higher-than-average snowfall in recent years upended computer model projections from the early 2000s that NPS based its claim glaciers “will all be gone by the year 2020,” federal officials said.

 

“Glacier retreat in Glacier National Park speeds up and slows down with fluctuations in the local climate,” the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which monitors Glacier National Park, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Those signs were based on the observation prior to 2010 that glaciers were shrinking more quickly than a computer model predicted they would,” USGS said. “Subsequently, larger than average snowfall over several winters slowed down that retreat rate and the 2020 date used in the NPS display does not apply anymore.”

NPS updated signs at the St. Mary Visitor Center glacier exhibit over the winter. Sign changes meant the display warning glaciers would all disappear by 2020 now says: “When they completely disappear, however, will depend on how and when we act.”

https://amp.dailycaller.com/2019/06/07/national-park-glacier-warnings/

But...but... Al Gore said.....!

[osup116]

AOC gave them 12 more years

 

[CarthDawg77]

21 minutes ago, osup116 said:

AOC gave them 12 more years

 

Thank God! That was Close!!!

[DaveTV1]

The thing is the glaciers will eventually be gone.  It's a fact of the earth's climate since The Last Glacial Maximum 26,500 years ago.  We have to remember that all of Canada and much of the northern United States was covered in a glacier.  Their melting is what caused the formation of the Great Lakes that are still there today, and not drying up anytime soon.  However instead of admitting that they are wrong they keep showing the few instances that some climate change claims were accurate.  However there were far more claims that were proven wrong.  Today, just as with the book "The Man that Saw Tomorrow" they simply increase the date another 10-12 years or like others that claimed Jesus Christ would come back they kept changing the dates.  I remember watching the Nostrodamus video in school of all places, and Christ was supposed to come back 20 years ago.  Saddam Hussein was portrayed as the anti-Christ in the film, because he wore a blue turban.  He's been dead for almost 13 years.  Here are some of the other far fetched global warming predictions  :  https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry . Give me a break.