An Online Community
AlbumAlbum   FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of the webmasters, administrators and moderators of this forum. Refer to the complete disclaimer.
The Climate Change Debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 18 Sep 2006
Posts: 1596
Location: USA East Coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:33 pm    Post subject: Montauk Point Reply with quote

Easter Island is too far away!

Montauk Point and its lighthouse have been threatened more and more every year. It as a ferry ride and a two hour drive away.

Maybe Wildflower and I should drive out for an inspection.. Cool

Bring the tanning lotion, Wildflower!
Proud Republican Elephant Flying on Magic Carpet
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 27 Oct 2005
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2018 9:01 pm    Post subject: Sometimes Fighting Climate Change Means Breaking the Law Reply with quote

Sometimes Fighting Climate Change Means Breaking the Law
By Carolyn Kormann

A woman sees a child fall down a well, so she climbs a fence onto private property to save the child’s life. In the unlikely event that the woman were charged with criminal trespassing, her attorney would use a choice-of-evils defense, also known as a necessity defense, to get her acquitted. He would argue that the child faced an immediate physical threat, and that it was necessary for his client to break the law in order to prevent the child from dying. But what if the threat were something less discrete than a well—the air, the water, the very ground beneath our feet? What if it imperilled every child in a neighborhood, or on the planet? Would the necessity defense still hold?

Last week, in a Boston municipal courthouse, thirteen defendants brought that question before Judge Mary Ann Driscoll. They had been arrested, in 2016, while protesting the construction of a high-pressure natural-gas pipeline in the neighborhood of West Roxbury, and claimed that their acts of civil disobedience—trespassing, disorderly conduct, resisting arrest—were necessary to forestall both local and global threats. In their testimony to Driscoll, some of the defendants focussed on community safety. The pipeline route, they noted, went through densely populated streets, past an active quarry where bedrock is regularly blasted. According to calculations made for comparable pipelines, an explosion could incinerate an area of at least thirty city blocks. Others discussed rising greenhouse-gas emissions and the harm that climate change is inflicting on people around the world. Driscoll listened to the defendants silently and, after the last one testified, announced that she found them not guilty—that their actions were justified by reason of necessity. She acquitted them without so much as an administrative fee.

Traditionally, in the law, necessity has been a narrow defense. It can be difficult to prove, and is usually limited to cases in which the threat is clear and concrete. Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, told me that, at the start of a civil-disobedience trial, prosecutors often file a motion to bar their opponents from presenting a necessity defense. “They say, ‘Don’t give us any funny business about why you sat in the road; the issue is whether you sat in the road,’ ” Silverstein explained. But that hasn’t stopped protesters from trying anyway. One common strategy, Silverstein said, is to pursue a jury nullification, in which a jury returns a not-guilty verdict, despite clear and indisputable evidence to the contrary, because the jurors find the charges unjust. In such cases, Silverstein said, “they are putting the law on trial.” Even when a necessity defense fails, he continued, it can give protesters a chance to appeal to the public. “It’s sometimes considered a victory if they got to present the evidence—why nuclear weapons, or the Vietnam war, or climate change are bad,” Silverstein said. “It’s a way to bring attention to the issue.”

West Roxbury’s anti-pipeline movement began in 2015, when Spectra Energy, a Houston-based company, broke ground on a five-mile-long extension of the Algonquin Gas Transmission Pipeline, which carries fracked natural gas from Lambertville, New Jersey, to Boston. (Last February, Spectra was bought by the Canadian multinational Enbridge, which the Obama Administration fined more than sixty million dollars, in 2010, after hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil from one of the company’s pipelines spilled into the Kalamazoo River, in Michigan.) City leaders opposed the extension, but the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission had issued Spectra a permit, so the company proceeded to dig up the roads. When it became clear that legal means of protest weren’t working—petitions, public comments, an ongoing challenge against the F.E.R.C. permit in federal court—an organization called the Climate Disobedience Center started training hundreds of protesters. Veterans of the antiwar and anti-nuclear demonstrations of the nineteen-seventies joined in.

