Somebody has to clean up. Activists providing gainful employment, everybody wins.

I wonder if his cure would be as effective as his puzzle was impossible to solve.

This is what happened and it happens every year so conversatives can gloat for a little bit directly after but before the start of the clean up effort.

Arguing about clean-up is surely missing a bigger point; that "an estimated 200,000 people" felt badly enough about Trump's plans and attitudes that they devoted a day to protesting the fact:-

Anti-Trump climate change march draws thousands in US - BBC News

A couple of key quotes from the article above:-

The facts:-

The protesters:-

ftfy !

Nobel Laureate in Physics; "Global Warming is Pseudoscience"
Published on Dec 17, 2015

Omg elph how stupid are you?

I heard this happened the same day we were marching.

Trump's EPA has started to scrub climate change data from its website - LA Times

Item 1: ^ Yeah, this is such a sinister move that it deserves more publicity than it is currently getting. It's hard to believe that important climate-change data previously available to both scientists and the public is disappearing from the EPA website.

When Trump appointed Pruitt as the EPA administrator it was tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the hen-house, the wolf in charge of the sheep.

When I wrote "climate change is by definition a dynamic process, so periodic updates are fundamental to informed discussion" in the OP, nobody contested such an innocuous statement, but it's clear that Pruitt does not approve of informed discussion. His policy is to conceal the facts and muzzle the Environmental Protection Agency. It's there in the title, what the agency should be doing, but Pruitt is eviscerating it from within, hoping to replace open, factual debate with censorship and obfuscation.
Without wanting to overdramatise, I see it as an anti-democratic step, a feint to conceal Trump's dagger blows to the heart of the environment.
__________________________________________________ _____________
Item 2:
^ Thanks for that piece of "investigative journalism" elphenor! :thumb:

In fact, the debate about the reality of global warming is all but over. According to Wikipedia:-

And this is the wiki graph of mean temp increases over the last 40 years which justifies that certainty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...re_Anomaly.svg

@ Neapolitan: My hope with this thread was to highlight recent developments in the struggle to protect our the environment, or to warn of new dangers to the environment. I'm sorry to say this as I consider you a good friend on MB, but your posts from the scientific fringe still disputing the fact of global warming might be more appropriate in one of these threads:- http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...t-fiction.html http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...g-swindle.html
__________________________________________________ _____________
Item 3:

Here's a sad story about Lulu the whale, who never had a baby. :(
It illustrates one of the most worrying things about pollution; that it often goes unnoticed for decades, and then someone furthur down the line ends up paying the price:

'Shocking' levels of PCB chemicals in UK killer whale Lulu - BBC News

https://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/...2_87513250.jpg

..................Bad luck, Lulu. Although you didn't know it, you never had a chance.

Trump's entire cabin picks are so ill fitted or inexperienced foe their roles that they seem to be appointed to destroy the departments they were appointed to. Then he can turn around and say how inefficient government is and that's why we need to limit its role.

That image of Saint Mattis with his "mad dog" halo is so creepy! :eek:

^ If this is true, and elphenor obviously agrees, it's pretty alarming. Are you sure you're not both sharing the same paranoid delusion? ;) I'd prefer it that way because this thread is going to be depressing enough as it is.

This, for instance, is today's depressing read:-

Second crack splits off in Antarctic Larsen C ice shelf | Newshub

Does "TLTC" exist? If you are Too Lazy To Click, here are some quotes from the article:-

5 000 sq. km is about ten times the size of New Orleans; if it breaks in one piece it will be the biggest iceberg ever seen.

No need to worry about running out of ice for the drinks then, guys! :laughing:

I initially read his slogan/crest/what-have-you as "dogma," then "goddam."

I have to be honest though, the idea of a masterthread makes me feel the ghost of himself is hovering over MB, and I don't just mean in the soul of Batty...
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...r_2918121b.jpg
:laughing:

^ That is an association that didn't occur to me, and I suggest that we all supress it immediately, please !

^ It's reassuring to know that as the waves stealthily lap over our farmland and our homes, there'll be people like you to cheer us up, to help us look on the bright side. ;)
__________________________________________________ _____________

You, rostasi and dj were kind enough to respond about carrier-bag usage, so I'd like to tell you about Mexico:-

There's pretty much zero awareness here about the problem they cause and because shops are so competitive, they wouldn't dream of going it alone with a policy that would inconvenience their customers. In addition, at every supermarket checkout there is a "bag boy" who hopes to get a couple of pesos for putting your things in bags - and they really don't spare the plastic! I buy sliced bread in a plastic bag, and that is immediately put in a second bag, because obviously I need a plastic bag with handles, and so it goes on, with meat, veg, cleaning products all given a bag of their own...

A few years back I started taking my own shopping bag, resigned to playing the part of a cranky foreigner who doesn't follow the rules. I still do it, still face the perplexed dismay of the bag boys and I have also come to terms with the "drop in the ocean" argument: even though our individual actions are just insignificant drops in the ocean, I try to be green if it's not too inconvenient; it makes me feel better about myself and may sometimes set an example that another person picks up on. Also, what else can we do?

