Our Oceans are Under Attack

Donnie Trump's hair is proof that evolution is false. Nothing like that could have evolved.

 

Donnie Trump's hair is proof that there is not a beneficent God.



"I used to be 100% loved. Now I'm probably 55% loved."
—
Donald Trump

 

Climate Change: A Warning From Islam | New York Review of Books

 

Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers | The Guardian

 

Exposed: Shameless climate denial, brought to you by Big Coal

http://www.salon.com/2015/08/26/exposed_shameless_climate_denial_brought_to_you_by_big_coal/

The Koch-affiliated groups Americans for Prosperity and the Institute for Energy Research, known for spreading lies about climate change in order to influence policy. The American Legislative Exchange Council and the Heartland Institute, also known as America’s preeminent climate deniers. A secretive, Karl Rove-linked operation that spent millions on ads supporting Mitch McConnell in his Kentucky Senate race against Alison Grimes and President Obama’s purported “War on Coal.” And an attorney known for making life hell for the scientists conducting important research on climate change.

What they all — and many others — have in common, according to a searing investigative report from the Intercept: they all received funding from Alpha Natural Resources, the country’s second-largest coal company.

This information shouldn’t be surprising. But until the company filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, it was nonetheless withheld from the public. That’s because, as the Intercept explains, many of these nonprofits, despite the outsized role they play in politics, are not required to reporting information about their donors. Even now, there’s no way to determine how much money Alpha Natural Resources allocated to fund these groups. Given the hard work they put into undermining everything from EPA regulations for coal-fired power plants to the very science of climate change, though, it’s easy to imagine that the company felt that it’s contribution was well worth the expense.

 

World sea level rise accelerating: NASA | DNA India

Hello, Miami...
Goodby, Miami...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-is-so-focused-on-studying-on-sea-level-rise/

Change in the gulf stream position has made the water level rise on the east coast while it has gone down further off shore.
While east coast went up, the west coast fell.

Sea levels rise and fall easily shown with what the tides do, so when major ocean currents shift, makes sense sea levels will rise in one place, fall another.

 

.
From over on the WBF...

 

Naomi Klein on climate change: 'I thought it best to write about my own raw terror'

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...ught-it-best-to-write-about-my-own-raw-terror

Oliver Milman: You write in the book that you were a “climate denier”, not in that you denied the science but that you just didn’t want to engage on the subject. Why did you, and others, do this, do you think?

Naomi Klein: There are so many reasons, most of us tell ourselves multiple different stories each day. I’m flying to Australia so, just to get through the day, I’ll have to engage in climate denial. It’s just that I’m in a lot less denial than I used to be.

What changed?

Ten years ago I was in New Orleans covering hurricane Katrina, I was writing the Shock Doctrine at the time. The photographer I went to Iraq with said: “You have to get there, it’s just crazy here, people are being shot in the streets.”

It was this cocktail of heavy weather, racism, and crumbling infrastructure. It felt like I was looking into the future. People said it was like science fiction, with a rich country abandoning the residents of one of its cities, vigilantes roaming the streets, with anyone around after curfew fair game.

For someone with a background of economic justice, what scared me about climate change is not just that the sea level will rise and we’ll have more storms, it’s how this intersects with that cocktail of inequality and racism.

This is my attempt to lay out what disaster collectivism looks like. The primary reason people look away [from climate change] is that they don’t see a way out and are told that the solutions to climate change involves giving things up.

Did your interaction with (well-funded climate change denial movement) the Heartland Institute disturb you?

I don’t know if it was weirder than a Republican party convention or Donald Trump leading in the polls, really.
I find it harder to deal with an UN negotiator who knows the science and chooses to do nothing. I find that more troubling than the Heartland crowd.

Naomi Klein is appearing at the Melbourne writers festival on 29 August and at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney on 5 September

 

Permafrost and Global Climate Change | Policy Brief | Woods Hole Research Center (pdf)

see also:
http://whrc.org/u-s-scientists-warn-leaders-of-dangers-of-thawing-permafrost/

http://robertscribbler.com/tag/woods-hole/

 

Climate change legislation approaches pivotal showdown with oil industry.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ge-legislation-showdown-california-sb350-sb32

With only a few days left in the current session of the California legislature, an aggressive political and public relations fight between the oil industry and top lawmakers over climate change legislation is moving into a final round.

At stake is the passage of far-reaching environmental bills that would fundamentally alter the way the state does business and deals with planet-warming pollution – but would likely also change the way everyday Californians travel, live and consume.

The proposed laws represent a Democratic push to curb emissions and promote clean energy that specifically targets “mobile” pollution from cars and other gas-burning vehicles.

Petroleum companies are warning that the lack of specific plans in the policies could lead to gas rationing, surcharges on minivans and trucks, and even government-imposed fines on driving habits, monitored via a vehicle’s onboard computer – big brother in the passenger seat.

Democratic leaders are calling these warnings “doomsday scenarios” that won’t happen.

One of the two main bills, SB 350, calls for a 50% reduction in petroleum use by vehicles by 2030, the equivalent of removing 36m cars and trucks from the road.

It also calls for 50% of the state’s electricity supply to be derived from renewable resources by that date, and 50% better energy efficiency in buildings through retrofits and upgrades
The other cornerstone of the push is SB 32, which continues cap-and-trade emissions requirements for large industrial polluters like oil refineries and power companies, implemented in California’s groundbreaking 2006 climate change law.

SB 32 increases those pollution reduction goals – specifically from man-made greenhouse gases, requiring the state to reduce emissions to 40% below its 1990 levels by 2030, and then increasing that to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

The bills, say Kevin de Leon, the leader of the state senate, are necessary not just for the environment, but to protect the state’s population and economy for future generations.

“This is a fight worth having because it’s a fight for our children’s health, it’s a fight for the economic future of the greatest state in the country,” he said at a recent press conference, also highlighting California’s longstanding role as a leader in policy making. “It is not hyperbole and it is not over dramatization to say the world is watching very closely.”

 

You still have not shown one spec of scientific proof that man produced co2 is causing global warming. For YOU, that's an axiom.
You argue everything else, but you can't offer proof anthropogenic co2 is doing anything.
It is not a fact man is causing climate change. It is not a given.
It's a belief, your belief, and not shared by most Americans.

 

For many on your side, not only do they believe, it's a religion.
Recognize the religious zealots among you, by they're referring to skeptics as heretics.
Heresy cannot exist unless there is a religious doctrine to defy.

"noun, plural heresies.


1.

opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system.


2.

the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.


3.

Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.


4.

any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc. "

It is not established man causes climate change.

 

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." [5]

And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day.
Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
[6] - See more at: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/#sthash.OO1L6dOw.dpuf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yudmK5jZy9A

Dawin admitted in Origin of Species, if any biological system could be shown to be of such complexity, that gradual development over a long period of time was impossible, his theory would be utterly destroyed. It has been.

https://www.dnalc.org/view/1022-Pathways-Inside-the-nucleus.html

 

Whoa! Which planet do you live on? I think you lost the power symbol when you copied. It should have been 10^-12 grams. That is ~0.000,000,000,001 grams.

I suggest that the topic of evolution is too complex and too different from this thread's topic to discuss here. If you want to discuss that topic why don't you start another thread. But for those who want to read further here is the Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity