Florida Bans "Global Warming" and "Climate Change"

[naturalmwa]

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Well that's the thing - they aren't talking about the same deaths. It's not one or the other, it's both - and more. You have to add up all the projections for the different ways people will die as a result of global warming. And, of course, that's hard to do because it's hard to project, for example, how many wars will break out over water, or food, or land for displaced people to move to.

That last one has me very concerned. Consider Syria. A country of under 20 million and more than half of them are now displaced from their homes, many in refugee camps in various other nations. No, that's not global warming, but it's a clue to what kind of population mess we could face if/when millions (billions?) have to flee flooding and devastating storms in heavily-populated coastal areas.

And where does the food come from when America's breadbasket and other fertile regions are producing substantially less?

And so on.

Add it up. You have to be a special kind of person to pretend this isn't extremely serious.

You provide a good reason to not adopt Green Party platforms for organic agriculture. This is no time to ditch our fertilizer and pesticides. It might be a good time to introduce GMO's that act as birth control however.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

I guess they'll just call it "bad luck" when their coastal cities are underwater, lol.

What a bunch a rubes.

Yep

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection... officials have been ordered not to use the term "climate change" or "global warming" in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.

Miami Herald

Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetle....

 

[artradley]

Yup. White House did the same thing with "terrorism" a while back. "Man made disasters" are what they were changes to, I believe. Boom! No more terrorism!

This is false.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/sta...son-says-napolitano-wont-say-terrorist-attac/

 

[Joes Place]

Cool!

Let's ban the word "abortion" nationwide, next.
That means ZERO a-------s in 2018!!!

Problem solved!

 

[Joes Place]

I partially agree with this.

To take an all (totally buy into the projections) or none (don't consider them at all) approach seems to be equally foolhardy.

It's about probabilities and risk management - you NEED to take them into account, even if you lower the projections and probabilities to be more in line with the entire body of evidence so far.

Why would you "lower the projections to be more in line with the entire body of evidence so far"?

Here's global temperature vs. projections:

Looks like it's pretty much spot-on to me.

If I were using similar "projections" on the expected range of a plane I was getting on, to ensure it would make it safely across an ocean corridor, I'd say the "projection" is quite adequate, and I'd trust that plane to be properly fueled and designed for that range.

How about Sea Level Rise?
This graph only goes to 2010, but you can see the "projections window" on it:

And, updated data show that trend has continued, and is running at the very upper-edge of "projections":

Just look at the trend since 2010 - it's either the same, or trending higher.

If this were an estimate of "how much fuel I need to safely cross the ocean", and I found out my plane was landing "on fumes" each time (using the "upper end"of what I loaded it with), I'd sure as hell either want it loaded with more for future flights, or I'd want a different plane design with a longer range.

If anything, we probably need to adjust projections UPWARD on this estimate. Bad for FL and NC, though.

Also, note that SLR estimates over the entire century show a gradual ACCELERATION over time.

It ain't slowin' down, it's speeding up. That's like your plane somehow needing MORE fuel today to make the ocean crossing than it needed 50 years ago (same plane, same fuel, only maybe the passengers are fatter Americans carrying more shit with them).


How about Arctic sea ice levels (annual minimum)?

Here was the observation vs. 2012-era projections:

Notice that observations were FAR below the projections? That was your plane running out of fuel while trying to cross the ocean.

Updated data:

2012 was anomalous, and it bounced back somewhat, but not by much, and we're STILL running UNDER the REVISED PROJECTIONS.

That means your plane is STILL "running out of fuel" based on the "fuel needed" estimates.

So, explain to us: WHICH "projections" should we be "ignoring", or "lowering/downgrading" ?

The ones that are lining up well with observations (temperatures)? Or the ones where observations are showing projections VASTLY underestimate the changes?

Be specific.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Why would you "lower the projections to be more in line with the entire body of evidence so far"?

Here's global temperature vs. projections:

Looks like it's pretty much spot-on to me.

If I were using similar "projections" on the expected range of a plane I was getting on, to ensure it would make it safely across an ocean corridor, I'd say the "projection" is quite adequate, and I'd trust that plane to be properly fueled and designed for that range.

How about Sea Level Rise?
This graph only goes to 2010, but you can see the "projections window" on it:

And, updated data show that trend has continued, and is running at the very upper-edge of "projections":

Just look at the trend since 2010 - it's either the same, or trending higher.

If this were an estimate of "how much fuel I need to safely cross the ocean", and I found out my plane was landing "on fumes" each time (using the "upper end"of what I loaded it with), I'd sure as hell either want it loaded with more for future flights, or I'd want a different plane design with a longer range.

If anything, we probably need to adjust projections UPWARD on this estimate. Bad for FL and NC, though.

Also, note that SLR estimates over the entire century show a gradual ACCELERATION over time.

It ain't slowin' down, it's speeding up. That's like your plane somehow needing MORE fuel today to make the ocean crossing than it needed 50 years ago (same plane, same fuel, only maybe the passengers are fatter Americans carrying more shit with them).


How about Arctic sea ice levels (annual minimum)?

Here was the observation vs. 2012-era projections:

Notice that observations were FAR below the projections? That was your plane running out of fuel while trying to cross the ocean.

Updated data:

2012 was anomalous, and it bounced back somewhat, but not by much, and we're STILL running UNDER the REVISED PROJECTIONS.

That means your plane is STILL "running out of fuel" based on the "fuel needed" estimates.

So, explain to us: WHICH "projections" should we be "ignoring", or "lowering/downgrading" ?

The ones that are lining up well with observations (temperatures)? Or the ones where observations are showing projections VASTLY underestimate the changes?

Be specific.

As I have been saying for many years, the IPCC has been quite conservative. No-nothings like LC call them alarmists, but they have been anything but. Even guys like Mann have been fairly conservative. Meanwhile "pseudo-scientific deniers" like Pella try to encourage us to use old science rather than the best current science.

 

[thewop]

Florida Department of Environmental Protection... officials have been ordered not to use the term "climate change" or "global warming" in any official communications, emails, or reports, according to former DEP employees, consultants, volunteers and records obtained by the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting.

The policy goes beyond semantics and has affected reports, educational efforts and public policy in a department with about 3,200 employees and $1.4 billion budget.

Miami Herald

That's very smart on their part. The words are politicized and not important to affect positive change.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

That's very smart on their part. The words are politicized and not important to affect positive change.

That's just capitulation to the right.

 

[lucas80]

If you ban it the words about it, then it can't happen. Trump should ban the use of the words money laundering, collusion, obstruction of justice, and impeachment. Problem solved.
There are some fine former posters in this thread. Anyone figured out what Yellow Snow's new handle is?

 

[Joes Place]

That's very smart on their part. The words are politicized and not important to affect positive change.

LOLWUT?

The words are the accepted scientific descriptions.
That people "politicize" them is unfortunate, but completely unrelated, and should have no consideration in forming local/long term policies to address them.