Administration issues dire global warming report, amid regul

[pixy0stix]

What in the actual fuck do the Republicans think is going to happen when the natural resources go? Because there sure as hell won't be jobs in those areas. THIS IS NOT ABOUT JOBS! THIS IS ABOUT THE CONTINUATION OF THE SPECIES ON THIS PLANET!

www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/06/administration-issues-dire-climate-change-warnings-amid-regulatory-push/

A new and dire global warming report from the Obama administration warns of a growing link between human activity and extreme weather across the country -- but Republicans charge the findings will be used to muscle through costly emissions regulations.



The National Climate Assessment, four years in the making, gave a region-by-region breakdown of how climate change is impacting the United States -- in the form of droughts, heat waves and increasingly intense hurricanes, though it is still uncertain how much of that is due to "human activity." The report stopped short of definitively attributing a rash of extreme weather to man-made climate change, concluding "there is new and stronger evidence that many of these increases are related to human activities."



"Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present," the 840-page report states. "Corn producers in Iowa, oyster growers in Washington state and maple syrup producers in Vermont are all observing climate-related changes that are outside of recent experience."



The report predicts that the weather-related repercussions of climate change "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond."



The report, though, quickly came under fire from Republicans, who said the administration would use it to push job-killing regulations.



"Instead of making the environment drastically better, the president's strategy will make the climate for unemployed Americans even worse," Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said in a statement. "The American people have made it clear that they want Washington to focus on the economy and make it easier for them to find good jobs. Once again, President Obama is completely ignoring their concerns -- and doubling down today on extreme regulations that will put more Americans out of work."



In a counterpoint of sorts to the report, Barrasso and other congressional Republicans representing western states released their own findings later Tuesday morning highlighting state efforts to protect the environment. The report highlights local air and water policies, and criticizes "one-size-fits-all" regulations it accuses the administration of imposing.



Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the cost of such federal regulations will be "borne by the middle class."



The administration's latest report comes as the administration battles congressional Republicans over its climate agenda. A day earlier, White House counselor John Podesta warned that attempts by congressional lawmakers to block the administration's climate action plan will fail.



Podesta told reporters during a briefing at the White House that President Obama is committed to moving forward with controversial Clean Air Act regulations to cut carbon dioxide emissions for all new coal and gas-fired power plants.



Republicans have branded the president's climate plan as a "war on coal" and have sponsored legislation to roll back planned Environmental Protection Agency greenhouse gas standards they argue will harm the nation's economy.



"They'll find various ways, particularly in the House, to try to stop us from using the authority we have under the Clean Air Act. All I would say is that those have zero percent chance of working. We're committed to moving forward with those rules," Podesta said.



The report also comes as the administration delays a decision on the controversial Canada-to-Texas Keystone pipeline. Environmentalists oppose it, but Republicans and some Democrats are pressuring the administration to approve it.



The climate report looked at regional and state-level effects of global warming, compared with recent reports from the United Nations that lumped all of North America together. A draft of the report was released in January 2013, but this version has been reviewed by more scientists, the National Academy of Science and 13 government agencies and had public comment.



Even though the nation's average temperature has risen by as much as 1.9 degrees since record keeping began in 1895, it's in the big, wild weather where the average person feels climate change the most, said co-author Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University climate scientist. Extreme weather like droughts, storms and heat waves hit us in the pocketbooks and can be seen by our own eyes, she said.



And it's happening a lot more often lately.



Winter storms have increased in frequency and intensity and shifted northward since the 1950s, the report also claims. Also, it says, heavy downpours are increasing -- by 71 percent in the Northeast. Heat waves, such as those in Texas in 2011 and the Midwest in 2012, are projected in the report to intensify nationwide. Droughts in the Southwest are likewise forecast to become stronger. The report claims sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1880, and projects them to rise between one foot and four feet by 2100.



Critics of the report, however, contend that its dire projections are more political than scientific. "The Administration's Climate Assessment suffers from problems similar to those in reports put forward by the IPCC, while intended to be a scientific document it's more of a political one used to justify more government overreach," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., ranking Republican on the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "Definitive policy decisions and regional planning based on far too many uncertainties could hurt our nation's economic viability and competitiveness. Look no further than the European nations whose policy decisions led to economic failure."

