States Rights

johncarney  Let me begin by saying, I agreed with President Trump’s move to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.   I believe fully, the earth’s climate is changing. I do not however, believe fully it is the result of man’s actions alone. Actually, I would say man may contribute to the change, but not in a significant way.
I know some of my regulars will now show up and tell me how the science is settled, and only a backward rube would not see it.

Okay science it is then. Some will say science has proven that man’s carbon output is the cause of rising temperatures, and that rise will melt the ice caps, and raise the sea levels, and flood inhabited areas.

So let’s talk science. You see, science has also told us that where glaciers are now, in many cases there were once forest. Like the 4,000 year old chunks of wood found in the leading edge of a Swiss glacier.

Or the retreating glacier in Alaska which revealed 2,000 year old trees. You see, science has proven the earth was once much warmer than it is today. So if it is warming, it is possible it is merely a correction back to a time long before man was  driving an SUV.

This debate has again taken the fore front in our nations political debate, since President Trump decided to remove America from an international, nonbinding agreement to reduce carbon output. As I said, I agree with this, after all, what good is a nonbinding anything? But I also have no desire for other nations to dictate anything to the USA.

That being said, as soon as it was announced we were pulling out at the federal level, states and cities along with major corporations announced they would form their own alliances in order to continue to hold to the dictates of the Paris Accord.

One does wonder why? Why would corporations like GM and General Electric want to continue down the path of more and more regulation? Could it be they have come to rely on the subsidies they receive from government for meeting these regulations? Have they found a new revenue from selling carbon credits?

The day it was announced, I said people should not be too excited, that states still have the authority to impose these regulations, and now they are.

Delaware Governor John Carney has announced, Delaware will become the thirteenth state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, which will work to continue the Paris Accord’s goals of carbon reduction.

So I guess this is one of those cases when conservatives will be against states rights, and the liberals will be trumpeting states rights. Ironic, isn’t it?

83 Comments on "States Rights"

  1. Richard McKee says:

    No way did and will any human action or inaction affect any atmospheric climate. Those are set by God. Claims of settled science and consensus appear to me bought and paid for by mostly the quick buck artists of the world trying to recoup their Madoff type investment.

  2. delacrat says:

    “…science has also told us that where glaciers are now, in many cases there were once forest.” – Frank

    What matters is that science says where Sussex County is now, will someday be ocean unless we stop burning stuff like propane,

    “Welcome to Delaware Right…Moving Delaware below sea level.”

  3. chris says:

    Ironic indeed. Actually quite humorous.

  4. Frank Knotts says:

    Delacrat, science tells us the earth has changed and shifted many times in the span of its existence. It is man’ s arrogance that allows him to think he can either cause or prevent such global events. The world changes, either man evolves and adapts to those changes or we become exstinct.
    The planet will survive, it is man who must fear ending. So man in two thousand years won’t be having Boardwalk Fries in Rehoboth, but in Baltimore, so what?

  5. mouse says:

    Could it be that mandates in innovation in efficiency and renewable energy advantages the US? Conservative republicans believe and mindlessly parrot any talk radio story even when it’s obviously not true but they somehow can’t believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 which has been measured for over a 100 years and it’s properties well known to insulate infrared in the atmosphere. The CO2 in ice cores for millions of years and can be measured and correlated to climate. I suppose it’s difficult to understand biogeochemical cycles in the atmosphere and easier to just parrot polluter propaganda. For the life of me, I can’t understand why conservative republicans value the spin of polluters over the well being of their kids when such dishonest positions are transparently obvious to someone who truly wants to understand science and not just shill for their tribal political party that represents polluter profits.. Even without global warming, we pollute our air water and land as well as fund despotic Middle East nations that fund terrorism with the use of fossil fuels. Seems fairly obvious what our path should be

  6. mouse says:

    How far above the salt wedge of high tide are the drinking water treatment plants in baltimore and what is the cost of salt water intrusion into the intake of such plants? There are many consequences of global warming that conservatives either ignore, deny or are intentionally ignorant of because it doesn’t fit their ideology

  7. meatball says:

    “ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite that the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

    Anybody in here need another smoke? Jesus? Anyone?

    Shell, Total, even Rex Tillerson Trumps Secretary of State and former CEO and lifetime employee of Exxon all claim climate change is due to humans burning fossil fuels and that governments should be empowered to mitigate the issue.

