What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

csamayfield55 wrote:
and it's not about climate it's about control!!

It means that my dream of LA washing into the ocean is that much closer

Chris

SCVJeff wrote:
was that really necessary? Theres always one that just HAS to jab California

It's usually the folks from SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA who take the potshots. CA is more than what's down south ... the OTHER CALIFORNIA is elsewhere ... and that part can be wonderful. I was raised many years in Michigan and we've of course seen a lot of the other states in our RV travels and as such, I wouldn't want to live any other place. For example at our house:

- No smog to speak of.
- No noise to speak of.
- A grocery store 2 mi. away where they have everything and know us by name.
- Deer grazing around the orchard trees.
- Coyotes coming through occasionally.
- Wild boar coming through occasionally.
- Bobcats coming through occasionally.
- Eating apples off the trees into February.
- No mosquitoes to speak of.
- Hawks flying above in the blue skies.
- Free well and spring water.
- Free sewage disposal via a septic tank.
- UPS that amazingly drops off Amazon stuff right at our hard to find door just like in a city.

Ooooops ... I almost forgot:

- Earthquakes once in a while.
- Sheriffs who can't even find our house if we should ever need them.
- Rains buckets when it does rain.
- A spring and well that almost dry up every August.
- A long driveway ... maintained on our nickel.
- Trees that fall over once in a while .... removed on our nickel.

But I repeat: "I wouldn't want to live any other place." :B :B :B :B

spoon059 wrote:

westend wrote:
How does money fit in all of this? It's not like climate scientists are wealthy, usually the opposite. Big Oil, on the other hand, has tremendous resources and uses it all the time to foist their agenda.

Not really going to weigh in on the pro GW vs anti GW rant, but the money doesn't need to get to the end of the line (scientist) in order for people to be concerned about the money trail. There are hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of dollars every year spent on global warming research. That is a LOT of coin being spent on a controversial subject.

You could ARGUE (again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here) that there is a large industry with a huge financial interest in global warming research. Continuing to argue human involvement will encourage governments and private liberal investors to keep pouring more money into research, those funding huge projects and ensuring that these research firms are well supplied with capital.

Again... Devil's Advocate. The scientist at the end of the line making $50K a year doesn't mean that there isn't a LOT of money being invested in research.

Good Advocation and pleasantly stated. Thank you!

csamayfield55 wrote:
and it's not about climate it's about control!!

It means that my dream of LA washing into the ocean is that much closer

Chris

was that really necessary? Theres always one that just HAS to jab California

westend wrote:
How does money fit in all of this? It's not like climate scientists are wealthy, usually the opposite. Big Oil, on the other hand, has tremendous resources and uses it all the time to foist their agenda.

Not really going to weigh in on the pro GW vs anti GW rant, but the money doesn't need to get to the end of the line (scientist) in order for people to be concerned about the money trail. There are hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of dollars every year spent on global warming research. That is a LOT of coin being spent on a controversial subject.

You could ARGUE (again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here) that there is a large industry with a huge financial interest in global warming research. Continuing to argue human involvement will encourage governments and private liberal investors to keep pouring more money into research, those funding huge projects and ensuring that these research firms are well supplied with capital.

Again... Devil's Advocate. The scientist at the end of the line making $50K a year doesn't mean that there isn't a LOT of money being invested in research.

What about the "idiot", "sucker", "a five year old", "radical", and the other instances that have occurred in this thread? I guess if you aren't on the side being demeaned, they may go unnoticed.

How does money fit in all of this? It's not like climate scientists are wealthy, usually the opposite. Big Oil, on the other hand, has tremendous resources and uses it all the time to foist their agenda. To internalize these issues into an anti-USA campaign is rather sophomoric. It is a worldwide problem and that is the reason for conventions and pacts being offered and agreed/disagreed to.

To continue the whole quote of Ms Figueres"..That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."

I believe what she's referring to is the change from a society that cares little about pollution to sustaining an economy that also takes responsibility for climate change into the process. It is not an indictment about any particular economic model but a transformation of all economic models.

What occurs to me is that climate science is very divisive with some folks taking a strict "black or white" view of it. IME, it's involved with natural science so there is a whole lot of complexity to the overview and any predicted result. Unfortunately, lines have been drawn in the sand and objections, misinformation, and exaggeration are all at hand. That is from both sides, IMO.

To anyone wishing to investigate some of the immediate consequences of climate change, search for a few videos about what is happening in Greenland. The images of a Niagara Falls flowing into the usual permanent ice cap impressed me.

