NASA Satellite Discovers Massive Vegetation Die Off (1 Viewer)

[Gill]

While the exact mechanism for the phenomenon is unclear, the researchers believe that it is related to increasing fossil fuel use, especially home heating oil, during the fall when temperatures turn cooler. "We know that particulate pollution from the burning of fuel oil can have a negative effect on healthy vegetation, and so the correlation between heating fuel use and vegetation die-off constitutes 'smoking gun' evidence for this association", Jorgenson said.

<snip>

When contacted for comment on the new results, discredited global warming skeptic Dr. John Michaels told this reporter, "I think the NASA scientists should investigate the possibility that this die-off is directly related to decreasing levels of sunlight and the resulting cold temperatures as winter approachers". When told of Dr. Michaels' theory, Jorgeson replied, "Well of course he would say that…everyone knows he is in the pocket of 'big oil'. Besides, how else would you explain the fact that the die-off does not occur in tropical locations, where heating oil use is virtually unheard of?"

Source

 

[Citizendave]

I decided to look a the site where the quote comes from because it seemed a bit odd that a journalist would contact a "discredited" source. The website also has the following headlines:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/

Penguins "Fed Up" With Media Attention

California Town Bans Tsunamis

Solar Power Plant Construction Halted Due to Endangered Squirrel

I really did think this was a legitimate story, and see now after my checking that it is a spoof. The humor is so subtle (or bad) that I wonder how many people don't get the joke immediately. I didn't. Just curious, Gill, did you?

 

[Gill]

I decided to look a the site where the quote comes from because it seemed a bit odd that a journalist would contact a "discredited" source. The website also has the following headlines:

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/







I really did think this was a legitimate story, and see now after my checking that it is a spoof. The humor is so subtle (or bad) that I wonder how many people don't get the joke immediately. I didn't. Just curious, Gill, did you?

I wasn't sure at first either since there are so many GW alarmist sites that have the same type of material. But when I got about half way through, I knew it had to be a spoof.

I started not to post the link so everyone would wonder. :rofl

I love the one about the polar bears.

 

[Citizendave]

Yes yes, why would anyone in their right mind be alarmed by Global Warming?The spoof sucked me in really good because it reminded me of the following (which is an actual story):

Scientists: Warming Triggers 'Dead Zone'

By JEFF BARNARD

GRANTS PASS, Ore. Aug 6, 2006 (AP)— Bottom fish and crabs washing up dead on Oregon beaches are being killed by a recurring "dead zone" of low-oxygen water that is larger than in previous years and may be triggered by global warming, scientists said.

There are signs it is spreading north to Washington's Olympic Peninsula.

Scientists studying the 70-mile-long zone of oxygen-depleted water, along the Continental Shelf between Florence and Lincoln City, conclude that it is being caused by explosive blooms of tiny plants known as phytoplankton, which die and sink to the bottom, then are eaten by bacteria which use up the oxygen in the water.

The recurring phytoplankton blooms are triggered by northerly wind, which generates a process known as upwelling in which nutrient-rich water is brought to the surface from lower depths.......

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=2279974

Here's another tidbit to quell the fears of the cross-dressing enviro-rabbits such as myself who are losing sleep over nothing:

The average temperature for the continental United States from January through June 2006 was the warmest first half of any year since records began in 1895, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/jun/jun06.html

Gill, I'm left wondering: what is the debate point which you intended for this thread?

I'm not a mod, (quite the opposite, I'm a newbie) but if I were one, I might be considering removing your post. I don't mean to seem humorless, I did laugh at some of the "headlines," but merely passing along a spoof doesn't seem like a debate point to me.

 

[Gill]

Yes yes, why would anyone in their right mind be alarmed by Global Warming?The spoof sucked me in really good because it reminded me of the following (which is an actual story):



Here's another tidbit to quell the fears of the cross-dressing enviro-rabbits such as myself who are losing sleep over nothing:



Gill, I'm left wondering: what is the debate point which you intended for this thread?

I'm not a mod, (quite the opposite, I'm a newbie) but if I were one, I might be considering removing your post. I don't mean to seem humorless, I did laugh at some of the "headlines," but merely passing along a spoof doesn't seem like a debate point to me.

Every thread on this site does not have to be a "debatable topic", unlike the Breaking News thread. I posted it simply to lighten up the topic.

I personally think there are much more humorous posts in the Conspiracy thread.