Over the course of about thirty actions, the protesters sat down in front of backhoes, chained themselves to fences, and dropped into the pipeline’s construction trench, decorating it with flowers. They prayed, sang songs, and chanted, “No gasification without representation!” On June 29, 2016, twenty-three of the boldest activists lay down in the trench and refused to move. In Pakistan that summer, people had dug mass graves in advance of a predicted heat wave. “We recognized that trenches like the ones being dug in Pakistan were caused by trenches like the one we were resisting in West Roxbury,” Marla Marcum, a Methodist pastor and a co-founder of the Climate Disobedience Center, told me. The Boston Fire Department’s technical-rescue squad had to lift or roll the protesters onto stretchers and haul them out of the trench with ropes. By September 29th, the day of the final action, a hundred and ninety-eight people had been arrested. Many pleaded guilty to trespassing or disturbing the peace and were put on a six-month pretrial probation, after which the charges were dropped.

The pipeline entered service on January 5, 2017, but the activists still hoped to bring attention to their fight, this time in the courtroom. From the beginning, the thirteen defendants who appeared before Driscoll planned to present a necessity defense, including testimony from expert witnesses such as James Hansen, the climate scientist who alerted Congress to global warming, in 1988. During the discovery process, which dragged on for more than a year, the defendants and the judge pressed Spectra on a range of issues, including its safety plan for the pipeline. In November, after months of delay, the company’s lawyer submitted an affidavit admitting that no such plan existed. Revelations like that, Marcum said, have made the process worthwhile. Last Tuesday, perhaps recognizing that the case had become a boondoggle, the prosecution downgraded the charges from criminal to civil, making the defendants’ infractions the equivalent of parking tickets. The case could have been over then, but, in an unusual move, Driscoll allowed the protesters to make their final statements. According to Alice Cherry, a co-founder of the Climate Defense Project, which helped represent the West Roxbury activists, Driscoll’s ruling was the first of its kind in a civil case involving climate protesters.

The night after the ruling, the defendants held a public forum in the basement of a church in Jamaica Plain, near West Roxbury. “Communities like this one are fighting these kinds of fights all over the country,” the climate activist Tim DeChristopher said. “There is a sustained resistance, and it’s shifting the way these companies are doing business.” Prior to his involvement in the West Roxbury case, DeChristopher spent almost two years in prison for disrupting a government auction of oil and gas leases on sensitive public lands in Utah. Although his lawyer in that case, Patrick Shea, doesn’t anticipate that the necessity defense will become more common in civil-disobedience trials anytime soon, he noted that Driscoll’s ruling is consistent with “the drift of the judiciary.” Shea cited an ongoing federal lawsuit brought by a group of teen-agers, who argue that the government’s actions and inactions on climate change have, in the words of U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, “so profoundly damaged our home planet that they threaten plaintiffs’ fundamental constitutional rights to life and liberty.” The suit recently made it through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, over the Trump Administration’s objections. Meanwhile, climate-change activists in Minnesota and Washington State are preparing necessity defenses of their own. “In the beginning, you really didn’t have legal standing to challenge environmental matters,” Shea said. “But the wonderful thing about common law is that judges can begin to architect changes in it that reflect increasing scientific knowledge.”

At one point during the Jamaica Plain forum, Marcum called for a moment of silence, in recognition of the fact that “interactions with the criminal-justice system in this country are not all the same.” She noted that Driscoll’s ruling had come in the same week that Louisiana’s attorney general declined to prosecute a pair of white police officers who fatally shot Alton Sterling, a black man, in 2016. Boston is among the most segregated cities in the country; residents of West Roxbury, which is three-quarters white, tend to emphasize the “West,” to distinguish their neighborhood from nearby Roxbury, which is majority black. One of the only African-Americans arrested in West Roxbury was the Reverend Mariama White-Hammond, a climate-justice activist who has been working to bridge Boston’s racial divide through environmentalism. At the mass-graves protest, in 2016, she spoke to the crowd. “I debated whether or not it’s good to be here today, because all of these officers have to be here, and if I had my choice, I’d rather them be figuring out the sources of violence in our neighborhood and working to stop it,” she said. “But I’m here today because I believe we can lay to rest the spirit of exploitation and extraction that has brought us to such a terrible place.”

Drifting around the world
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 20 Jun 2009
Posts: 2050
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:09 am    Post subject: Snowy Springs Don’t Disprove Global Warming Reply with quote

Four Reasons Snowy Springs Don’t Disprove Global Warming
It’s going to be very cold this weekend in the Northeast. That doesn’t mean the climate isn’t changing.
BY Jay Michaelson

A record-cold “Arctic Blast” is set to hit the East Coast this weekend.