[pixy0stix]

Related: A look at global warming in the US - news.yahoo.com/ap-photos-look-warming-united-states-193022732.html

[Deleted]

Great. So the environment is going to hell in a handbasket and we're arguing about jobs.



can we save this quote:

"The American people have made it clear that they want Washington to focus on the economy and make it easier for them to find good jobs" for the next piece of abortion legislation, though?

[pixy0stix]

I do think the American people have made it clear that they want jobs. Mostly because they don't realize just how dire of a predicament we are in right now. Most people see these reports and assume they are doomsday/end of the world scenarios that will never come to pass. What they don't realize is that these reports are conservative in the scope of the damage they're predicting. If this is all that we see, then we'll be damn lucky.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

And here I go again.

[pixy0stix]

Key quote from another article (not from FOX lol!) discussing the report:

"I think some of the key take-aways from this report, especially compared to the last report, are the impacts of climate change are not just something that we can look towards the future for but they are already occurring today," said Forbes Tompkins, a research analyst at the World Resources Institute who has been tracking the report.

www.scientificamerican.com/article/changed-climate-already-inflicts-damages-at-home-u-s-reports/

[pixy0stix]

The corn industry should be shitting their collective pants over this: Bumper Corn Looks Dicey in Drought - www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/bumper-corn-looks-dicey-in-drought1/

But of course they probably aren't.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

Nobody will care until hamburgers at the grocery store are prohibitively expensive for the average family. Or when people actually have to conserve diligently to be able to afford their water bills.

Or you know, a giant dust storm comes blowing through and everyone collectively shits their pants, right asdfjkl?

[SallyJ]

May 6, 2014 15:04:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

The corn industry should be shitting their collective pants over this: Bumper Corn Looks Dicey in Drought - www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/bumper-corn-looks-dicey-in-drought1/

But of course they probably aren't.

And because of the evolved root worm:  www.wired.com/2014/03/rootworm-resistance-bt-corn/

[summer]

May 6, 2014 14:37:18 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

What in the actual fuck do the Republicans think is going to happen when the natural resources go? 

Um, since we're all going to die anyways, we may as well work for The Man up until the very last drop of water dries up?

We have to do things like make sure there are no abortion clinics in Mississippi and prayer in schools.  That way when the world ends, we'll be in God's favor??  

Climate change isn't real?

God won't be mad about what we've done. S/He created all of this for you and I to use up and then S/He will come save those of us who are saved? 

It will all go really bad once I'm gone and the next generations will have to fend for themselves? That's why they need guns?

[josieposy]

I'm wondering if I should insist that my mom sell her farmland. What's going to happen to acreage prices as the climate gets worse I wonder?

[Daria Morgandorffer]

May 6, 2014 15:27:00 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

May 6, 2014 15:12:55 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

Nobody will care until hamburgers at the grocery store are prohibitively expensive for the average family. Or when people actually have to conserve diligently to be able to afford their water bills.

Or you know, a giant dust storm comes blowing through and everyone collectively shits their pants, right asdfjkl?

That book seriously should be required reading these days. copzpartdeux

It's terrifyingly realistic. The time frame seems right on the nose too, which is also horrifying. 

[pixy0stix]

May 6, 2014 15:25:19 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I'm wondering if I should insist that my mom sell her farmland. What's going to happen to acreage prices as the climate gets worse I wonder?

Depends on where it is. If it's anywhere in this zone:



better sell it now.

[josieposy]

May 6, 2014 15:35:53 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

May 6, 2014 15:25:19 GMT -5 josieposy said:

I'm wondering if I should insist that my mom sell her farmland. What's going to happen to acreage prices as the climate gets worse I wonder?

Depends on where it is. If it's anywhere in this zone:



better sell it now.

NW Iowa.

[summer]

I can't speak for what Republicans think about it, but here's what Limbaugh recently had to say about climate change and regulation.

www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/03/12/lessons_on_climate_change_for_the_republican_establishment

You know what else? David Jolly was a lobbyist for offshore drilling. I mean, you can't be a bigger target than that for a Democrat campaign. My God, this is everything. A lobbyist for offshore drilling! And not the Ted Kennedy kind. This is oil drilling that he's a lobbyist for. Now, in the conventional wisdom playbook, that's supposed to be a death warrant in a political campaign, and he didn't lose. There was an anti-David Jolly editorial back in January, Tampa Bay Times. " Both Jolly, a Republican candidate for US House District 13, and Lucas Overby, his Libertarian opponent, are refusing to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans have had an extensive impact on climate change and by extension, rising tides in Pinellas County and elsewhere."

So, I mean, they laid it on full bore. That is just journalistic malpractice. Well, it's an editorial, but whoever wrote it is a full-fledged idiot. Okay, so Jolly and the Libertarian refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence that humans have had. There is no such evidence!
There's no evidence that humans -- it's an open question. If there was evidence humans had caused it, then there wouldn't be a debate.

If there was evidence, you couldn't refute it. There isn't any evidence that humans cause the climate to change. Nobody's disputing the climate changes. But we're not causing it. We don't have that power. We do not have the ability. And the proof is we can't fix it. We can't stop it once it's doing one thing or the other, warming or cooling. We can't stop it. So how can we cause it?

The other thing about this global warming, and I think this is a fundamental point, and admittedly it may be over the head of your average low-information voter. But for this global warming argument that the left makes to work, there has to be an unquestioned truth, or assumption, and that is that whatever was going on 10 years ago is normal and the way God intended or the way nature intended. At some point you have to be able to say, "This is the normal for planet Earth," so that you can measure warming or cooling. There's no evidence of what normal is. There hasn't been record taking long enough for anybody to say what is normal. Are the ice ages normal? Are Dust Bowls normal?

We define normal based on our comfort. But is that what's normal? We don't know what the point is that if it's getting cooler we got a problem, and if it's getting warmer we've got a problem. We just assume that at the moment in time that we happen to populate the planet it happens to be normal. There's so much wrong with that. Scientifically there's so much wrong. You can refute practically every claim made because every claim is political. You can refute it with logic. So I think when you have an editorial like the Tampa Bay Times, it's just a bit of evidence of how corrupt journalism school has become, how corrupt the left is. The overwhelming scientific evidence that man causes -- there isn't any evidence that man causes it.

There is an attempt to make people believe it with contrived evidence. That's what the e-mails from the East Anglia University demonstrated, that the climate scientists are making it up. They are ignoring things that disprove their theory, and they're making up things that prove their theory. There isn't any science. The next thing that needs to be touted is, science is not consensus. Science is not up for a vote. It's not a political contest to win. But that's what it's become. That's why I asked the question: Why is whether it's getting warmer or cooler political? That question alone to me ought to alert everybody that they're being caught up in a hoax.

People intrinsically hate politics, don't they? They hate lobbyists, they hate all of this. They like the goodies they get, but they don't like it. They don't think it's honest. They think they get screwed. Why, then, do they choose to believe certain elements of the industry they all despise?
They don't think politicians are honest; they don't think politicians really care about 'em. That's another thing. Now, I'm making a detour here. I've leaving the Jolly race 'cause a bulb went off in the brain. You know the exit poll question. There were two in the 2012 presidential race. When I saw the first wave at five o'clock, that's when we got the first wave in 2012. When I saw them, I said, "We're finished."

The first one was that almost 58% of voters still blame Bush for the economy. I said, "Well, it's over." The second one, and even worse, was in the question, "cares for people like me," Obama 81, Romney 19. And for the first time I think this is safe to say, in exit polling data, and not just exit polling, in terms of Election Day, but polling afterwards, what normally wins is whoever voters think is the most competent leader. That question, whoever prevails in that question generally has won the presidential election. This one, 2012 I think was one of the first -- if not the first, it's one of the few -- where the empathy question defined the winner. And that signals a significant societal shift in what people want out of their president. "Cares about people like me."