So, in this thread, "Sing if you're proud to be green!"

The idea has been planted, let it now take root and bear ugly fruit.
Where is Batty anyway? ;)
From the very highest vantage point, of course!
You live in Mexico???? :yikes:
Still, it must be fun perplexing the bag boys as you say. "You wan' uno bags or dos, seno - oh caramba!" :rofl:

TH learned all the Spanish he knows from Bumblee Man on the Simpsons.

And Speedy Gonzales cartoons I wager.

No senor: I learn it from a book!

How seriously should we take global warming? By most accounts, very seriously indeed, especially as there seems to be a critical tipping point at which the whole process takes on a greater velocity. Quite when that tipping point is reached won't be clear until after the event - but that doesn't mean it's not coming, like the giddy moment at the top of a roller coaster....

From memory, here are two items that worry me about the way global warming is set to escalate:-

i) sheets of (white) ice are great reflectors of heat, but the more they reduce, the more they are replaced by areas of (dark) land and sea. As we all know from secondary school, dark colours are good absorbers of heat, so the warmer the planet gets, the more solar heat it will absorb.

ii) the permafrost, that permanently frozen subsoil across Canada and Russia, is beginning to thaw. Unfortunately for us, there are unknown quantities of methane gas locked in the subsoil. In Canada they are studying the methane which is now bubbling up in marshes and swampland which, within living memory, were frozen solid all year round. The double bad luck is that methane has a powerful greenhouse-gas effect, so the warmer the planet gets, the more solar heat it will trap.

I don't like to be swept away by dramatic rhetoric, but if the end of the world is really nigh, well, our language is justified in matching the circumstances. With that thought in mind, I'd like to invite comments on this startling opinion from Noam Chomsky:-

It is indeed startling. And insane.

^ Yes, it sounds extreme, but he's backing up the claim with a pretty good argument.

The idea that we have to pin hopes for environmental improvement on Chinese initiative shows just how desperate the situation has become. :(

You guys be lying about your stances here.

Worst in human history. I'm crying.

^ No lies from me, Goofle. Sometimes I'm mistaken, but I post with sincerity.

^ It was supposed to come off as more of a joking question, I don't think you're being wilfully disingenuous.

I don't know of any republicans who deny global warming or climate change (I'm sure they exist). They have other issues relating to the subject, and are skeptical over the human element of it. But it's pretty wild to claim they simply DO NOT ACCEPT IT and as a result will implement policies that will directly result in a massive catastrophe.

Seems a bit over the top, especially when you're saying they are the worst regime in human history.

Laughing on logs.

There are certainly those who outright deny it, kinda been their schtick for a decade. But like elph said, denying the anthropogenic element of it is just as unscientific.

Those who deny human impact (like I said, Im sure they exist) are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are the worst people in history.

Consider my post to have said "dangerous" instead, then.

Well, when their policies are based off of nonscientific material when those policies in effect increases the calamity of the problem they're addressing, they're certainly far from the best people in history.

https://climatecrock.files.wordpress...weet.jpg?w=480https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/uD...kJzs7IQUNr_cUt

^ Trump is clearly a denier of global warming, and he's the one directing the new investment into fossil fuels as the prime energy source for the US, as in those pipeline projects he's signed off on. He's also pulling out of the Paris Agreement, I believe, and emasculating the EPA. So, yeah, that's all seriously bad news for Planet Earth.

^I don't judge Chula based on his drunk posts.

@ frown - Depends on your perspective. Increased carbon output and whatever else that has impacted on the minimal warming we have seen has improved our societies immeasurably. There's a balance to find.

"Minimal warming."

Credibility? Credibility? Are you there? You were here a little over a year ago, where'd you go?

There's been minimal warming. I think that's an agreed upon thing. Anyway, back to the point of finding a balance between environmentalism and industrial improvements.

I guess it depends on how you define minimal. On a number scale? Sure that's small as ****. In terms of impact? Gargantuan.

Over the last few years global warming has picked up speed and is heading into ever higher temp bands, as per this graph:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...re_Anomaly.svg

Sure, the change is not something you feel, the way you can feel the weather change from one day to the next, but for the reasons I laid out earlier, what look like small changes can have, as Frownland says, "gargantuan" impact.


IMO it's a dangerous mistake to use a term like "minimal warming" which in two words downplays the problem without examining it. Isn't that like a cancer doctor saying "That tumor looks minimal. This cosmetic cream will cover it up and you can continue to enjoy a normal life." ?
__________________________________________________ ____________

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...0963507504.jpg

^ Trump not bothering to distinguish between climate and weather. He must've been drunk on the day he tweeted that too.

My guess, Lisna, is that he wasn't drunk. Trump knows exactly what buttons to press to appeal to his base., and he hit several of them in that tweet.

Hes not drunk. Hes actually too retarded to understand global warming.

Eco-friendly is the balance I talked about. And hopefully done without the government forcing you to do so.

And Trump doesn't drink apparently.