And undoubtedly, some people will point to it and say that it proves global warming isn’t for real.

That’s totally false: categorically, definitely, unequivocally, scientifically false. And yet it’s made over and over and over again by climate denialists and their paid-for politicians in Washington.

For example, Donald Trump tweeted just before New Year’s Eve:

In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

Now, in fairness, that wasn’t explicitly denying climate change because of a cold snap. But, as Vox meticulously researched, Trump has tweeted climate denial 115 times, including this chestnut:

It snowed over 4 inches this past weekend in New York City. It is still October. So much for Global Warming.

It’s extremely cold in NY & NJ—not good for flood victims. Where is global warming?

And so on.

Or remember Senator James Inhofe, one of the leading climate deniers (and former boss of Andrew Wheeler, set to be the next deputy EPA administrator), tossing a snowball on the floor of the Senate in February, 2015?

Or read the good people at TownHall.com informing us that “extremely cold temperatures … expose the flawed predictions of the global warming alarmists, thus falsifying their climate-doom propaganda.”

(Incidentally, the writer of that piece, Vijay Jayaraj, is on the payroll of the Cornwall Alliance, a religious anti-environmentalist organization, which mostly funded by the right-wing dark money group Donors Trust, which is mostly funded by the ‘Knowledge and Progress Fund’ which, you guessed it, is part of the Koch Brothers network.)

Here, then, is the definitive list of four reasons that cold winters do not disprove global warming.

1. Climate Is Personality, Weather Is a Mood
Okay, but if climate change is causing an overall warming trend, why are there so many cold winters? Well, because:

2. There Is No ‘Global Warming.’ There’s Global Climate Disruption.

“Global warming” is a nice sounding term, but it’s never been quite accurate.


3. Yes, in Fact, Climate Change Sometimes Makes Winter Worse

In some cases, the changes caused by anthropogenic alterations to the atmosphere will cause more wintry effects. For example, climate change is causing the Great Lakes to freeze later and less than they historically have. Those warmer lakes lead to more moisture in the air, which leads to more “lake effect” snowfall., just as we’ve seen in recent years.


4. The Northeastern United States Is Not the World

Perhaps this is obvious, but a small swath of land from Maine to Georgia is not representative of the entire Earth’s surface. And as it happens, the warming effects of global climate disruption have not been as keenly felt there as elsewhere.


That, by the way, is the kind of “uncertainty” that exists in climate science. There is no uncertainty as to the overall trends and the causation between anthropogenic emissions and temperature rise. There is uncertainty on the details.

So, when you see climate deniers hype up the uncertainty of the science, look closer: It’s never about the basic process of global climate disruption. It’s just about the specific effects.

But there is no excuse for confusing weather and climate. When someone says, “It’s cold out, so much for global warming,” the only thing they’re revealing is their own ignorance. As Prince said, sometimes it snows in April.

Read whole article at:

Climate Change Ostrich

Công Hòa Viêt-Nam Muôn Nam!
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 1535
Location: On a desk, where else?

PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 12:43 am    Post subject: How To Downplay Climate Change Reply with quote

Leaked Memo: EPA Shows Workers How To Downplay Climate Change
Point 5: Suggest that humans are only responsible “in some manner.”
By Alexander C. Kaufman

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday evening sent employees a list of eight approved talking points on climate change from its Office of Public Affairs ― guidelines that promote a message of uncertainty about climate science and gloss over proposed cuts to key adaptation programs.

An internal email obtained by HuffPost ― forwarded to employees by Joel Scheraga, a career staffer who served under President Barack Obama ― directs communications directors and regional office public affairs directors to note that the EPA “promotes science that helps inform states, municipalities and tribes on how to plan for and respond to extreme events and environmental emergencies” and “works with state, local, and tribal government to improve infrastructure to protect against the consequences of climate change and natural disasters.”

But beyond those benign statements acknowledging the threats climate change poses are talking points boiled down from the sort of climate misinformation EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has long trumpeted.

“Human activity impacts our changing climate in some manner,” one point reads. “The ability to measure with precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue.”

The other states: “While there has been extensive research and a host of published reports on climate change, clear gaps remain including our understanding of the role of human activity and what we can do about it.”

The email was sent under the subject line: “Consistent Messages on Climate Adaptation.”

