The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Marc1]

https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/...lobal-warming/

Man’s Contribution to Global Warming
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / March 27, 2009


Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)



Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling.

Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it’d be a little different.

[Reefmagnet]

Walrus plunging off cliffs due to climate change? I didn't even know we had any in the GBR!


But, like all good fantasy stories, the KISS explanation is Polar Bears.


Yes, in a twisted take on "having your cake and eating it too", those very same polar bears endangered by climate change.





https://www.theaustralian.com.au/wor...4ea7acd55a5aba

Netflix’s acclaimed Our Planet series has come under fire for “tragedy porn” over images of walruses falling to their deaths from cliff tops, allegedly because of climate change.

The Our Planet footage, narrated by David Attenborough, showed dozens of the animals climbing up 80 metre high outcrops in northeast Russia because of a lack of sea ice.

They were shown plunging onto the rocks below, with hundreds of dead animals piled on the shoreline. A voice-over by Attenborough claimed their poor eyesight made it hard for them to return safely to the ocean.

But a Canadian zoologist has dismissed the claims as “contrived nonsense” and said the walruses were most likely driven over the cliffs by polar bears.

Susan Crockford, of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, told The Telegraph UK: “This powerful story is fiction and emotional manipulation at its worst.”

The polar bear expert said that at the time the footage was shot in 2017 at Kozhevnikova Cape, Ryrkaypiy, in eastern Russia, the town was being besieged by polar bears. According to The Siberian Times, 20 bears had surrounded the town, attracted by 5000 walruses that had appeared at a local protection zone.

Head of WWF Project Polar Bear Patrol, Viktor Nikiforov, told The Siberian Times: “Many (walruses) crashed, falling from a height. Their rookery had attracted polar bears.

“The walruses were obviously frightened by the predators, panicked and fell from the top to their deaths.”

[Marc1]

David Attenborough, who has contributed outstanding footage of nature at it's best, has also fallen in the trap of agitating arms and breeding fast in a paper bag, and shouting in a shrill voice: the sky is falling the sky is falling!

Sad but that is what they need to do in order to sell.

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

But, like all good fantasy stories, the KISS explanation is Polar bears

I think they said it’s a lack of ice?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Marc1

David Attenborough, who has contributed outstanding footage of nature at it's best, has also fallen in the trap of agitating arms and breeding fast in a paper bag, and shouting in a shrill voice: the sky is falling the sky is falling!

Sad but that is what they need to do in order to sell.

At 92 he’s in no need to sell anything.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

I think they said it’s a lack of ice?

Would that have broken their falls?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

At 92 he’s in no need to sell anything.

And perhaps not as sharp in the grey matter department as he once was.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Companies that consume large amounts of fossil fuels would pay more. Those that use none would pay none. GHG emissions would fall like a rock in no time at all.

That implies that there is no "carbon cost" to creating and maintaining the infrastructure for the delivery of "non fossil fuel" energy. A completely erroneous assumption!

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Puddleduck

I think they said it’s a lack of ice?

That's what the WWF sponsored Netflix video narrative said. Completely without justification.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by StuM

That implies that there is no "carbon cost" to creating and maintaining the infrastructure for the delivery of "non fossil fuel" energy. A completely erroneous assumption!

There are many ways to reduce carbon created during production of most things. It doesn’t happen now because of cost. If we reduce taxes on good things like income and personal property but tax GHG then GHG will fall. It’s a well proven strategy. If you want to promote some activity don’t tax it. If you want to discourage something tax the heck out of it. We tax income, purchases (VAT) and property. What’s the logic in that? None that i can see.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Marc1

Waterfront properties are more expensive than the rest because they are more appealing for obvious reasons and therefore the demand is higher which in a free market increases it's value. Your "the rich" qualifier only highlights your bias and disqualifies you from a rational debate.
Of course this may not apply in Cuba, but it does all over the rest of the world including Russia, not only the US.

Apparently you didn't read or understand even the excerpt from the article, which says nothing about the intrinsic value of coastal properties, but illustrates the mechanisms that are unequally allowing capital to fund an already-favored segment of the population.

Your apparent inability to understand that there are varying levels of economic class, as does virtually every post you've made on the subject "only highlights your bias and disqualifies you from a rational debate".

Who on earth said anything about Cuba? Or is that a 'sly' reference to the pitfalls of 'socialism'?

The "global warming" fraud, was invented to shift power and resources and make an otherwise non competitive industry viable with obscene offerings of taxpayers money at the altar of a phoney god.