And....:wcm

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Yes yes, why would anyone in their right mind be alarmed by Global Warming?The spoof sucked me in really good because it reminded me of the following (which is an actual story):

Or they MAY have been killed by pink bunnies with switch blades

Here's another tidbit to quell the fears of the cross-dressing enviro-rabbits such as myself who are losing sleep over nothing:

Is it possible that the earth is just following a natural warming trend

 

[Citizendave]

Thanks for the "Welcome" Gill.

Every thread on this site does not have to be a "debatable topic", unlike the Breaking News thread. I posted it simply to lighten up the topic.

Color me stupid! Such is the life of a newbie.

I personally think there are much more humorous posts in the Conspiracy thread.

If someone wants to assert that GW isn't happening, asserting a conspiracy would be an effective position. Arguing the science is harder on skeptics and deniers.


Calm2Chaos -

Is it possible that the earth is just following a natural warming trend

And who, collectively, is going to need to make that conclusion if CO2 is to be exonerated? The Supreme Court will hear a case to consider whether or not CO2 should by law be regulated by the EPA.

Court To Hear Global Warming Case
Supreme Court Agrees To Consider If Carbon Dioxide Must Be Regulated

WASHINGTON, June 26, 2006

(CBS/AP) The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/26/supremecourt/main1751262.shtml

It appears from looking at the supreme court dockett entires that the automobile industry will have input to the process.

......Aug 15 2006 Consent to the filing of amicus briefs in support of either party received from counsel for Vehicle Intervenor Coalition, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, et al.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/05-1120.htm

But with the industry trade alliance for the car companies saying things like the following, I kind of wonder what their lawyers will be pleading.

As the global debate on climate change continues, members of the Alliance believe it is prudent to reduce emissions, including carbon dioxide, from our plants, products, and processes.

The climate issue is a global one that must be addressed as a shared responsibility of government, industry, and individuals.

......We accept the President's challenge to reduce GHG intensity and improve the energy efficiency of our manufacturing facilities, and we will participate in DOE's Business Challenge program.

The Alliance supports a single national voluntary reporting registry under the Department of Energy (DOE). Building on the reporting that some members are already engaged in, within one year all Alliance members will be reporting GHG emissions from their manufacturing facilities......

http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/globalclimate.php?PHPSESSID=3e15c03b806889696a42ec92ba929121

So yes, as you say, recent warming might just be natural, but multi-billion dollar companies are, for whatever reason (gosh, the science?) monitoring and reporting their CO2 output.

 

[Gill]

If someone wants to assert that GW isn't happening, asserting a conspiracy would be an effective position. Arguing the science is harder on skeptics and deniers.

I should warn you that I am a die hard skeptic.

 

[Citizendave]

Well, I'm expecting that you are going to "die hard" soon.

The supreme court won't be consulting Michael Crichton when they consider the case (at least, I didn't notice him on the docket). I expect they will order the EPA to start monitoring CO2, and skeptics and deniers across the land will gnash their teeth and pout like four year olds. What an awful day it will be.

 

[Gill]

Well, I'm expecting that you are going to "die hard" soon.

The supreme court won't be consulting Michael Crichton when they consider the case (at least, I didn't notice him on the docket). I expect they will order the EPA to start monitoring CO2, and skeptics and deniers across the land will gnash their teeth and pout like four year olds. What an awful day it will be.

Some American companies are already monitoring CO2 emissions and reducing them.....all without government mandates.

 

[Citizendave]

Which, as a "die hard" skeptic, I presume you think they are doing something quite unnecessary.

 

[Gill]

Which, as a "die hard" skeptic, I presume you think they are doing something quite unnecessary.

No, I have absolutely no problem with businesses using whatever legal means they feel is necessary to grow their business. I do have a problem with government mandates based on very shaky science.

 

[faithful_servant]

I wasn't sure at first either since there are so many GW alarmist sites that have the same type of material. But when I got about half way through, I knew it had to be a spoof.

I started not to post the link so everyone would wonder. :rofl

I love the one about the polar bears.

Hey Gill, did you take any of the polls? These may very well be some of the most accurate polls I've ever seen.:rofl

 

[Gill]

Hey Gill, did you take any of the polls? These may very well be some of the most accurate polls I've ever seen.:rofl

Yep, sure did. I voted for Ted Nugent as my favorite environmentalist. Actually, now that I think about it, Ted has probably done more for the environment the RFK and Gore combined.

Did you notice that they change with every link?

 

[Citizendave]

Gill, this is going to be interesting. Please explain how voluntarily monitoring their own CO2 output encourages their growth.