  8. mouse says:

    There’s clearly a big difference between disbelief based on empirical scientific evidence and someone who simply doesn’t want to believe no matter what the evidence because of their tribal ideology. If you went to your doctor and he told you to be tested for a medical condition and the specialist told you that you have the condition, would say it’s a hoax because you don’t want to believe it?

  9. mouse says:

    On a small planet with 7 billion people or so with a few hundred million added each year, what are the implications of fertile lands receiving less rain due to climate change?

  10. Rick says:

    Delaware Governor John Carney has announced, Delaware will become the thirteenth state to join the U.S. Climate Alliance, which will work to continue the Paris Accord’s goals of carbon reduction.
    Yawn. Just “liberal” jibberish. Being united in fatuity makes them feel good.

    What matters is that science says where Sussex County is now, will someday be ocean unless we stop burning stuff like propane…

    Put three ice cubes in a glass, then fill with water. Watch the ice melt. What happens to the water level?

    Instead of parroting fake science hysteria, try learning some actual science.

    There’s clearly a big difference between disbelief based on empirical scientific evidence and someone who simply doesn’t want to believe no matter what the evidence because of their tribal ideology.

    True. But it works both ways. It’s already known that the NASA temperature data (that The Weather Channel incessantly touts) was flawed, corrupted and disingenuous. In other words, fake.

    Fake data is not “empirical scientific evidence.”

    The two biggest polluters of the current century- China and India- are not affected by the “Paris” accord. Why? Because the “accord” is political. It is part of the West’s suicide pact with the Third World, orchestrated by UN elites and the American left.

    Exxon bad, Democratic Republic of the Congo good. Get it?

  11. Rick says:

    Reality check…..

    click here

  12. delacrat says:

    “Put three ice cubes in a glass, then fill with water. Watch the ice melt. What happens to the water level?” – rick

    The water level rises by however much ice is added. (Like when glaciers and the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt into the ocean.) Thanks for making my point.

  13. meatball says:

    China and India also have much greater populations than the US. The US emits CO2 at more than twice the amount per capita of either of those two countries. China also has double the US capacity for solar and wind.

  14. mouse says:

    So the question becomes; is he ignorant of the fact that a huge amount of the fresh water on earth is locked up in land based ice or does he know it and is just intellectually dishonest

  15. fightingbluehen says:

    “What matters is that science says where Sussex County is now, will someday be ocean unless we stop burning stuff like propane,”

    Not sure why you singled out propane seeing that it puts out less CO2 than most other fossil fuels…Oh, right..

    Anyway, which “science” are you referring to? Geology or Geography? If it’s Geology (the study of Earth processes), then I tend to agree. If it’s Geography, which includes Climatology(now called “Climate Science” because Climatology doesn’t sound important enough), then I disagree.

    Try thinking about it using Occam’s Razor as a reference…Isn’t it more likely that we have been losing land to the sea for the same reasons that we have been losing land to the sea for thousands of years, rather than by a theory that it’s because of modern human activity? We know for an absolute fact that the ocean has been steadily rising since before man crossed the Bering Strait on dry land into this continent….Where people were living miles off of our current coastline just a few thousand years ago is now under water….What happened?…..I don’t think they were burning propane.

  16. mouse says:

    Atmospheric CO2 has been measured directly for over a hundred years nearly doubling and we have ice core sample going back hundreds of thousands of years. The properties of CO2-it’s capacity to absorb and re-emit infrared has been known for over a hundred years. Its easy to understand the connection unless you don’t really don’t want to because your tribal ideology is more important to you than reality or your kids

  17. mouse says:

    So we have a trace gas-CO2 that is responsible for the atmosphere being able to hold enough heat to support life on the planet. This is a well documented fact that can be easily verified. We have taken CO2 from 280 PPM in the 1800’s to 400 PPM today. The conclusions are self evident unless someone just wants to be a denier valuing the info from talk radio scientists more than empirical science

  18. meatball says:

    Except we haven’t been losing land to the sea for thousands of years. There is no evidence of sea level rise in the last 2000 years until atmospheric carbon levels started increasing and temperature norms started increasing in the last 100 years or so.

    My only question for FBH would be…Do you acknowledge that atmospheric CO2 effects surface temperatures?