That is evidence of the corruption of our culture throughout education and entertainment, pop culture, "cares about people like me." Well, the Republicans never win that one. Even Republicans that have been elected president always lose in that. And therein lies one of the biggest challenges the Republicans have, is convincing people they care about them. If you want to talk about Republican branding that's gone wrong, that's probably it in a nutshell, that Republicans don't care about people. They care about the rich, and that no matter how incompetent the Democrats are, doesn't matter, 'cause they at least care.

And then that feeds into all of this equality and fairness and all these other things that really have nothing to do with leadership. But even that, the Democrats tried characterizing David Jolly as a pro-offshore drilling lobbyist and a global warming denier, he doesn't care about you, and it didn't work. So I'm telling you that there are all kinds of lessons for the Republican establishment, and the Tea Party, too. Anybody that wants to win elections in this cycle, there's all kinds of lessons to be learned from this one.

The global warming thing, I don't know why the Republicans haven't been more vocal because, to me, it's so easy to refute it. I know we have our scientists that are trying to refute it that way, and God bless them. But the people that support it don't know the science. The people that support it are brain-dead. They're caught up in the emotion of it. They are accepting blame for causing it.

And then they are accepting that carrot out there that they can be absolved for this sin if they agree to pay higher taxes and drive a clunky little car and whatever other price they have to pay, and give up some of their freedom. I mean, to me, it's just so commonsensical. This is a farce, and that big question: How do we know what is normal? What kind of vanity do we have?

How many human beings have walked this earth over however many years it's been here? Whatever you believe, where do we get off saying that in our 85 years of life expectancy is what's normal for the earth and that's the way it should be? We don't know that. We don't know that there even is a normal, because the climate of Planet Earth is in a state of constant flux.

So we're gonna define "normal" by where we're most comfortable? Well, I'm sorry, that doesn't even work, 'cause frankly we, down here, have had a very comfortable winter. It's been fabulous. As far as we're concerned, this could be normal all the time. And most of this country has frozen its behind off! There is no normal. There is no automatic, "This is the way it was intended to be." We don't know that.

So any so-called evidence that it's getting warmer or cooler from that point is bogus. The whole thing is made up. Now they're inculcating all of this with Michelle's push into healthy foods, by determining how food is created, produced, grown, whatever. It's gotta be done in a "green" fashion. That's gonna raise prices. It's ostensibly gonna be healthier and so forth.

But it's just gonna end up taking away food choice from people, and it's gonna raise prices like crazy. And it's all based on the presumption you don't know how to eat right; you don't know what's good for you. But it's really based on more than that. They just want to control every aspect of your life, and it's what they're aiming for.

[pixy0stix]

No. I refuse to read what he says for fear my brain will explode in my skull.

[PinkSquirrel]

May 6, 2014 14:40:56 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Related: A look at global warming in the US - news.yahoo.com/ap-photos-look-warming-united-states-193022732.html

Why did I look at the comments?

[pixy0stix]

May 6, 2014 15:46:41 GMT -5 PinkSquirrel said:

May 6, 2014 14:40:56 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Related: A look at global warming in the US - news.yahoo.com/ap-photos-look-warming-united-states-193022732.html

Why did I look at the comments?

Because you're a secret masochist?

[josieposy]

So if we didn't cause it, and we can't stop it, what are we supposed to do? Build an ark?

[summer]

And Americans Don't Care About Climate Change Anymore Than They Did In 1989

Just over one-third of Americans worry "a great deal" about climate change, down one percent from 1989. That despite nearly every other climate change metric — temperatures, sea levels, carbon dioxide concentration, and major storms — continuing to steadily increase.



Gallup released the new data on Friday, noting that Americans show a "low level" of concern about climate change. Gallup's data comes four days after an exhaustive scientific analysis showing that concern about climate change and its effects is more than warranted, immediately.



This is the key graph, and Gallup's description.





Gallup has tracked worry about global warming using this question format since 1989. The percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of worry has varied over that period, partly reflecting major global warming news events along the way. … The current 34% worry is essentially the same as it was in 1989.

That's pretty amazing. Particularly given what has happened with those other metrics:











Major Weather Disasters





There have been 131 billion-dollar plus weather disasters in the US since 1989. (Data from the NCDC.) These disasters are not all related to climate change, but many — droughts, Hurricane Sandy — were made significantly worse.