The only name calling I see in this thread is those who like to call me and others "deniers" (with dripping venom). Yet those same people can't seem to realize they deny the existence of many scientists who disagree with their conclusions. Move on, the science is settled they say! Oh wait, I should put quotes around the word scientists to denote those aren't real scientists. Personal attack when others don't agree. Right out of Rules for Radicals.

Motivation? As has already been stated, FOLLOW THE MONEY! It's all about money, control, and do whatever you can to bring down the bad bad bad USA. The solutions proposed do little or nothing to help the climate problem as the GW crowd sees it, but that's not important. What is important is that we care and it makes us feel good to truly care and want to help.

Rep David McKinley from WV during a congressional hearing on the "Clean Power Plan" asked EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy about the CPP, “If it doesn’t have an
impact on climate change around the world, why are
we subjecting our hardworking taxpayers and men and
women in the coal fields to something that has no
benefit?”
McCarthy’s answer: “We see it as having had enormous
benefit in showing sort of domestic leadership as
well as garnering support around the country for the
agreement we reached in Paris.” Translation: The reason
for the CPP is NOT to actually prevent or even slow climate
change. Instead, the CPP’s real value is to make someone feel good about trying.

What is the goal of these Paris negotiations? Christiana
Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention
on Climate Change, said, “This is the first time in
the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the
task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to
change the economic development model that has been
reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.
... This is probably the most difficult task we have
ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform
the economic development model for the first time in
human history.”

What is the reigning economic development model since the industrial revolution? Capitalism! At least she gets right to the point. :(

Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer
of Germany was co-chair from 2008 to 2015 of the
United Nations (U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) working group on “Mitigation
of Climate Change.” During a 2010 interview, Dr. Edenhoefer
said, “One has to free oneself from the illusion
that international climate policy is environmental policy.
This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone side. …. But
one must say clearly that we redistribute the world’s wealth by
climate policy.”

You guys do know that the Movie The Day After Tomorrow was a movie right?
If the climate is changing then why have we had warmer weather and little snow, when everyone is saying it should be just the opposite. You know why.....because no one knows! Everyone is just coming up with stretched out theories based on what they "think" will happen. which is how all weather is forecasted.

Newbiecampers wrote:
"Human activites" having to do with recent global warming....."upcoming disastrous affects on worldwide weather"

That coming from someone driving around in an E450.

You should be driving nothing but a prius, if even that, if your visions of doom and gloom for the earth and it's inhabitants are truly what you believe.

You seem to keep bringing that all-or-nothing myopic reasoning up due to some motive.

I've never have thought, and do not now think, that recreational fossil fuel burning is what's doing in the planet. We, you, and all-of-us could keep doing that and not significantly add to the disastrous over-amounts of CO2 and other stuff in the upper atmosphere that is now building up per instrument measurements.

What we personally have done, and do, to help control the hothouse affect are such things as these (not necessarily listed in order of priority except for No. 1) ... what things are you doing?:

1. Have only two kids, with one of them stopping at two kids and the other one never having kids.
2. Recycling everything we can.
3. Get our water from nature - a well and a spring - instead of having a huge energy-hog infrastructure supply it.
4. Drive old vehicles year after year instead of buying new ones way too often. I wonder what pollutes more overall - continuing to repair and drive old vehicles - or having new ones made for us way too often via a huge energy-hog infrastructure?
5. Eat from our own pesticide-less orchard.
6. Eat some stuff from our own pesticide-less garden.
7. Repair all kinds of daily living stuff over and over instead of replacing it with the latest-and-greatest new way too often.
8. Use the highest efficiency air-to-air heat-pump available to heat and cool our home.
9. Build a lot of our own home instead of relying on a huge infrastructure to build it ... including way over-insulate it for our area.
10. Heat our swimming pool with solar.
11. At pickup time - drag by hand our garbage cans up and down a 500 foot long sloping driveway instead of using some fossil fuel burning method to do it.
12. Live in a recreational vehicle several weeks a year instead of a stick house.
13. Never fly to any destination.
14. Eat very few beef products.
15. Not drinking any milk.
16. Use LED lights in most of our home.
17. Use a LED backlit TV instead of a CRT or plasma based TV (an OLED TV would probably use even less energy).
18. Use Class D ampliers in our home theater's sound system.
19. Etc.
20. Etc.

Doing such things as the above (especially the absolute highest priority thing -> No. 1.) probably well swamps out getting 9-10 MPG in a gasoline powered RV between campsites for part of one's life.

Control of the hothouse affect doesn't require taking every action possible or available by every individual ... it requires that all of us take high priority actions as much as possible or available.

What we need is more volcanic activity to help cool the planet thus countering the affect of MAN