Community Chat

[esmeraldagooch]

On 2/16/2015 SnowPink said: Why do ppl advise "follow the money" with the oil companies, but not with the climate change stuff?

Carbon credits Snowpink.....

Green credits.....

All big money if you can reap it's funds.

[Melania]

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 SnowPink said: Why do ppl advise "follow the money" with the oil companies, but not with the climate change stuff?

Carbon credits Snowpink.....

Green credits.....

All big money if you can reap it's funds.

[esmeraldagooch]

On 2/16/2015 RoughDraft said:

Another side effect of climate change that hasn't been considered until recently.

Climate Change Poised to Make Infectious Disease Outbreaks More Frequent

As the catastrophic Ebola outbreak showed the world recently, the modern age of global air travel has made it far easier for disease to spread. But climate change, which is shuffling habitable zones for pathogen-carrying animals, is poised to make future outbreaks of infectious diseases such as Ebola, H1N1 and TB worse, and more frequent.

In an article published Sunday in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, two zoologists studying parasites in drastically different environments--one in the Arctic, the other in tropical zones--relay what 30 years of research have taught them about the future of disease.

"Even though I was in the tropics and [zoologist Eric Hoberg] was in the Arctic, we could see something was happening," Daniel Brooks, a zoologist with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said in a press release.

As climate change caused habitats to shift or disappear for certain species, parasites would simply jump to other species, an observation that challenges conventional thinking that parasites have co-evolved with their hosts and so do not quickly adapt to a new species. "Even though a parasite might have a very specialized relationship with one particular host in one particular place, there are other hosts that may be as susceptible," Brooks said. The new parasite hosts will not have developed resistance to the species-jumping parasites, and so may be even more susceptible to the infection than the original host species, sparking epidemics more regularly.

To read more: http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-poised-make-infectious-disease-outbreaks-more-frequent-307161

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/6093/20140219/climate-change-linked-increased-suicides-aust...

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/24/climate-change-linked-rising-violence-report

http://www.inquisitr.com/1821675/undersea-volcanoes-climate-change-studies/

http://www.livescience.com/48070-male-fetus-climate-change.html

[esmeraldagooch]

On 2/16/2015 Melania2 said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 SnowPink said: Why do ppl advise "follow the money" with the oil companies, but not with the climate change stuff?

Carbon credits Snowpink.....

Green credits.....

All big money if you can reap it's funds.

Since I happen to know someone who is reaping these benefits You can roll you eyes all you want. There is big money being made here.

[NoelSeven]

On 2/16/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 dooBdoo said:

Myth: Ice age predicted in the 70s? -- "any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

Facts:

<br /> In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.<br /> <br /> At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.<br /> <br /> <br /> By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

<br /> <br /> The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

(If you don't like this source, do an internet search on "1970s ice age myth" for numerous other sources.)

Thanks for the cool graph. I do agree with your last paragraph. 97% have been forced to agree with each other by the powers that control their purse strings. Any other voices are silenced or are mocked. Follow the money, AlGore said FL would be under water by now.

You're quite welcome! With all due respect, following the money to the oil industry makes a great deal more sense. And this isn't about Al Gore, no matter how much anyone wants to try and force it to be... that's a diversion. It's about climate (not weather) and science (not politics).

Too bad so many don't get that at all.

[Melania]

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 Melania2 said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 SnowPink said: Why do ppl advise "follow the money" with the oil companies, but not with the climate change stuff?

Carbon credits Snowpink.....

Green credits.....

All big money if you can reap it's funds.

Since I happen to know someone who is reaping these benefits You can roll you eyes all you want. There is big money being made here.

That can be said about anything... So roll I will.

[esmeraldagooch]

Carbon credits create a market for reducing greenhouse emissions by giving a monetary value to the cost of polluting the air. Emissions become an internal cost of doing business and are visible on the balance sheet alongside raw materials and other liabilities or assets.

For example, consider a business that owns a factory putting out 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in a year. Its government is an Annex I country that enacts a law to limit the emissions that the business can produce. So the factory is given a quota of say 80,000 tonnes per year. The factory either reduces its emissions to 80,000 tonnes or is required to purchase carbon credits to offset the excess. After costing up alternatives the business may decide that it is uneconomical or infeasible to invest in new machinery for that year. Instead it may choose to buy carbon credits on the open market from organizations that have been approved as being able to sell legitimate carbon credits.

We should consider the impact of manufacturing alternative energy sources. For example, the energy consumed and the Carbon emitted in the manufacture and transportation of a large wind turbine would prohibit a credit being issued for a predetermined period of time.

• One seller might be a company that will offer to offset emissions through a project in the developing world, such as recovering methane from a swine farm to feed a power station that previously would use fossil fuel. So although the factory continues to emit gases, it would pay another group to reduce the equivalent of 20,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere for that year.
• Another seller may have already invested in new low-emission machinery and have a surplus of allowances as a result. The factory could make up for its emissions by buying 20,000 tonnes of allowances from them. The cost of the seller's new machinery would be subsidized by the sale of allowances. Both the buyer and the seller would submit accounts for their emissions to prove that their allowances were met correctly.

[Melania]

On 2/16/2015 NoelSeven said:

On 2/16/2015 dooBdoo said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 dooBdoo said:

Myth: Ice age predicted in the 70s? -- "any publications now claiming the world is on the brink of a global warming disaster said the same about an impending ice age – just 30 years ago. Several major ones, including The New York Times, Time magazine and Newsweek, have reported on three or even four different climate shifts since 1895." (Fire and Ice)

Facts:

<br /> In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.<br /> <br /> At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.<br /> <br /> <br /> By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.

<br /> <br /> The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming."

(If you don't like this source, do an internet search on "1970s ice age myth" for numerous other sources.)

Thanks for the cool graph. I do agree with your last paragraph. 97% have been forced to agree with each other by the powers that control their purse strings. Any other voices are silenced or are mocked. Follow the money, AlGore said FL would be under water by now.

You're quite welcome! With all due respect, following the money to the oil industry makes a great deal more sense. And this isn't about Al Gore, no matter how much anyone wants to try and force it to be... that's a diversion. It's about climate (not weather) and science (not politics).

Too bad so many don't get that at all.

ITA!

Is it that they are being deliberately obtuse or agenda or both? I can guess.

[NoelSeven]

On 2/16/2015 Melania2 said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 Melania2 said:

On 2/16/2015 esmeraldagooch said:

On 2/16/2015 SnowPink said: Why do ppl advise "follow the money" with the oil companies, but not with the climate change stuff?

Carbon credits Snowpink.....

Green credits.....

All big money if you can reap it's funds.

Since I happen to know someone who is reaping these benefits You can roll you eyes all you want. There is big money being made here.

That can be said about anything... So roll I will.

They probably didn't invest in a California company making umbrellas.

Maybe they invested in a company making winter coats or space heaters. That would do it.

[esmeraldagooch]

So, Someone is making money on Carbon Credits and someone is making money selling green items to companies to offset buying carbon credits. Follow the money.