Carbon Dioxide Concentrations




About 50 ppm higher.



But worry about climate change? Stuck. Flat. Gallup, predictably, blames politics.



The issue has become highly politicized in recent years, and that polarization shows up across a number of indicators. … So long as global warming remains a politically charged issue, it will likely lag behind other environmental issues as a public concern.

Here's how worry about climate change varies by political party.

(couldn't C/P) that graph for some reason)

Republicans are more like than not to worry about climate change not at all; Democrats, to worry about it a lot.



That may in part be due to the traditional overlap of older Americans and Republican registration. Gallup wasn't able to provide me with a breakdown of party by age, but a report last month showed that older people were much less likely to think they'd see climate change in their lifetimes. And, while climate change is obviously already affecting the world around us, older people will certainly not experience the even-worse effects that are looming. Here's how worry compared to age in the new report:

(couldn't C/P that graph either)


Is it possible, then, that as the Boomer population ages, belief among Americans will start to trend up? Maybe. Possibly. But since Americans have already managed to ignore the obvious patterns above, there's certainly reason to be skeptical. Particularly given the indifference to persuasion displayed by many of those who deny that climate change is happening.

[pixy0stix]

I would hope that if any of this board were polled we'd all say, "extreme worry". If not, I need to talk to you some more.

[ijack]

After reading this article earlier and then this one
www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/05/12/140512fa_fact_widdicombe
I'm pretty sure that we're all going to be roaming the wild drinking a food replacement very soon.

[ijack]

May 6, 2014 15:55:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I would hope that if any of this board were polled we'd all say, "extreme worry". If not, I need to talk to you some more.

It blows my mind that 64% aren't worried. I mean where do these people live? A cave? Underground bunker?

[summer]

May 6, 2014 15:46:23 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

No. I refuse to read what he says for fear my brain will explode in my skull.

You asked what the fuck are they thinking. There you go!    They are thinking this quote right here: " If there was evidence, you couldn't refute it. There isn't any evidence that humans cause the climate to change. Nobody's disputing the climate changes. But we're not causing it. We don't have that power. We do not have the ability. And the proof is we can't fix it. We can't stop it once it's doing one thing or the other, warming or cooling. We can't stop it. So how can we cause it?"

And something about heaven, which I think is that if God wants us to go then thems the breaks.  

[scout8]

If Fox news would spend the same amount of time scaring their listeners about climate change as they spend scaring them about everything else, we might start to get somewhere.

Really, I think most people think that we are talking about the distant future. They figure they will be gone so it doesn't really matter. What they don't understand is that it is happening now.

[meshaliuknits]

May 6, 2014 15:59:28 GMT -5 ijack said:

May 6, 2014 15:55:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I would hope that if any of this board were polled we'd all say, "extreme worry". If not, I need to talk to you some more.

It blows my mind that 64% aren't worried. I mean where do these people live? A cave? Underground bunker?

What percentage of our population is old and/or has a terminal illness? I can totally see that segment not being worried.

[Daria Morgandorffer]

May 6, 2014 15:55:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I would hope that if any of this board were polled we'd all say, "extreme worry". If not, I need to talk to you some more.

I'd actually like to see the results of that. 

[pixy0stix]

May 6, 2014 16:12:16 GMT -5 Daria Morgandorffer said:

May 6, 2014 15:55:19 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I would hope that if any of this board were polled we'd all say, "extreme worry". If not, I need to talk to you some more.

I'd actually like to see the results of that. 

Done. I used the wording from the gallup poll.

[aurora]

May 6, 2014 16:08:31 GMT -5 meshaliuknits said:

May 6, 2014 15:59:28 GMT -5 ijack said:

It blows my mind that 64% aren't worried. I mean where do these people live? A cave? Underground bunker?

What percentage of our population is old and/or has a terminal illness? I can totally see that segment not being worried.

But wouldn't at least some old people worry about their grandchildren?

It boggles my mind that so many people refuse to heed the science.

[eponinepontmercy]

I saw this article this morning and wondered when Pixy started working at the White House.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk