Global land temperatures are dropping faster than a cheerleader's panties on Prom night. The significance of land temperatures is the land has less thermal inertia than oceans so changes are more apparent over land. What does it mean, firstly El Nino is over and La Nina is starting and secondly all of the "record high temps" that were mostly due to the El Nino lately will come to and end and possibly the Hiatus will return.
Because the dominant culture is European and it has systematically sought to destroy other cultures through war, colonization, subjugation, forced assimilation, and economic coercion?
Pretty sure Asian culture has done the same.
B) The reason for climate action today is not because it's going to affect us today. It's because every day of delay compounds the problem. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're the type of person who changes their oil regularly and sticks to the vehicle maintenance schedule, because ignoring things until they become critical is costly and stupid....
If there really and truly were a reasonable chance that a catastrophic anthropologically caused climate change was occurring, wouldn't the people studying the problem be advocating an effective reduction in CO2 emissions on a Global Scale? The European Union is Reducing Emission, The United States is Reducing Emissions, Russia is Reducing Emissions; do you know who isn't, China is Increasing Emissions and India is Increasing Emissions! Every day of delay compounds the problem , but we'll let 2.5 billion people Reducing Emission, when they feel like getting around to it.
Get back to me when "Climatologists" are argueing about what the second decimal point of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity is, not the whole number portion. For Christ's sake even Hansen is dialing back the alarm level!
Well now that is a cogent and reasonable argument, thank you.
However, you didn't cite any source to the claim that the Weather Channel has climate scientists on staff, or what their credentials or peer-reviewed papers may have been or said. The Post article (hit piece, really, but that's expected) quotes the current CEO of TWC, David Kenny, provides some glowing praise of his staff, but it's just an attempt to distance the company from Coleman's statements (might be bad for business). There is nothing there that justifies TWC or their meteorologists (and, yes, "people that look good on TV") as authorities on climate change.
Nope. They are both meteorologists. Both backed by meteorological science. You can argue that Coleman has more experience and credentials in the field than the younger meteorologists working for the weather center. But that's it. You accept both as an authority or neither.
To only accept one as an authority and not the other is nothing but confirmation bias on your part.
Sort of like the confirmation bias that immediately buried my comments regarding this hypocrisy.
Trump's Taiwan excursion was heavily planned after months of lobbying by Bob Dole and other registered foreign agents of Taiwan. Oh, and the Trump Organization sent someone to investigate a potential billion dollar deal to develop land in Taiwan while this was going on. But no conflict of interest there!
My BS meter just twitched.
You need to take it into the shop to have it fixed. It's clearly malfunctioning.
Wind, at about 2% of the total energy market is tiny.
Even 2% of US generating capacity (not the actual number) is an enormous amount of power and the amount of wind power generating capacity is growing fast. Wind accounted for about 4.4% of US energy production in 2014. Some countries generate double digit percentages of their electricity from wind with Denmark topping the list at 39%! The US accounts for a (disproportionate) 18% of world energy consumption despite being just 5% of the population. If other countries (particularly India and China) follow our lead that is not sustainable without huge increases in the use of renewable energy.
This hostility from the government towards nuclear power is one big reason why I have trouble believing in the global warming hysteria.
The hostility towards nuclear power does not come from the government. It comes from citizens who are nervous about nuclear power and the consequences of what can happen when things go wrong. (see Chernobyl and Fukishima) There also is the as yet unsolved problem of nuclear waste disposal. Granted some (not all) of their concerns are more perception than reality but perception is what drives policy regardless of whether it is true. It also comes from financiers who look at a LONG track record of cost overruns and cost uncertainty in building nuclear plants.
This hostility towards nuclear power on costs is also something that bothers me. The reason it costs so much is because we've forgotten how to build them.
No we haven't. Nuclear power plants are being built routinely and have advanced significantly. Just not in the USA. I'm an accountant. The reason nuclear power plants cost so much is twofold. 1) They are very complicated and have to be engineered to very high standards with careful attention to safety culture to avoid disasters. This level of engineering and safety is very expensive and prone to cost overruns. Nuclear plants are (comparatively) cheap to operate but very expensive to build. Worse, there is considerable cost uncertainty surrounding their construction. When this happens financing costs for construction rise considerably. Private financing is very difficult to come by as a result. Public financing is substantially more expensive and harder to get. 2) Nuclear power plants are considered so risky by insurance and financing companies that they cannot be built without government guarantees. The risk profile is one where the odds of a disaster are (generally) low but the consequences are very high and challenging to quantify. That makes insuring and indemnifying them very expensive.