Suggest you look at real fossil fuel subsidies, including externalities, before making such an unsupported and demonstrably ridiculous claim.

The fake enemy, CO2, demonised using smoke and mirrors is 0,04% of the environment and of that humans contribute 3%, that is 0,0012% of the environment. It is essential to life on earth as the only bridge between the sun as contributor of energy to earth, and plants. To call it pollution is akin to treason to human kind.

Just a logical fallacy, which I'll discuss further down. 'Treason' to 'human kind' [sic] could be more properly attributed to those who promote the destruction of the only environment humankind's descendants are likely to be able to inhabit.

The only way to push such a gargantuan lie, was to create a religion where the lie can not be question. "The debate is over" The priest of the anti humanity religion have enough power to make you lose your job if you speak up.

Their promoters, in true used car salesman fascion, have hidden the many flaws and the highly polluting side of wind and solar to achieve political support.

For this purpose they use otherwise rational and nice people by exploiting emotional issues and half truths and mixing it with socialist issues and repressed hate and envy, to push the agenda that has political power and subsidy money as target and clearly not the environment.

They would otherwise not pedal those monstrosities of solar farms or wind farms that pollute the manufacturer's country, destroy the ecosystem they are in, have short lives and no back up plan for disposal of their highly contaminating components.

Much that passes as idealism, is disguised hatred or disguised love of power. Bertrand Russell

Again you reveal your bias and uninformed (at best) understanding, as well as some of the sources of them. If you want to learn about what the actual science is behind, stay away from the mainstream media, especially industry-funded bloggers. There are plenty of reliable, supported-by-evidence sources for information out there...

I wish Russell were here to comment on your opinion. And the misuse of his words...

Originally Posted by Marc1

Emotional blackmail.
Is this supposed to be humans' fault?
With 5 to 15 cm of sea rise a century?
May be you think salmons in Alaska should be saved too?
Natural selection, population control and adaptation to a changing environment.
This is how nature works and has been working effectively for millions of years.
What is wrong with that? Grow up!

Why don't you show the birds massacre in wind farms?
The massacre of turtles when building the solar farms in california?
And I can go on for a week.

The idea that humans can turn a dial and control weather or sea level is so arrogant and stupid that is beyond comprehension.

It is human's fault, or more properly it is the 'fault' of the loss of sea ice, caused by the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. Walruses need sea ice on which to live, breed and raise their young, as they cannot live in the sea permanently. When there is no sea ice they must haul out on land, which for them is apparently a major societal upheaval.

The rest of the post is a confusing rant (I think this might be the best definition "A wild, emotional, and sometimes incoherent articulation"), which again illustrates at best an extreme level of incomprehension, and at worse a deliberate attempt to misinform.

Sea level is forecast to rise by a minimum of 1 meter by 2100, and to continue to rise for the forseeable future.

Salmon saved in Alaska? Don't exactly know what you're on about there, but I wonder what you know about the contribution of salmon to the health of the northwestern coastal forests in America and Canada?

Or about "Natural selection, population control and adaptation to a changing environment. This is how nature works and has been working effectively for millions of years."

Grow up indeed...


We're all well aware of the 'bird massacre in wind farms', and the measures
being made to fight it.

As for the 'massacre of turtles in california', I assume you're bringing up this isolated incident, which I'll let Wikipedia resolve for you.


"The Ivanpah Solar power project was built on six square miles of public land in the south central Mojave Desert.[60] Project construction was temporarily halted in the spring of 2011 due to the suspected impacts on desert tortoises.[61] Construction resumed when the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found the project was not likely to jeopardize the endangered desert tortoise.[62] BrightSource also installed fencing to keep wildlife out of the area.[63] In 2010, the project was scaled back from the original 440 MW design, to avoid building on the habitat of the desert tortoise."


The fact that humans can and do have an effect, control, the weather is incontrovertible, easily witnessed in a plethora of daily occurrences. That you are unaware of this further erodes whatever credibility you started with.

Originally Posted by Marc1

Mate, I don't know you but I bet you are a very nice guy.
However just go back and think why you posted that video.
It is in reply to my rant about the big global warming fraud, the con job that blames humans for changes in the weather ... sorry climate.

By doing so you become part of the scaremongering industry that blames humans for changes in the climate, changes that have been happening for millenia, for one purpose: Shift political power and resources towards fake industries.

It is a multi trillion dollar industry that nurtures those who in the past had interest in nature and that now are the cheerleaders of the doom and gloom, blame humans especially the bad rich.

And the sad part is that by doing so, the real pollution, not CO2 but everything else that could be addressed is sidelined in favour of a fake problem, manufactured, invented by fake prophets of doom.

The real pollution and the real polluters are those who think, great! business as usual, and pass under the radar.

Change is the only constant when it comes to weather and nature in general.
Change is what made us who we are, and change will shape our future. And sure, our future will look different from today.
Nothing wrong with that.

Your constant use of the words fake and fraud and con are best used as indicators of the sources for your acrimony. Do you have any data to support any of your claims?

Originally Posted by Marc1

https://www.dailysignal.com/2009/03/...lobal-warming/

Man’s Contribution to Global Warming
Nicolas Loris / @NiconomistLoris / March 27, 2009


Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, “planet-killing” carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions. What does this all boil down to? As shown by the accompanying graph, not very much.

Indeed, anthropogenic effects are real but carbon is such a small portion of the natural cycle, and let’s not forget both the sun and carbon are needed for natural cycles that are good for the earth such as photosynthesis—the process by which plants turn sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates. (For more, check out this Global Warming Primer published by the National Center for Policy Analysis.)



Perhaps the most alarming part is the price tag associated with attempting to reduce such a small part of the atmosphere and something we really cannot control. Our analysis shows the cumulative GDP losses for 2010 to 2029 approach $7 trillion. Single-year losses exceed $600 billion in 2029, more than $5,000 per house¬hold. Job losses are expected to exceed 800,000 in some years, and exceed at least 500,000 from 2015 through 2026. It is important to note that these are net job losses, after any jobs created by compliance with the regulations–so-called green jobs–are taken into account. In total, the “climate revenue” (read: energy tax) could approach two trillion over eight years. Keep in mind, this is all for negligible environmental benefits.

The science behind global warming is anything but conclusive. Many leading climatologists conclude that climate models aren’t incredibly accurate and even have different opinions (for instance whether it is the sun or oceanic changes) as to what the dominant causes are of global warming and cooling.

Nevertheless, it’s easy to pretend the science on global warming is conclusive when environmentalist extremists suppress dissenting opinions. Economist Walter Williams provides a few examples and draws an interesting parallel:

There’s a much more important issue that poses an even greater danger to mankind. That’s the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view. According to a March 11 article in London’s Sunday Telegraph, Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges.” Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, “Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system.”

Suppressing dissent is nothing new. Italian cosmologist Giordano Bruno taught that stars were at different distances from each other surrounded by limitless territory. He was imprisoned in 1592, and eight years later he was tried as a heretic and burned at the stake. Because he disagreed that the Earth was the center of the universe, Galileo was ordered to stand trial on suspicion of heresy in 1633. Under the threat of torture, he recanted and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.”

That was 1592. After 400 and some odd years, one would think it’d be a little different.

Quite sad that you use this particular bit of propaganda as an example of your 'argument'.

Does Loris (by the way in the employ of the almost entirely industry-funded Heritage Foundation,

"In 1973, businessman Joseph Coors contributed $250,000 to establish The Heritage Foundation and continued to fund it through the Adolph Coors Foundation.[81][82] In 1973, it had trustees from Chase Manhattan Bank, Dow Chemical, General Motors, Pfizer, Sears and Mobil.[83]

Heritage is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization as well as a BBB Wise Giving Alliance accredited charity funded by donations from private individuals, corporations and charitable foundations.[84][85][86] As a 501(c)(3), Heritage is not required to disclose its donors and donations to the foundation are tax-deductible.[85] According to a MediaTransparency report in 2006, donors have included John M. Olin Foundation, the Castle Rock Foundation, the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation and the Bradley Foundation.[87][unreliable source?][importance?] Other financing as of 2016 includes $28,129,000 from the combined Scaife Foundations of the late billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife.[88][89] Heritage is a grantee of the Donors Trust, a nonprofit donor-advised fund.[90][91][importance?][92] As of 2010, Heritage reported 710,000 supporters.[93]

For the fiscal year ending December 31, 2011, Charity Watch reported that Edwin Feulner, past president of The Heritage Foundation, received the highest compensation in its top 25 list of compensation received by charity members. According to Charity Watch, Feulner received $2,702,687 in 2013. This sum includes investment earnings of $1,656,230 accrued over a period of 33 years.[94]

Heritage's total revenue for 2011 was $72,170,983 and its expenses were $80,033,828.[95][96]")

even realize that his first 'argument' falls flat on its' face? Do you? The importance (or not) of a constituent in any system is not a function solely of its' quantity in the system but by its' effects in the system. 'Tiny' amounts do not preclude huge effects. (have a look at polonium or dimethylmercury poisoning for reference on big effects in small packages). Thus, the 'tiny' amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is directly responsible for the (remaining) great forests of the world, as well as contributing to the rapidly rising global temperature.