  19. meatball says:

    This is a fun little timeline for everyone else

    https://xkcd.com/1732/

  20. mouse says:

    Empirical science is liberal biased

  21. Rick says:

    Put three ice cubes in a glass, then fill with water. Watch the ice melt. What happens to the water level?” – rick

    The water level rises by however much ice is added. (Like when glaciers and the Antarctic and Greenland ice caps melt into the ocean.) Thanks for making my point.

    Can’t you read?

    The only “point” I proved is that you can’t comprehend even the most basic scenario.

    Let me walk you through it. Your supposition is that the coastline will flood. Presumably, you believe this is because “global warming” is causing the ice shelfs, glaciers and icebergs to melt, right?

    Again. I’ll put it as simply as possible for you. Put three ice cubes in a glass. Add water to whatever level. Watch the ice melt.

    What happens?

  22. waterpirate says:

    What say you about the ” salt wedge” under Sussex? The last salt wedge I had was washed down with a lime and a shot. lol

  23. meatball says:

    No one is talking about ice shelfs dude…..continental ice is the issue. Remember that the northwest passage just opened up for the first time since like 1492 or something

  24. fightingbluehen says:

    “My only question for FBH would be…Do you acknowledge that atmospheric CO2 effects surface temperatures?”

    I acknowledge that all atmospheric gases have some measurable effect on the Earth’s surface temperatures, and none as much as water vapor and the complex system of how that water vapor increases and decreases naturally due to the feed back loop between the ocean, land, and atmosphere.

    BTW, meatball. The little bit of knowledge I have about Climatology is because it was part of my major and not due to any political propagandizing. What I know about Climatology came directly from world renowned Climatologist Dr John Mather. My opinion is his opinion, and it hasn’t changed since 1985.

  25. Frank Knotts says:

    I think the term settled science is over used and improperly used. What the supporters of man made global warming here are describing is correlation, not causation. The rise of temperatures may correlate, but that is not proof that Co2 causes those temperature rises.
    Even Einstein’s theory of relativity is still just that, a theory, because it cannot be proven.
    To prove the theory that Co2 produced by man is the cause of climate change, to settle the science, we would need to do a controlled experiment. We would need two identical planets in every way. The same size, distance from the sun, plant life, population, exactly the same.
    We would then need to allow one planet to run its course as the controlled test case. We would then need to add a large amount of Co2 to the second planet’s atmosphere and measure the temperature of both planets . Until this type of scientific experimentation can be done, man made climate change is still just a theory.

  26. Rick says:

    No one is talking about ice shelfs dude…..continental ice is the issue. Remember that the northwest passage just opened up for the first time since like 1492 or something

    The Northwest Passage is water, not continent.

  27. meatball says:

    Ha, ha FBH…..clearly you need to go back to school, you don’t even understand the very basic science of the gases involved. And since we’re throwing around academic credentials, my BS degree is in geology with minors in meteorology and astronomy.

    And Frank, you are flat out wrong. You have no understanding how science works. We know for a FACT that increased concentrations of CO2 gas in an atmosphere will CAUSE the temperature of that atmosphere to warm. The first experiment PROVING this FACT was done in the 1800s. We can then extrapolate that to the world at large. You can repeat the experiment as many times as you wish and the outcome will be exactly the same.

  28. fightingbluehen says:

    Meatball, are you saying that water vapor is not the most prevalent and influential greenhouse gas?

  29. meatball says:

    What I’m saying is you have no understanding of the science.

  30. mouse says:

    Water vapor is not the determining greenhouse gas

  31. Rick says:

    Empirical science:

    MythBuster

  32. meatball says:

    Abstract from one of the graphs from one of the studies Breitbart cites as claiming global warming is a myth:
    “Today’s climate goes through a warming shift caused by the increased release of human-generated greenhouse gases, such as CO2, and poses a pressing problem on societies’ sustainability (IPCC,”
    15″

    There’s plenty more affirmation of the effect of atmospheric carbon on climate change if you go ahead and read the study. Or you could let someone tell you what to think.

  33. waterpirate says:

    Truly a battle royal of the internet gurus, yet no one will comment on the county we live in? The state we live in? Instead it is a battle of copy paste and links. Truly a sad reflection of living locally, and only caring about global.

  34. meatball says:

    Sorry, I don’t live in Delaware anymore but how do you think all this might effect Sussex? Knowing your occupation, I’m sure you have some credibility to add to one side or the other of the argument.