In a Wednesday statement to HuffPost, the EPA confirmed the memo and said the agency’s “work on climate adaptation continues under the leadership of Dr. Scheraga.”

Later Wednesday afternoon, Liz Bowman, an EPA spokeswoman, disputed HuffPost’s characterization of the email.

“This is not an official memo; this is simply an email among colleagues, based on information developed by someone in our office,” she said, adding that “implying we are telling people to downplay climate change is a gross over misrepresentation of the facts.”

Read more:
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 21 Dec 2017
Posts: 347
Location: Potterverse

PostPosted: Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:13 am    Post subject: SHOCK: 97% Climate Change Consensus DEBUNKED Reply with quote

SHOCK: 97% Climate Change Consensus DEBUNKED
David Pakman Show
Published on Apr 9, 2018
--A shocking new report debunks the "97% consensus" on climate change, pointing out that, in fact, 99.94% of peer-reviewed climate science studies support the view that human activity on earth is impacting the climate, including changing air and ocean temperatures


Rule the Waves! The cyberwaves, of course! wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageVisit poster's website

Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 10:57 pm    Post subject: Trump's Earth Day message Reply with quote

Twitter users pounce on Trump's Earth Day message
The president stresses the importance of preserving natural resources, then applauds his administration's efforts to roll back environmental protections.
'The antithesis of what Earth Day is about' »

Trump Celebrates Earth Day By Praising Rollback Of Environmental Protections
Hayley Miller, HuffPost 10 hours ago

President Donald Trump commemorated Earth Day on Sunday by applauding his administration’s efforts to roll back key environmental protections.

Trump stressed the importance of preserving the “life-sustaining gifts” of “our magnificent land and waterways, abundant natural resources, and unique wildlife” in a White House statement released Sunday.

“It is our responsibility to protect them for our own benefit and that of generations to come,” Trump said in the statement, before praising his administration for repealing regulations meant to do just that.

“We know that it is impossible for humans to flourish without clean air, land, and water,” according to the statement. “We also know that a strong, market-driven economy is essential to protecting these resources. For this reason, my Administration is dedicated to removing unnecessary and harmful regulations that restrain economic growth and make it more difficult for local communities to prosper and to choose the best solutions for their environment.”


With climate change skepticScott Pruitt as the president’s appointed leader of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Trump administration has taken a hatchet to progressive, Obama-era environmental regulations.

Pruitt outlined plans earlier this month to gut landmark fuel standards for vehicles that were designed to reduce carbon emissions, the nation’s top source of greenhouse gas pollution. The Trump administration in January proposed a plan to massively expand offshore drilling and opened up millions of acres of previously protected public land to fossil fuel developers.

In June 2017, Trump delivered a major blow to the fight against global warming by announcing the United States will pull out of the Paris climate accord.

Despite what many activists consider to be the administration’s unprecedented assault on environmental protections, Trump called on Americans to “give thanks for the environment we share, protect, and call home.”

“Americans embrace the idea of enjoying nature in a responsible fashion, while preserving the blessings of the land for future generations,” he said in the statement. “My Administration is committed to furthering this rich legacy of conservation.”

Some Twitter users took note of the apparent hypocrisy:

Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Posts: 165

PostPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2018 11:01 pm    Post subject: Earth Day Apology Song Reply with quote

SNL Flashback: Will Forte’s Earth Day Apology Song
In honor of Earth Day, Amy Poehler and Seth Meyers welcome funny man Will Forte to Weekend Update to sing a song to the planet he titled "An Open Apology to Mother Earth." Portlandia’s Fred Armisen accompanies Will on the guitar.

Back to top
View user's profileSend private message

Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 6881
Location: Shuttling between France and the US

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2018 4:33 pm    Post subject: Trump ruined Earth Day Reply with quote

Trump Earth Day Statement an Orwellian Disaster
David Pakman Show
Published on Apr 23, 2018
--Donald Trump's Earth Day statement is an Orwellian disaster, bragging about reducing regulations and claiming that giving corporations freedom to destroy the environment is good for our planet


My Most Prestigious Award wink
Back to top
View user's profileSend private messageYahoo Messenger

Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 915
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2018 2:51 am    Post subject: Macron Takes Aim At Trump On Climate Change Reply with quote

Emmanuel Macron Takes Aim At Trump On Climate Change In Congressional Address
Willa Frej, HuffPost•April 25, 2018

French President Emmanuel Macron extolled the Franco-American relationship on multiple fronts but issued a stern warning about the need to address climate change during his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.