Not to mention indirectly the free oxygen in the atmosphere that allows animals to evolve and survive.

Or that an increase of 9% atmospheric O2 over todays' 21% would have meter-wingspanned dragonflys flitting about?

Loris then suggests a 'primer' from the NCPA, a notoriously industry-funded 'bill-mill' that, through ALEC promotes (imagine that) industry-friendly laws, as an accurate source of information about 'CO2 science'.

He then goes on to make some claims, using unsourced and apparently speculative numbers, citing GDP and job 'losses', with no supporting evidence whatsoever, other than 'our analysis'.

Meanwhile most legitimate economists, scientists and social planners studies continue to show that the costs associated with converting to a renewables-based energy supply are far outweighed by the benefits, while the costs from continued use of fossil fuel based energy far outweigh the benefits in real economic performance and various positive and negative externalities.


The mechanism of CO2 in climate is well known and has been for 150 years, and has been quantified for 70. While modeling cannot be anything but imperfect, that is not a reason to ignore the models. Everything one does, if reduced to it's most simple level, is based on imperfect models.

I've no idea who 'economist Walter Williams' is, but his reliance on 'Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg', who is actually a geographer and historian, not a climatoligist, as an example of 'the effort by environmentalists to suppress disagreement with their view', is, again, indicative of the rife disingenuousness of that position. If they're being 'silenced' why do we hear so much from them? A quick comparison of who's making money off the claims of 'hoax', versus the accredited scientists salaries would put paid to any concerns in that arena, except to those of the most conspiratorial-minded...

Richard Lindzen fits very well into the land Tim Ball occupies, though he has (had?) a bit more credibility. Nigel Calder is deceased, so we won't talk ill of the dead, but the new-mini-ice-age proponents would have found a kindred spirit...though there's no ice age, mini or not, in sight...

Comparing scientists-for-hire with Galileo and now Bruno is old hat for deniers. Sadly, they have the roles reversed: Galileo and Bruno are today's scientists, and the 'scientists'-for-hire (Lindzen, Ball, Crockford, et al), are the infallible Church...

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Walrus plunging off cliffs due to climate change? I didn't even know we had any in the GBR!


But, like all good fantasy stories, the KISS explanation is Polar Bears.


Yes, in a twisted take on "having your cake and eating it too", those very same polar bears endangered by climate change.


"Netflix’s acclaimed Our Planet series has come under fire for “tragedy porn” over images of walruses falling to their deaths from cliff tops, allegedly because of climate change.

The Our Planet footage, narrated by David Attenborough, showed dozens of the animals climbing up 80 metre high outcrops in northeast Russia because of a lack of sea ice.

They were shown plunging onto the rocks below, with hundreds of dead animals piled on the shoreline. A voice-over by Attenborough claimed their poor eyesight made it hard for them to return safely to the ocean.

But a Canadian zoologist has dismissed the claims as “contrived nonsense” and said the walruses were most likely driven over the cliffs by polar bears.

Susan Crockford, of the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, told The Telegraph UK: “This powerful story is fiction and emotional manipulation at its worst.”

The polar bear expert said that at the time the footage was shot in 2017 at Kozhevnikova Cape, Ryrkaypiy, in eastern Russia, the town was being besieged by polar bears. According to The Siberian Times, 20 bears had surrounded the town, attracted by 5000 walruses that had appeared at a local protection zone.

Head of WWF Project Polar Bear Patrol, Viktor Nikiforov, told The Siberian Times: “Many (walruses) crashed, falling from a height. Their rookery had attracted polar bears.

“The walruses were obviously frightened by the predators, panicked and fell from the top to their deaths.”

Leaving aside the facile-ness of the comment, the inclusion of discredited 'polar bear expert' Susan Crockford, and the negatively-biased, mostly misinformation source The Australian, as above the bears were there because of the lack of sea ice. If they were frightened off by the besiegement of bears (all 20) (of which there is no indication in the footage), so be it, but the point is that they wouldn't be there if the sea ice was as normal.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

...
...


