Posted on 04/11/2018 6:19:59 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The recent commitments to make Boston carbon neutral by 2050 — by the city of Boston, Boston University, Harvard University and others — is an encouraging sign that local leaders understand the threat of climate change and the need for decisive action.
Without strong action, it is likely that we will see continued increases in heat waves, rising seas, more intense storms and more destructive wildfires. On all of this the scientific consensus is strong.
The public, alas, remains unmoved — either rejecting the science outright, resigned to the inevitability of forces that can’t be stopped, or hoping that the worst effects of climate change will happen to other people, someplace else.
How do we mobilize the public to meet the goals we’ve set?
Most steps that cities can take to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, such as clean vehicles and renewable energy for buildings, lead directly to fresher, healthier air. The results are fewer sick days and less medication for children who suffer from asthma. It also means longer life expectancies, by reversing the gradual but insidious pollution-caused changes in our bodies that can result in heart disease or lung cancer.
These benefits begin immediately and can be large. The Clean Power Plan proposed under the Obama administration, for example, would have resulted in thousands of fewer premature deaths per year, hundreds of thousands of fewer missed days of school or work due to illness, and many other near-term health benefits. The Trump administration has proposed to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, coming at a high cost to human health.
(Excerpt) Read more at wbur.org ...
You will do as you are told...or you will be liquidated.
If you fart at Harvard you have to put a dollar in the jar.
In order to offset your carbon production.
Liquidated? Well, Boston is pretty close to the ocean so they might become “liquidated” if we don’t do something. Right now. Like send some money or something.
Give us more money or the planet is doomed.
FU
Did you hear? The scientific consensus is strong. Everyone all agrees, at least everyone who matters. Those who don’t are worse than Nazis, and no one should listen to them. Republicans cause global warming, and thousands of minorities, baby polar bears, and kittens are dying because people vote for them. Only Democrats can save the world. They’ll take your money and do good, good things with it.
“Most steps that cities can take to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, such as clean vehicles and renewable energy for buildings, lead directly to fresher, healthier air. The results are fewer sick days and less medication for children who suffer from asthma. It also means longer life expectancies, by reversing the gradual but insidious pollution-caused changes in our bodies that can result in heart disease or lung cancer.”
Oh do bugger off you ring piece.
Oh, the Humanity!
Given:
The assertion that any entity is capable of implementing an effective “carbon neutral” policy with the promised results, is a fraud.
The notion that man made CO2 levels drive climate change is a fraud.
—unfortunately the costs associated with any of this idiocy won’t be borne by those voting for it , but will be foisted on the taxpayers in general-—and then will drive many urban dwellers (including those who voted for it) out and away , where they will transport their poison onto those of us not in those urban areas already —
——similar to the exodus of Californians to neighboring states, where they vote the same way they did for the same type of politicians who ruined “home”-—
Cities are cucks to the UN. These city “leaders” are idiots on the take and have no idea WTF they’re doing.
Reason Number 547 why I don’t live in a city.
This is indeed a problem. It’s just another reason I’d rather see the socialist states go their own way. We don’t want to be stuck paying for their public sector unions or their Gaia worship and we’ll just be keeping our guns thankyouverymuch. They can keep their 900 different genders.
They always trot out these purely conjectured and totally speculative "benefits."
The cold, hard, unvarnished truth is that 1 million times more people will die from excessive cold and heat if they do not have affordable energy to cool and heat their homes. This has been PROVEN in several Western European countries in the past decade, particularly Germany.
Nothing has done more to improve health and life expectancy than cheap, abundant, and reliable electricity.
On all of this the scientific consensus is strong.
...
The scientific consensus is that we are in an ice age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
Harvard spraying the atmosphere and not relating it to the changes of climate that they are making.
I’m totally confused. In the 1980’s we were told that there was going to be global cooling because carbon blanketed the planet and we had to reduce carbon emissions.
So we did. And miraculously it got warmer and that is being blamed on carbon blanketing the planet. So who is lying? The alarmists from the 80’s or those same alarmists today?
[[The notion that man made CO2 levels drive climate change is a fraud.]]
Correct- man’s CO2 production amounts to just 0.00136% of the atmosphere- That’s it- there is no way, this side of hell, that this small amount of CO2 is able to capture and back radiate enough heat to heat up the planet
To illustrate- think about pouring 4 five gallon pails of 100 degree water into an olympic sized pool of 90 degree water- what will those 4 pails do? Yup- exactly nothing because there isn’t anywhere near enough 100 degree water to change the temperature of the pool ‘globally’
[[because carbon blanketed the planet]]
That’s a total misconception- there isn’t enough atmospheric CO2 to blanket the globe- see my post above- There is no thick blanket of CO2 keeping heat in globally-
The best way to make the point that I’ve found is:
Water vapor comprises more than 90% of greenhouse gases.
The variability of water vapor in the atmosphere is so great that it can NOT be modeled!!!
So, how can scientists possibly pretend to be able to model the impacts of the variability of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.