The Great Barrier Reef- resistant coral

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by SailOar

"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?

It was probably elephant seals on walrus island or something. Still fill the same niche.

[jimbunyard]

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.

It's not mine, nor does it appear to be theory. Walruses, if they have their druthers, seem to prefer hauling out on ice whenever possible. They, unlike other fish-eating pinnipeds, are also constrained to relatively shallow coastal waters because of their diet of mostly clams, so the entire deepwater section of the Artic Ocean could be ice 30 feet thick and 'my theory' would remain unperforated...


https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/pubs/posters/pdfs/pChristman03_pacifc-walruses-2012.pdf

[Reefmagnet]

Here's a bunch of walruses (walri???) suffering ice withdrawal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6a0Wkq9wZE

[jimbunyard]

Further, here's a satellite picture of the Chukchi Sea at the time of the filming. That's Wrangel Island to the right, the north coast of Siberia at the top, and the Bering Strait, partially obscured by clouds, to the left. No sea ice is evident.

[Reefmagnet]

When the bear is the bad guy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvWLbK_mNw0

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's not true. Pelosi and many other establishment Democrats have been decidedly cool to it. [COLOR=Black]Another example.

Of course they have, but only because they understand that it's completely unproductive towards their goals in the 2020 election cycle. But they haven't spoken out against it in part because they agree with it on the merits.

Trump and the GOP would no doubt like to claim that the Democrats have completely climbed aboard. It's not true of course, but that's apparently not an impediment to claiming that.

Well, yeah. It's been served up to them on a silver platter. The Dems do far more with much less. Welcome to the world of modern-day politics.

The GND is doing what it was mainly intended to - get people talking about those issues. Some ideas might make it as party planks. It will never get passed into law as a complete package, you know that.

People are talking about it alright. Mostly about how radical, unrealistic, and cost-prohibitive it is. At least outside of your circles. And of course it doesn't help that its principal author is a 29 year-old freshman legislator who is only one of two in Congress who have explicitly labeled themselves as 'Socialists.'

...uh huh. Which is why those problems continue to languish, and their advocates get tarred with the same brush that you're wielding against CC advocates.

Speaking of mainstream...



Ah yes, another poll asking how Americans "feel" about the threat of CC. As if people want to be tarred by people like you who turn their valid skepticism into "not caring about the environment." Of course you left out the polls which ask how those same people prioritize the importance of the issue compared to a lengthy list of more pressing concerns. Do I need to look those up for you?

I guess you haven't observed how most environmental causes became mainstream, and the fights to get it there, and who fought those. And who fought against.

Have you already forgotten? From the NYT opinion piece you cited above:

". . . at least since Washington got seriously into the business of improving the environment, back in 1970 with the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency — under President Richard Nixon!"

Sorry, but the only high ground you're sharing with the angels is the one that's way out-of-step with sensible & realistic environmental policies. Like the bipartisan consensus which created the hugely successful Clean Air & Clean Water Acts.

Anyway, I know we won't ever agree.

Agreed. Not on actual policy issues perhaps, but there can be agreement on broader policy goals. But it has to start here on earth and not up on the sanctimonious high ground occupied by the angels.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

It's not mine, nor does it appear to be theory. Walruses, if they have their druthers, seem to prefer hauling out on ice whenever possible. They, unlike other fish-eating pinnipeds, are also constrained to relatively shallow coastal waters because of their diet of mostly clams, so the entire deepwater section of the Artic Ocean could be ice 30 feet thick and 'my theory' would remain unperforated...


https://access.afsc.noaa.gov/pubs/posters/pdfs/pChristman03_pacifc-walruses-2012.pdf

"Unperforated?"

Just sayin' . . .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

But [the Democratic establishment] haven't spoken out against [the GND] in part because they agree with it on the merits.