  35. Rick says:

    The Paris Accord would have little or no effect on the supposed “warming.” So why burden the American people with ridiculously high electricity rates and so on? Because it makes “liberals” feel good?

    Truly a sad reflection of living locally, and only caring about global.

    I thought it was global warming?

  36. Honi Soit says:

    “…the earth has changed and shifted many times in the span of its existence.” -Frank

    To your mind, would that span be more in the order of the creationists’ 6,000 years or science’s 4.5 billion years?

  37. Honi Soit says:

    I doubt that tRump is monitoring this blog, so I’ll re-present his views here in case anyone wants to be reminded of what his well-reasoned observations are on this important matter:

    “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

    “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice.”

  38. Witch Was Always From New Jersey says:

    Speaking of “State’s Rights,” Frank, were you aware that your pro life hero, Christine O’Donnell, never reached out to one legislator and didn’t even bother to rally her still swooning Delaware troops in the days leading up to the passage of SB 5, even with something as simple as a post on her Facebook page?

    She did, however, put up a fine, pat herself on her own back, memory on Facebook about how nice Joe Biden was to her when she magnanimously chose to attend Beau Biden’s funeral.

    I wonder when her sycophants are going to admit she was nothing but a grifter from New Jersey.

  39. Rick says:

    And what about FDR’s Commie Cabinet?

    Anyway, there’s a lot we don’t know about the sun and its effect on Earth’s temperature. Remember, not that long ago, an area as far south as N.W. Connecticut was under the Ice Shelf.

    The Paris Accord does nothing to alter the temperature more than a few tenths of a degree over eighty years or so. China and India are required to do nothing, while the US and its citizenry bear the brunt of the costs. So what’s the point?

    The United States is moving toward natural gas, wind and solar and battery-powered cars. Our coal burning plants are infinitely cleaner than only twenty years ago. The problem isn’t the US, but rather, emerging economies (India, Malaysia, Latin America and so on) who want to generate power at the lowest cost, i.e., fossil fuels. They are interested in expediency, not ecology.

    Quit blaming the United States. We are the technology leaders.

  40. Frank Knotts says:

    Mouse the Myth Buster video may show that gases increase temperature. However this again is not an experiment which can show climate change is due solely by man. This experiment has no other input such as normal climate patterns. I can do an experiment which shows applying a flame to a metal rod increases the temperature of the rod. This would not prove that welding is a cause of global warming.

  41. meatball says:

    See Frank, you really don’t or don’t want to understand the science. Pretty much all of the fossil fuel producers in the world along with most of the worlds climatologists agree that man made CO2 release is the cause of global warming and that its a big deal. You, Rick, a couple of republican politicians in coal producing states, and a few Koch funded scientists believe (like a cult) that its not.

  42. Honi Soit says:

    And let’s not forget the keen insights of Sussex Councilman Sam Wilson into this matter:

    “Man has been on this Earth–according to the Biblical….according to the Bible about 6,000-7,000 years. Now we’ve been here that long and yet salt [water] may intrude. You’re talking like it’s going to happen in the next 10 years. It’s been 7,000 years we’re thinking it might come. If it hasn’t done it in the last 7,000 years, why is it going to do it now all of a sudden?”

    “They don’t have no facts. They don’t have no science. It’s almost BS, to be honest with you.”

    “We will always have high tides and low tides, as long as the world exists. That doesn’t mean that the water levels are rising.”

    “I find it really hard to believe. People talk about climate change. Well of course we have climate change. We have spring, then summer, then fall, and then winter. That happens every year.”

  43. delacrat says:

    “Pretty much all of the fossil fuel producers in the world along with most of the worlds climatologists agree that man made CO2 release is the cause of global warming and that its a big deal.” – meatball

    But like Frank said at the beginning: “States Rights”

    Once our state is below sea level, you’ll glad there’s “States Rights”.

  44. Fish Bites says:

    “Again. I’ll put it as simply as possible for you. Put three ice cubes in a glass. Add water to whatever level. Watch the ice melt.”

    Rick, everyone understands that. In the event you were unaware, there is a tremendous amount of ice on land – NOT IN WATER – which is disappearing. All water flows to the ocean. So as the glaciers retreat from, say, Glacier National Park, the Alps, Greenland, and Antarctica, it affects sea level.