Speaking entirely in English, Macron laid out the numerous ways ― human rights, trade, terrorism ― in which both the U.S. and France must strengthen multilateral ties in order to confront what he called a “new world order” marked by violence and conflict.

His most forceful comments came in the form of a veiled rebuke against President Donald Trump on climate policy. Macron has emerged as a leader in the fight to protect the legitimacy of the Paris climate agreement after Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw last June. Minutes after Trump’s announcement, Macron tweeted a slogan riffing off of Trump’s own campaign rallying cry: “Make our planet great again.”

On Wednesday, he demanded again that the U.S. do its part to provide future generations with “a planet that is still habitable in 25 years.” Some people, he continued, feel that securing jobs and restoring industry are more urgent concerns, yet he insisted that the long-term goal of creating a low-carbon economy is primordial.

“What is the meaning of our life, really, if we work and live destroying the planet, sacrificing the future of our children?” he asked as the room erupted, mostly among Democratic members of Congress, in applause.

He’s confident, he added, that the U.S. and France can work out their disagreements on the matter because “on the long term we will have to face the same realities.”

Travis Nichols, media director for Greenpeace USA, applauded Macron’s address.

“Donald Trump should never have rejected the Paris Climate Accord in the first place, and he should by all means reverse course immediately,” Nichols said on Wednesday. “Trump must listen to not only President Macron, but the majority of people in this country who want the United States to stay in the Paris Agreement. As climate-fueled disasters around the world continue to worsen, even Trump should now see that the Paris terms are immensely favorable when compared to climate inaction, denial, and isolation. Destruction wrought from climate change is only going to get worse, and the rest of the world already knows it.”

Macron’s time in Washington, D.C., this week marks the first official state visit of the Trump administration. Macron and Trump have quickly developed an affability that the U.S. leader hasn’t displayed toward other key allies. A series of praiseworthy comments ― Trump at one point called Macron “perfect” ― plus a variety of hugs and handshakes during public events on Tuesday pointed to the warmth between the two.

Yet a handful of thorny international issues are on the table as the two leaders meet, most notably the Iran nuclear deal and Western involvement in the ongoing civil war in Syria.

Many view Macron as the only person with a shot at getting Trump to change his mind about pulling out of the Iran nuclear agreement. Trump has long railed against the deal signed during the Obama administration. He yet again called the agreement “insane” and “ridiculous” on Tuesday but did signal a willingness to negotiate a new deal.

Trump set a deadline of May 12 to determine the fate of the current Iran deal. In classic Trump fashion, he has so far not indicated what he plans to do.

“Nobody knows what I’m going to do on the 12th, although Mr. President, you have a pretty good idea,” Trump said on Tuesday, addressing Macron. “We’ll see also if I do what some people expect, whether or not it will be possible to do a new deal with solid foundations.”

Macron said Wednesday that France doesn’t plan to leave the agreement but is happy to work with Trump in crafting a new, more comprehensive deal that addresses some of the issues that both countries feel were left out of the current deal.

As for Syria, Macron is thought to be playing an integral role in influencing Trump’s decisions. He said in a recent interview that he was the one to convince Trump not to pull troops out of the beleaguered country.

“We’ll be coming home but we want to leave a strong and lasting footprint,” Trump said Tuesday of his decision to leave troops in Syria.

Macron also took credit for persuading the president to carry out joint strikes with France and the U.K. on Syrian military targets following a deadly chemical attack on civilians earlier this month.

“This action was one of the best evidence of strong multilateralism,” Macron said Wednesday, promising to continue working together towards humanitarian solutions to the crisis.

Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Stormy Night

Joined: 02 Nov 2007
Posts: 697
Location: Traveling

PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2018 6:14 pm    Post subject: Make Our Planet Great Again Reply with quote

US Scientists Flee To France To 'Make Our Planet Great Again'
The Young Turks
Published on May 5, 2018
French President Emmanuel Macron is recruiting US climate scientists to find a way to avoid the negative impacts of climate change.


It was a dark and stormy night - Snoopy
Back to top
View user's profileSend private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AVENUE VIET Forum Index » Politix All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24  Next
Page 22 of 24

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group