Leaving aside the facile-ness of the comment, the inclusion of discredited 'polar bear expert' Susan Crockford, and the negatively-biased, mostly misinformation source The Australian, as above the bears were there because of the lack of sea ice. If they were frightened off by the besiegement of bears (all 20) (of which there is no indication in the footage), so be it, but the point is that they wouldn't be there if the sea ice was as normal.

When did the Arctic become ice free? If it hasn't, it's poking holes in your theory.


IIRC, Ernest Shackleton's crew left alone on Elephant Island in Antarctica awaiting rescue in the early 1900's complained of the walruses that shared the stone covered beach with the men in preference to nearby ice covered terrain. Apparantly they don't breed on ice floes.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Marc1

...
1. Why don't you show the birds massacre in wind farms?
The massacre of turtles when building the solar farms in california?
And I can go on for a week.
2. The idea that humans can turn a dial and control weather or sea level is so arrogant and stupid that is beyond comprehension.

1. Wind turbines kill far fewer birds in North America than do nuclear and fossil fuel power plants, cats, or collisions with cell towers. Cooling conventional power plants also kills billions of fish each year, in addition to birds. And, of all bird deaths, 30 percent are due to natural causes, like baby birds falling from nests.
Wind power critics, who point to the relatively tiny number of bird deaths caused by turbines and towers, and fail to mention the true top causes of bird deaths are deliberately being disingenuous. They don’t know the facts, or are omitting them, to try to dismiss wind power, even though it’s better for birds than fossil fuels and nuclear. The number of birds that die from other causes, including fossil and nuclear energy sources, is vastly larger, but wind power critics are not going to mention this fact, because it would undermine or negate their flimsy rhetoric.
“Contextualizing avian mortality: A preliminary appraisal of bird and bat fatalities from wind, fossil-fuel, and nuclear electricity” ~ by Sovacool, Benjamin K.
The study estimates that wind farms and nuclear power stations are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil-fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh (± 13 times more/GW/h). While this paper should be respected as a preliminary assessment, the estimate means that wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006, but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fueled power plants 14.5 million.
➥ https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol...2241-2248.html

“A Synthesis of Human-related Avian Mortality in Canada” ~ by Anna M. Calvert, et al.
We synthesize recent estimates of avian mortality in Canada from a range of industrial and other human activities, to provide context for the estimates from individual sources presented in this special feature.
Combined, cat predation and collisions with windows, vehicles, and transmission lines caused > 95% of all (bird) mortality; the highest industrial causes of mortality were the electrical power and agriculture sectors.
➥ Avian Conservation and Ecology: A Synthesis of Human-related Avian Mortality in Canada

British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds built a wind turbine, at its Bedfordshire headquarters, to reduce its carbon emissions (and in doing so, aims to minimise species loss due to climate change). It recognised that wind power is far more beneficial to birds than it is harmful.

2. Apparently, not the only thing you fail to comprehend.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

When did the Arctic become ice free? If it hasn't, it's poking holes in your theory.

IIRC, Ernest Shackleton's crew left alone on Elephant Island in Antarctica awaiting rescue in the early 1900's complained of the walruses that shared the stone covered beach with the men in preference to nearby ice covered terrain. Apparantly they don't breed on ice floes.

"IIRC"?? Indeed. I'm not finding any source which confirms that walrus can be found south of the northern arctic regions. Perhaps you can help me?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Which of the following 10 points of the Green New Deal do you find to be unacceptably socialistic?

The problem with socialism or socialistic policies has not proven to be undesirable or unacceptable goals in the abstract, but rather the means to obtain them. Namely the damage to economies that inevitably occurs when, through corruption and/or running out of other peoples' money, economies are damaged. Venezuela is of course the most recent example, but probably a better one is the Scandinavian countries retreating back to a more balanced form of regulated capitalism after decades of unsuccessful dabbling in socialist policies.

So to answer your question more concisely, I'd say what's unacceptable about the GND's 1-10 is the absence of #11, i.e. a specific estimate of costs and a plan for paying for all of it. There is now a 100 years of history we can and should consider that show calamitous examples of systems that start off with a bunch of golden eggs that inevitably result in killing off the geese that laid them. Whether it's socio-economic policies or climate change remedies, why is the Left so averse to cost-benefit analyses?