    The second thing you do not appear to understand is that the “water” in this instance is salt water. Melting ice produces fresh water. The circulation of deep ocean currents is determined, in significant part, by the salinity of the ocean water and its change with depth. The way that heat, and the water itself, circulates is dependent on its salinity.

    I’m sure you won’t read this, but you massively misunderstand the situation:

    http://sciencing.com/salinity-impact-oceans-currents-5517246.html

  45. Rick says:

    Rick, everyone understands that.

    Everyone except delacrat.

    In the event you were unaware, there is a tremendous amount of ice on land – NOT IN WATER – which is disappearing.

    Where? There is very little arctic land- a bit of Russia, Norway and northern Greenland. In Antarctica, the ice shelfs may break-up here and there, but they are water. The antarctic land mass is primarily snow and is not melting.

    Quit panicking. We’re going to die from a nuclear war or an uncontrollable biological entity long before a few degrees of heating occurs, since that may take centuries- if at all.

    Instead of worrying about fake science, let’s face reality and build an overpass at Five Points.

  46. Honi Soit says:

    The well-off are more concerned about climate change than the poor, who have many other things to worry about. Things like traffic jams at Five Points for example.

  47. Wacky Ways says:

    Don’t forget Franks has a PhD in…nothing. Frank has MS in….nothing. Frank has a BS in….nothing.

  48. mouse says:

    Frank you have another stalker

  49. Rick says:

    The well-off are more concerned about climate change than the poor…

    I guess that’s why they fly in private jets, travel in gas-guzzling SUV motorcades and take billion$ in taxpayer largesse to help make their unprofitable “green” bogus-businesses “viable.”

  50. Rick says:

    by JAMES DELINGPOLE13 Jun 20171,213

    A global warming research study in Canada has been cancelled because of “unprecedented” thick summer ice.

    Naturally, the scientist in charge has blamed it on ‘climate change.’

    The study, entitled BaySys, is a $17-million four-year-long program headed by the University of Manitoba. It was planning to conduct the third leg of its research by sending 40 scientists from five Canadian universities out into the Bay on the Canadian Research Icebreaker CCGS Amundsen to study “contributions of climate change and regulation on the Hudson Bay system.”

    But it had to be cancelled because the scientists’ icebreaker was required by the Canadian Coast Guard for a rather more urgent purpose – rescuing fishing boats and supply ships which had got stuck in the “unprecedented ice conditions”.

    “It became clear to me very quickly that these weren’t just heavy ice conditions, these were unprecedented ice conditions,” Dr. David Barber, the lead scientist on the study, told VICE. “We were finding thick multi-year sea ice floes which on level ice were five metres thick… it was much, much thicker and much, much heavier than anything you would expect at that latitude and at that time of year.”….

    The Ship of Fools

  51. Honi Soit says:

    Pretty sure that tRump is opposed to the science of climate change because he just wants his old hairspray formula back:

    “Give me a little spray. … You know you’re not allowed to use hairspray anymore because it affects the ozone, you know that, right? I said, you mean to tell me, cause you know hairspray’s not like it used to be, it used to be real good. … Today you put the hairspray on, it’s good for 12 minutes, right.”

  52. meatball says:

    “He noted that, “Climate-related changes in Arctic sea ice not only reduce its extent and thickness but also increase its mobility meaning that ice conditions are likely to become more variable and severe conditions such as these will occur more often.” Dr. David Barber, Expedition Chief Scientist and BaySys Scientific Lead.

    Why do you think the ice was so far south, instead of way up north where it formed, Rick? LOL, Breibert strikes out again.

  53. fightingbluehen says:

    How do you even accurately measure the rate of sea level rise? It’s like chasing the will-o’-the wisp.

    The ocean and it’s relation to dry land is constantly being manipulated and moved by countless factors here on Earth not to mention the many celestial influences.

    The bottom of the ocean is always changing with vast expanses being upheaved on a regular basis….It’s like trying to measure the level of contents in a vessel where the volumetric makeup of the vessel has no constant.

    The land also moves and changes from factors such as erosion, volcanic activity, and the fact that the continents are continually moving and colliding.

    We know that people used to live where there is now ocean, but there is no way to accurately measure whether the factors that caused that situation are changing due to the supposed increased rate of sea level rise caused by man made global warming.