I think it's odd that you have a problem with government mandates based on shaky science, but you have no problem with companies voluntarily reporting their CO2 output based on shaky science. Here's a statement form a big utility company named PGE.

Understanding Our Climate Change Impacts, Being Transparent, and Working Toward Responsible Solutions
We are committed to leading by example when it comes to climate change. That means more than just minimizing the greenhouse gas emissions from our operations. It also means maximizing the opportunity we have to lead on efforts to establish responsible policies and programs to address global climate change.

......PG&E continued to participate actively and work cooperatively with the California Climate Action Registry to account for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with our enterprise-wide operations. We began by certifying our 2002 CO2 emissions and expect to certify our 2005 CO2 and SF6 emissions in the third quarter of 2006.

http://www.pgecorp.com/corp_responsibility/reports/2005/our_env_understanding.html

I guess the statement above confirms your shaky logic: industry is correct to configure it's position and operations based upon an unconfirmed scientific assertion.

 

[Gill]

Gill, this is going to be interesting. Please explain how voluntarily monitoring their own CO2 output encourages their growth.

Public relations. Looks good in the brochures they send out to customers and on their web sites.

I\

I think it's odd that you have a problem with government mandates based on shaky science, but you have no problem with companies voluntarily reporting their CO2 output based on shaky science. Here's a statement form a big utility company named PGE.

That's simple... companies are free to voluntarily report their emmissions if they wish. I don't believe they should be forced to by the govt.

I guess the statement above confirms your shaky logic: industry is correct to configure it's position and operations based upon an unconfirmed scientific assertion.

I didn't say they were correct. What I said is that I have no problem with them doing so if they feel it is in their best interests.

 

[Citizendave]

I fail to see how an energy company can feel that is it in their best interests to begin voluntarily reporting their CO2 output. That is a clear step in the direction of accepting CO2 restrictions by the government, which leads to market insecurity, which companies despise. Case in point:

For more than 119 years, Pinnacle West and our affiliates have provided energy and energy-related products to people and businesses throughout Arizona.

http://www.pinnaclewest.com/main/pnw/AboutUs/default.html

Energy companies and utilities such as Pinnaclewest have been quite comfortable playing the "bad guy" in years past. You are saying that, with an Oil Man in the oval office, these wealthy and influential companies are just going to play nice-nice Public Relations when CO2 restrictions may be implimented? A bunch of scientests say "your normal operations are ruining the earth's atmosphere" and their response is PR? That's a laugh. Here's a pragmatic plea from a company who knows there's a problem (unlike you).

Climate change is one of the most significant environmental issues facing our global community. At APS, we recognize that climate change is a real-world problem that needs to be addressed. We also realize, however, that uncertainty surrounds many aspects of climate change policy. Estimates of the degree of restriction, the timing and the cost vary widely. There are enough doubts about – and enough doubters of – global warming that national legislative and regulatory action may not occur quickly. But on the other hand, individual states, cites and regions are taking action, and it cannot be ignored.

In contrast to this scattered activity, we think any climate change policy should be national in scope and comprehensive in its coverage. The utility industry, while a substantial contributor to greenhouse gas emissions should not be targeted exclusively – or burdened excessively.

http://www.pinnaclewest.com/main/pnw/AboutUs/commitments/ehs/2005/environmental/climate/default.html

That isn't PR. That doesn't sound to me like this company is saying one thing and feverishly working in the background to undercut GW science or scientists. They are telling it like it is to their stockholders.

And what's this? The voluntary reporting may become mandatory? Why on earth would Citizendave think that? He's such a bumkin! (paragraph below is from the same link....)

........Early Green House Gas reduction (GHG) efforts, in the absence of a national regulatory program or a consensus methodology for GHG reduction credit tracking, have a risk of becoming stranded in future regulatory programs. APS is aware of this risk and is making efforts to try to preserve the value of early GHG efforts to the extent possible, including ongoing monitoring and evaluating of evolving GHG reporting programs and registries.

And of course the reporting, which to you laughably believe indicates nothing....

Green House Gas Emission Reporting
APS voluntarily reports GHG emissions and GHG reduction results to the U.S. Department of Energy through DOE’s 1605(b) voluntary GHG reporting program.

I'm not saying that all of these companies are going to accept regulations meekly. They will work to mitigate regulations to protect their profit margins. Exactly how all of this is going to work out, I don't know, but I'm sure GW skeptics and deniers such as yourself will be recieving a few rude shocks in the near future. You simply fail to understand where the argument is currently at.