I'm not impressed with wind power. Nuclear power, on the other hand, is a much better solution.
You can waste your time being "not impressed" with wind power but it's an important and fast growing and affordable and clean source of energy. It's not going to solve all our energy needs. No one form of energy (not even nuclear) is going to do that. Stop thinking in terms of either/or and start thinking in terms of balanced portfolio. Nuclear fission will be an important part of the energy portfolio for the foreseeable future and it has almost none of the climate change issues we get from fossil fuels. The goal is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to a level lower than what the Earth's ecosystem can handle. This number isn't zero but it's far lower than where we are now. To do this with existing technology will require some combination of wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, and hydro. Battery and energy storage technology will matter greatly. I think distributed power (solar panels on roofs) are going to matter a lot as well.
You need to go look at actual sets and reviews.
Rec 2020 coverage of high end sets right now is only around 60-65%. It can and will be much higher over the next few years. Most people expect the 2017 models to provide a significant jump in coverage.
Further, Rec 2020 is only half the story - most of the sets out now don't support the HDR profiles properly (either Dolby Vision or whatever the other shit is, as far as I know there are only two relevant ones). Usually they'll see it and read the signal but not truly display it. Anytime a 4K set goes on sale people spaz out about whether or not the Xbox One S will show "all green checkmarks" in its 4K display test, and then you'll get more people yelling at them about how that doesn't mean anything with regards to what they're actually seeing. You need to dig into some deep reviews to find out how "HDR" content is actually displayed and what the panel and display controller is actually doing.
Going to rtings.com is a good start because they have consistent tests for many of the latest models, with metrics for both Rec 2020 and UHD (really 10-bit gradient) support, but even then you'll likely need to hope someone at avsforum has probed the shit out of one if you want the hard truth on the finer details.
So you make a case that a _reporter_ of weather is a climate sceptic and dismiss all the _researchers_ of weather and climate that says otherwise. I cannot see why we should listen to John Coleman based on his credentials.
Then why are you listening to the Weather Channel, which has credentials even less impressive than John Coleman. That's the point. What makes the less experienced meteorologists at the Weather Channel a better authority than the more experienced and awarded meteorologist that founded it?
then our democracy truly is dead. We aren't there yet. I still have hope, but any government that relies on propaganda to gain and hold power is the opposite of a democracy, and that is the road we are traveling toward.
"Traveling toward"? Really? Take a look in the rear view mirror, buddy, that fork in the road is WAY back behind you. You've been on the road for a LONG time!
It's funny because John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, and winner of the American Meteorological -- that's a tough one -- Meteorological Society's award for broadcast meteorologist of the year spent more than 60 years reporting on the weather, and he is incensed that the station he started has decided to use it's platform for spreading propaganda about global warming.
He was so upset about the claims of manmade global warming that he wrote a letter to the UCLA's Hammer Museum for their forum that was called Tackling Climate Change. He said "You don't have both sides represented, and I'm here to tell you that manmade global climate change is a myth."
A few choice quotes from John Coleman:
You know, a climate skeptic can rarely get on TV, ever since Al Gore made it a plank of the Democratic Party. This is a tough go for people who don't believe in climate change. A lot study on this.
Well, it's very difficult for anybody to be against it [manmade climate change] because the media has told the nation over and over again, day after day for 20 years that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the sea -- the ice is melting, the storms are going to sweep the earth and that we're all gonna die of a heat wave. I mean, this is an incredible bad, bad science.
There are 9,000 PhDs and 31 scientists who have signed the petition that says [CO2] is not a significant greenhouse gas. Oh, it's small itsy bitsy but in greenhouse gas but it's not in any ways significant. And we are sure of it. It's not like, something I made up or just thought of. I've studied and studied and studied. And Roger Revelle, the great scientist who wrote that paper back in 1957 with Hans Suess changed his mind a decade later and said, Wait a minute, I think we were wrong. Don't anybody panic. I don't think there's any global warming." And that's when Al Gore said he was senile.
Al Gore had one class in science. Roger Revelle taught it to him. He got a D and yet he's made a billion dollars off to climate change. Shame on you Al Gore.
The sky is falling. ‘Climate Change’ is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to ‘green energy’ to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk.
So the Weather Channel is upset that Breitbart is using it's video - AFTER PAYING FOR IT - to illustrate his stories. And the founder of the Weather Channel is upset that the media network he created is being used for things HE doesn't agree with.
Par for the course. And the usual suspects praise the Weather Channel for championing the AGW catechism, but they are no more of an authority on the issue than the very founder of that channel, who is excoriated for having an opinion.
Real wealth can only increase. -- R. Buckminster Fuller