  54. meatball says:

    ‘We know that people used to live where there is now ocean, but there is no way to accurately measure whether the factors that caused that situation are changing due to the supposed increased rate of sea level rise caused by man made global warming.”

    We know that glaciers melted and sea level rose. You could ask the people of Miami if they think sea level is rising.

    Hers’s another super easy experiment you can do…Take a one cup measuring cup, fill it precisely to the one cup line. Now place it in a microwave and heat it for one minute. You might hypothosize, since you seem to love the hydrolic cycle, that due to evaporation, the cup should contain less water, but lo and behold…adding heat to matter causes it to expand despite evaporational losses. Who could have possibly know that? #science

  55. Honi Soit says:

    At least Miami knows it has a problem and is dealing with it. The 450+ folks living in Virginia’s Tangier Island know they have a problem but don’t know what to do about.

    They have seen their island lose about 70% of its landmass since 1850. The US Army Corps of Engineers estimates the island will be nearly gone in another 25 years.

    But tRump thinks the engineers are wrong. On Monday, tRump phoned the mayor of Tangier, James “Ooker” Eskridge. Esridge told the Daily Times (Salisbury) that dRump told him “not to worry about sea-level rise.” He added that “your island has been there for hundreds of years and I believe your island will be there for hundreds more.”

    87% of Tanger’s votes went to tRump. He tells it like it is.

  56. fightingbluehen says:

    Honi Soit: “They have seen their island lose about 70% of its landmass since 1850. The US Army Corps of Engineers estimates the island will be nearly gone in another 25 years.”

    Due to erosion.

    meatball: “You could ask the people of Miami if they think sea level is rising.”

    OK, yeah, go down to Florida and try to buy some ocean front property, and tell them you are going to need a discount because of sea level rise….LOL

  57. meatball says:

    Some people will never learn. Everyone moving in is an optimist not a scientist. It’s a real issue and is likely to be ground zero in the US

  58. meatball says:

    Money quote is funny…South Beach is in the middle of a $400 million infrastructure build out….installing pumps, raising the seawall, even raising roads by 2-3 feet all to fight against imaginary sea level rise.

    “Everybody I know that is a small owner of real estate that isn’t within the billionaire class — average middle-class, upper-middle-class Miamians who have real estate on the beach — is in the process of selling their properties and moving to the mainland,” Keenan said. “Basically where the coral ridge is, just north of downtown and south of downtown, that’s where anecdotally the most amount of speculative investment has been going in because historically that’s been the highest ground.”

    The real surge in real estate sales in Miami is on the high ground, the redline districts if you know what that means.

  59. Rick says:

    Why do you think the ice was so far south….

    It was five meters thick. I thought the Northwest passage was wide-open. LOL.

    he 450+ folks living in Virginia’s Tangier Island know they have a problem…

    Yes they do. It’s called erosion.

    Some people will never learn.

    You can say that again. Well, at least they’re not panicing about the impending Ice Age, as they were at the original “Earth Day.”

    Everyone moving in is an optimist not a scientist…

    No, they are realists, who never take the hysterical left seriously. Like when ten years ago, Markell said that the Delaware coast would be under water in ten years. That’s today. And “liberals” (actually, lockstep conformists) believe that type of nonsense.

    Been to Herring Point lately? Sure looks the same to me.

    To borrow from G.K. Chesterton, the postmodern moral relativist doesn’t believe in nothing- he believes in anything.

    Radical Islam is invading the West, and the liberal worries about Tangier Island. Brilliant.

  60. Honi Soit says:

    Both FBH and Rick acknowledge the undeniable: that Tangier Island is disappearing fast. Both unhelpfully claim it’s due to “erosion.” But erosion describes a process, not a cause. Do try digging a bit deeper.

  61. meatball says:

    Rick your ability to remain obstinate when the facts are freely available leads me to believe you are just playing the contrarian.

    The ice was 19 to 26 feet thick and was conglomerate. And the Northwest Passage has been navigable pretty much every year since 2006.

    Lol, Its not called “erosion” when water bubbles up from the ground underneath.

    I’ve seen you parrot this Hanity talking point many times based on a few media sources at the time. Have you ever looked into the what most of the #science published at the time was saying?

    They’re not realists, Rick, they’re millionaires. You really are clueless as to what’s going on in Miami.

