Pages: 1 ... 71 72 [73] 74 75 ... 114   Go Down

Author Topic: Extreme weather  (Read 111630 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1440 on: January 23, 2020, 10:30:49 am »

The Great Spirit teachings of the native Indians were to preserve and promote the beauty of the Nature.
The contemporary evangelical interpreters of God today promote greed, money, wars, and anti-abortion movements.

And yet the latter defeated the former.

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1441 on: January 23, 2020, 10:55:05 am »

And yet the latter defeated the former.

Despicable.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1442 on: January 23, 2020, 11:00:17 am »

No president has done more for the environment as Trump...
so now

Trump rolls back US water pollution controls

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604

The US has become just too clean...
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1443 on: January 23, 2020, 11:08:24 am »

The Great Spirit teachings of the native Indians were to preserve and promote the beauty of the Nature.
The contemporary evangelical interpreters of God today promote greed, money, wars, and anti-abortion movements.

Well, man has always used religion to his own selfish desires.  It's not just a contemporary issue.  But that's not God's fault.  He's given man a choice of doing good or evil. It's up to us.  There are many more who have used religion for good purposes. It's given our basis for legal living and moral thought from not killing to not stealing and finding a purpose in life beyond the mundane.  Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1444 on: January 23, 2020, 11:15:19 am »

No president has done more for the environment as Trump...
so now

Trump rolls back US water pollution controls

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604

The US has become just too clean...
The law affect small waterways and small private areas that in the past have prevented small owners from developing their plots of land.  What was going on that if it rained hard and your land had a little wetland look, you came under rather heavy handed laws that were originally intended for actual wetlands.  You couldn't build a cabin on n your property or farm it.  There was no sensible balance.  Small nails were getting hit with huge sledgehammers.  The new regulation adds some balance into the regulation.  It does not allow people to spill chemicals and pollute.  That's fake news by the liberal press their typical method of stirring up the masses and forcing us to shoot ourselves in the foot.   

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1445 on: January 23, 2020, 01:35:19 pm »

The law affect small waterways and small private areas that in the past have prevented small owners from developing their plots of land.  What was going on that if it rained hard and your land had a little wetland look, you came under rather heavy handed laws that were originally intended for actual wetlands.  You couldn't build a cabin on n your property or farm it.  There was no sensible balance.  Small nails were getting hit with huge sledgehammers.  The new regulation adds some balance into the regulation.  It does not allow people to spill chemicals and pollute.  That's fake news by the liberal press their typical method of stirring up the masses and forcing us to shoot ourselves in the foot.
From the story you linked to:

"Under the new regulations, landowners and property developers will be able to pour pesticides, fertilizers and other pollutants directly into millions of miles of the nation's waterways for the first time in decades."
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1446 on: January 23, 2020, 02:00:19 pm »

From the story you linked to:

"Under the new regulations, landowners and property developers will be able to pour pesticides, fertilizers and other pollutants directly into millions of miles of the nation's waterways for the first time in decades."
Fake news by the liberal BBC.
It mainly affects small streams that do not extend beyond the state lines which will be under the control and regulation of each individual states Pollution Control. Also note Obama pt these mainly into effect in 2015 a year before h.w Leahy office.  So it's not some old law. Here's an excerpt from The New York Times.
"The new rule, written by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and water that temporarily flows through underground passages."

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1447 on: January 23, 2020, 02:07:30 pm »

Fake news by the liberal BBC.
It mainly affects small streams that do not extend beyond the state lines which will be under the control and regulation of each individual states Pollution Control. Also note Obama pt these mainly into effect in 2015 a year before h.w Leahy office.  So it's not some old law. Here's an excerpt from The New York Times.
"The new rule, written by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and water that temporarily flows through underground passages."
You are quoting the New York Times in support of your position? I thought they were the epitome of fake news. But if they are good enough for you, here's a NYT quote:

"The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects."
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 04:36:49 pm by faberryman »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1448 on: January 23, 2020, 02:25:43 pm »

I would trust the BBC before I would any private news outlet.

It doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand why private companies are far more likely to run with the money and not the truth. At least Auntie apologizes for her occasional mistakes.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1449 on: January 23, 2020, 02:38:04 pm »

I would trust the BBC before I would any private news outlet....

Это правда.

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1450 on: January 23, 2020, 08:03:29 pm »

You are quoting the New York Times in support of your position? I thought they were the epitome of fake news. But if they are good enough for you, here's a NYT quote:

"The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects."
You're right that the NY Times is no friend of mine.  Where they've gone off the rails is by not acknowledging that States have their own regulations regarding pollution.  The used hot words like "dumping" when the real word is "using".  Farmers use pesticides and fertilizers all the time.  But they don't dump them in waterways or are they allowed too.  That's just a lot of rhetoric.  The waterways they;re referring to are not interstate and not end up in those waterways.  The State's control those and write their own laws.  It's not the Federal government's business.  We are a federal government.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1451 on: January 23, 2020, 08:16:00 pm »

You're right that the NY Times is no friend of mine.
Then why do you link to them to support your position?
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1452 on: January 23, 2020, 08:39:45 pm »

Then why do you link to them to support your position?

You have to understand the NY Times.  They'll bias the article by putting it above the fold on page one or buried on page 37 depending on its political impact for what they favor.  rR they'll write the headline in a way the biases the information.  But then they''ll often include both the good stuff and bad stuff within the article.  That way they can say they covered all the facts about the situation.  They're bistable.  Psychotic.  They have to tell the truth but then they have to present it in a way that makes the point they're trying to get across. Less sophisticated media just leave out the stuff that doesn;t support their viewpoint.

You have to learn how the Times does this and cull from the article the real truth.  The truth in this case is that what Trump did does not do away with the EPA regulations that were in force basically before 2015.  It was only in the last year of King Obama's term that he unilaterally changed the rules without Congress's approval.  Just like the JCPOA.  The old rule protected interstate waterways, like it is now that Trump went back to it.  It's just that small local areas are left alone federally.  It's up to the States to regulate them just as it always was before 2015.  So now as was before, small real estate owners who want to build a cabin, or a farmer who wants to plant his small field, can do so without having to go to Washington DC to get approval from the EPA.  That's a very long and costly process which can be denied for arbitrary reasons making small owner's property valueless.  Obama went a step too far and applied onerous regulations to areas that don't require it.  The areas that still required it stay protected.  These regulations are still valid.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 08:43:03 pm by Alan Klein »
Logged

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1453 on: January 24, 2020, 09:38:57 am »

You have to understand the NY Times.  They'll bias the article by putting it above the fold on page one or buried on page 37 depending on its political impact for what they favor.  rR they'll write the headline in a way the biases the information.  But then they''ll often include both the good stuff and bad stuff within the article.  That way they can say they covered all the facts about the situation.  They're bistable.  Psychotic.  They have to tell the truth but then they have to present it in a way that makes the point they're trying to get across. Less sophisticated media just leave out the stuff that doesn;t support their viewpoint.
What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article. What a fantasy land you have created for yourself.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2020, 11:27:32 am by faberryman »
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1454 on: January 24, 2020, 10:11:07 am »

What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article.

Inherited from Trumpian politic: Frequently-required “walkbacks”
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1455 on: January 24, 2020, 10:36:56 am »

Это правда.
You mixed up the BBC with Trump i believe...
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1456 on: January 24, 2020, 12:10:56 pm »

What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article. What a fantasy land you have created for yourself.
The article implies he's poisoning the entire country's rivers.  But it's text subsidies that the change is only for minor streams and parcels.  I try to apply discernment to aust I'm reading.   

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1457 on: January 24, 2020, 01:08:47 pm »

... You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article...

Precisely because it is within the same article.