    FBH, Rick, a couple of republican politicians in coal producing states, and a few Koch funded scientists believe (like a cult) that global warming is a hoax.

  62. Rick says:

    Both FBH and Rick acknowledge the undeniable: that Tangier Island is disappearing fast. Both unhelpfully claim it’s due to “erosion.” But erosion describes a process, not a cause. Do try digging a bit deeper.

    For centuries in riparian law there has been the question of erosion and accretion and their effect on boundary disputes in real estate. It is still taught today in real estate courses and law school.

    Yes, erosion is a “process,” and the “cause” is wind, currents, tides, man-made barriers (see the northern jetty and the resultant “surfing cove” at Herring Point) and so forth.

    Generally, when land is eroded, is is accreted somewhere else.

  63. Dave says:

    The estimate is that Tangier will cease to exist in about 66 years, given the current rate of sea level rise. Or you can believe that “will be around for hundreds more” years. Either way, the people of Tangier get to choose their beliefs.

    Like meatball’s water in the microwave, the people of Tangier will find that their cup runneth over and they will reap what they have sown.

  64. Rick says:

    The estimate is that Tangier will cease to exist in about 66 years, given the current rate of sea level rise.

    Where do they measure the “rise?” Presumably, since the oceans are actually one body of water, the “rise” is equal everywhere. Are the hundreds of other small islands in the Chesapeake on the verge of non-existence? Why not?

    Of course, it could be that Tangier Island has eroded on the windward side, facilitating flooding and precipitating more erosion.

  65. Frank Knotts says:

    Meatball, would you like to tell us how long the ice was 19 to 26 feet thick, and what was it prior to that?
    I happen to feel that the planet will change as it has since it was created. It really doesn’t matter what is the cause, or the result. I do not harbor any grand belief that the world will remain at some arbitrary ideal of perfection. And I also do not possess the arrogance that even if the current climate change is the result of hundreds of years of man’s pollution, that we could possibly change that in my lifetime or twenty lifetimes.
    Live, love, laugh, and stop worrying.

  66. Rick says:

    Funny thing is, even if the American left is successful in destroying the economy here, China, Russia, India and Pakistan and much of Latin America and Africa will continue to build (as they are now) coal burning electricity generating plants.

    Our know-it-all leftists need to research the “German experiment,” and note its effect on the average German’s energy bill.

    Some day we may indeed be able to generate all of our energy by way of renewable means. But not today. The United States has been and always will be a leader in energy technology. Rather than focus on the United States, the green left needs to direct their efforts toward “emerging economies” who place expediency over environment.

    Of course we all know that there has always been a pinkish hue to the green left.

    PS- Thanks to Obama and the Socialist-Democrats, Delaware now has only one insurance provider on the state “marketplace” (is having only one choice a “market?”). Rates increased 30-something percent last year, and now BCBS wants another 30-something percent.

    Yes, the Affordable Care Act. LOL.

  67. Frank Knotts says:

    Those who believe they. Can save the planet from itself do not care about the cost to consumers because they believe the give will simply subsidize the cost of solar panels and all will be well. Of course that is tax payer money, which also has a cost to the economy.

  68. Honi Soit says:

    “Live, love, laugh, and stop worrying.” -Frank

    A Panglossian view of it all.

  69. mouse says:

    Ironically, there’s never a care from Republicans about endless subsidies, tax breaks, wars to protect and clean up costs from fossil fuel use nor is there any concern about the all you can eat budget at the pentagon but when it comes to obvious benefits to their kids with clean energy they squawk like stuck pigs spewing their polluter ideology!!!

  70. Rick says:

    Ironically, there’s never a care from Republicans about endless subsidies, tax breaks, wars to protect and clean up costs from fossil fuel use…

    Blah, blah, blah….

    Send you donations to China. And India. They are- by far- the world’s largest polluters.

  71. Honi Soit says:

    “Again. I’ll put it as simply as possible for you. Put three ice cubes in a glass. Add water to whatever level. Watch the ice melt. What happens?” -Rick

    I have an experiment for Rick to try. Rick, go to your extensive wine cellar and select a bottle of your most expensive white. Put it in your freezer overnight and have a look the next day. What happened?

  72. Dave says:

    “Where do they measure the “rise?” Presumably, since the oceans are actually one body of water, the “rise” is equal everywhere.’

    Sea level rise is measured from known points above sea level. The height of the water as measured along the coast relative to a specific point on land (tide stations). Satellite measurements provide the average height of the entire ocean. (we know the precise distance of the satellite above the earth and since we have precision altimeters we know the precise distance from the earth to a point on the earth whether that point is a body of water or land).

    Glaciers are above sea level. Ice melts. When ice melts where is more water (kind of the reverse of bottle of wine you froze – which popped the cork cause the ice had to go somewhere). Also, water expands when heated. Water does not become denser, it increases in volume.

    So will the rest of those Chesapeake Islands be under water at some point? Unless there is a mountain on the island, yes they will. Height above sea level matters. The mean elevation of Delaware is 60 feet. The mean elevation of Tangier 3 feet.

    Erosion makes Tangier smaller. Sea level rise submerges Tangier. It will still be there, but water will be on top of it.

  73. Honi Soit says:

    “When ice melts where is more water (kind of the reverse of bottle of wine you froze – which popped the cork cause the ice had to go somewhere).” -Dave

    Jeez Dave. Now Rick won’t conduct my little experiment. You’ve robbed me of the joy in knowing that Rick got frozen wine all inside his fridge.

  74. Frank Knotts says:

    And when Tangier is covered with water? What will the overall impact be? People will have had time to move both their possessions and themselves, unless like the idiots who know the hurricane is coming and choose to stay and die, they choose to stay.
    Also, I believe one of the possible results of climate change is also drought, so if ice does melt and raise sea level, isn’t it likely to be offset by less water running to the sea from rivers swollen by rain?
    The problem with the man made climate change supporters is they constantly move the goal post on what they call settled science.

  75. Honi Soit says:

    “The problem with the man made climate change supporters is they constantly move the goal post on what they call settled science.” -Frank

    Scientists do not claim that climate science is a settled science because knowledge of it–like other branches of science–is always evolving. Scientists DO say that what is known about climate science is sufficiently settled to conclude that pollution brought about by human activity contributes to climate change.

    Frank, you are attacking a straw man.

  76. Rick says:

    Since the late 1970s, the Arctic has lost an average of 20,800 square miles (53,900 square kilometers) of ice a year; the Antarctic has gained an average of 7,300 square miles (18,900 sq km). On Sept. 19 this year, for the first time ever since 1979, Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 7.72 million square miles (20 million square kilometers), according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The ice extent stayed above this benchmark extent for several days. The average maximum extent between 1981 and 2010 was 7.23 million square miles (18.72 million square kilometers).

    This was a couple of years ago, but the gist of the article was that NASA scientists have no explaination whatsoever as to why the Antarctic sea ice expanded.

    The melting of arctic sea ice has no effect on ocean levels.

    Sure, some glaciers melt- slowly. And they may melt, just like the ice covering N.W. Connecticut melted. Climate on Earth is cyclical.

    If Tangier Island is being lost to the sea, do you think that China, India or any of the other growing economies that look for the lowest cost per BTu will shed any tears? They don’t care. So quit wasting your time advocating the destruction of the American economy when the problem is in Asia and elsewhere.

    Put your money where your mouth is and send China a check to pay for a wind farm.

  77. Dave says:

    “And when Tangier is covered with water? What will the overall impact be?”

    Absolutely no impact to me, mine or my country. The Tangier residents can be submerged with their island for all I care. I stick to facts, unemotional, non-political, non-liberal, non-conservative facts. Tangier will be underwater. As I said, no loss to me or mine, but it doesn’t change the fact that water when heated increases in volume and that increased volume has to go somewhere. So as long it doesn’t go into my back yard and sticks to places like Tangier and Oak Orchard, I’m ok with that.

  78. Dave says:

    ” advocating the destruction of the American economy ”

    That’s hyperbole and really not worth commenting on. There approximately 160,000 coal jobs and 375, 000 solar jobs in the U.S. today. The economy is just fine.

  79. Frank Knotts says:

    Honi when I said supporters of man made climate change I was not talking about scientists, but average citizens who have bought into the theory of MMCC. The scientists have their own reasons for promoting MMCC.

  80. mouse says:

    Is there any scientific evidence that increased CO2 in the atmosphere doesn’t hold in more infrared? I’m not promoting that view just asking for some scientific evidence

Got something to say? Go for it!