If you ask Goebbels, he would tell you the best propaganda is the one composed of truth, semi-truths, and lies.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1458 on: January 24, 2020, 01:16:15 pm »

Precisely because it is within the same article.

If you ask Goebbels, he would tell you the best propaganda is the one composed of truth, semi-truths, and lies.

Now that's a load of fake news, Slobodan. You can't ask Goebby anything anymore.

:-)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Extreme weather
« Reply #1459 on: January 25, 2020, 08:43:06 am »

Since many here do not have access to Facebook, I am posting the whole post here (however, if you click on the underlined date, just under his name, it will take you to the post)
Quote

Bjørn Lomborg
January 19 at 2:17 PM
The Australian wildfires are tragic.
But exploiting them for 'proving' climate change is confirmation bias.
In much of the conversation, there is some true points and a lot of misdirection.
Yes, the fires this year have been *much* larger in the temperate forests of New South Wales (home of Sydney) and Victoria (Melbourne).
But the climate models predict not just temperate forests to see their burnt area increase. They predict almost *all* biomes to see their burnt area increase.
So, if people *only* look at temperate forests this year, show that they burnt more and conclude ‘see, climate change’ it is confirmation bias.
You can’t take a result *after* it has happened and decide only to test the part that fits your theory.
Global warming should increase *all* burnt area in Australia, and it should increase burnt area in Australia minus NT (avoiding a lot of the tropical savanna) even more.
The fact that burnt area for both Australia and Australia minus NT has declined is inconvenient for the claim that global warming increases burnt area.
Here I show the likely *annual* burnt area for all of Australia. Of course, the current fire season is not over, but we can reasonably predict the total burnt area by looking at the proportion of burnt area in the historical record. It turns out that comparing the full season with how much had burnt by January 1, the full season was 119.5% higher.
The Guardian newspaper has been providing the running total amount of burnt area in this fire season (running from June 2019-May 2020, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_Australian_bushfire_seas…). They find the total area burnt for Australia minus Northern Territory is 10.7 million hectares to January 6, 2020. In personal communication, they have told me the NT burnt area is 13.3 million hectares (and that this might be for all of 2019, so possibly too large — but here we'll just use this data point).[/font]
The total burnt area is therefore 24 million hectares from June 2019 to about January 6 2020. That means the likely total for the whole fire season June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, is 119.5% of that or 28.6 million hectares.
Now, we can get slightly more updated satellite data, because we can get annual data from GFED (1997-2016) and GWIS (2001-18) They splice nicely.
The data shows two things.
First, climate models would expect the burnt area of Australia to be increasing. It is not.
Second, the current Australian fire season is in terms of area burnt not unprecedented compared to the recent past.
Data: For this fire season from https://www.theguardian.com/…/how-big-are-the-fires-burning…
For 1997-2016 from http://www.globalfiredata.org/analysis.html[/font],
For 2001-18: https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/…/g…/countries-estimates/OC/AU[/font][/font]
NSW 4.9 million hectares: https://www.theguardian.com/…/record-breaking-49m-hectares-…
Similar sized fires: https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/[/font]…/FESA_Report-NationalInquiryonB…[/font]
Victoria: https://twitter.com/m_parrington/status/1214562153769734144
5 million hectares from https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/[/font]…/FESA_Report-NationalInquiryonB…[/font]
Global lower burnt area: (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/10.1…/2013JG002532)[/font]
Climate models expect increasing burnt area for Australia: https://iopscience.iop.org/artic…/10.1088/1748-9326/…/104015.. The climate model predicts not just temperate forests to see their burnt area increase (0.28%), but almost all other types of areas, too. And these areas are expected to increase *more*. So burnt area of grass & scrublands will increase by about 1.1%, burnt area of tropical forests 2.5% and sclerophyll woodland 3.3%. The only land type that should experience decreasing burnt area is tropical savanna (in Northern Territory and northern Queensland) by 4.2%.
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 [73] 74 75 ... 114   Go Up