Go through the GND point-by-point. Some I know are clear nonstarters with you, but many are nearly motherhoods. Or are you actually against good jobs for Americans, affordable healthcare, training for the new jobs, repairing and upgrading the infrastructure, a better, smarter power-grid, more efficient agriculture, or leading the world in clean manufacturing and related technology? You don't see any merits to these? SAD!

...there can be agreement on broader policy goals. But it has to start here on earth and not up on the sanctimonious high ground occupied by the angels.

In the US, that eco policy ball is squarely in the court of the GOP. It's theirs to move forward, or continue to block.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Exile

"Unperforated?"

Just sayin' . . .

That was a joke, in response to RM's "it's poking holes in your theory."

As in

per·fo·rate
verb
/ˈpərfəˌrāt/
1. pierce and make a hole or holes in.

(See post 402)

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That was a joke, in response to RM's "it's poking holes in your theory."

As in

per·fo·rate
verb
/ˈpərfəˌrāt/
1. pierce and make a hole or holes in.

(See post 402)

OK, got it.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Go through the GND point-by-point. Some I know are clear nonstarters with you, but many are nearly motherhoods. Or are you actually against good jobs for Americans, affordable healthcare, training for the new jobs, repairing and upgrading the infrastructure, a better, smarter power-grid, more efficient agriculture, or leading the world in clean manufacturing and related technology? You don't see any merits to these? SAD!

Not as SAD! as your inability -- or more likely unwillingness -- to engage in thoughtful discussion. I just responded (#405) to SailOar about this very sort of ridiculous insinuation as follows:

Originally Posted by Exile

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 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?

This is exactly the same sort of antics you play when accusing those skeptical of CC and its various alarmist themes as people who "don't care about the environment." Hard to imagine you really believe this sort of base level propaganda, but then the US has any number of candidates running for prez these days who spout the same sort of divisive banter. It's the old tired mantra that voting the "right way" will put you on the "good side" of history. Like I said, believe whatever makes you feel good, but don't have any illusions about swaying anyone over to your naive & narrow-minded view of the world.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Not as SAD! as your inability -- or more likely unwillingness -- to engage in thoughtful discussion.

There simply is no thoughtful response to your

The GND, and even more importantly mainstream Dems being too fearful to say a word against it, turned the socialist obsession from perception to reality.

[bzzt! wrong, the mainstream Dems have not climbed aboard, and have distanced themselves]

Of course they have, but only because they understand that it's completely unproductive towards their goals in the 2020 election cycle. But they haven't spoken out against it in part because they agree with it on the merits.

That's supposition on your part. And then I gave you some merits.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Marc1]

Ha ha, Jim and Co, that was a grand tirade of replies.
Predictable in content and vitriol ... but still great.

Allow me to let you in a little secret.
Unless you have a large amount of shares, or you own one or several factories in China that produce solar panels or wind turbines, you are doing the dirty work for someone else.

A select group of billionaires has realised way before you started to get all worked up, that there is a large number of people who are very enthusiastic about the environment and at the same time have lefty tendencies.

I heard people call others watermelons, that is green on the outside and red on the inside, but that is a bit disrespectful and I try to avoid that label. However it describes a lot of environmentalist to a T, even when there is no relation between socialism in it's different formats and an interest for the environment. Unfortunately the green movement has been hijacked by the leftover of the communist party who has lost all credibility and so we get the current mix.

But back to how this new religion works. We have the prominent figures doing the agitating, from ex politicians to actors and other cry babies with easy access to good media coverage, denouncing human kind and their sins, like breathing and passing wind for example, eating meat and driving cars, and generally existing. The more courageous state that we should be only 2 billions but mercifully pass on telling us how to kill the other 4 billions.

Then we have the army of millions of generally unsatisfied foot soldiers who would like things to be different. For example that everyone had a small car (or no car at all) or a small boat or a small house, no aircon etc. Yes, just a general mediocre view of the world with no grand works that disturb nature like agriculture, animal husbandry and similar atrocities.

What best way to encite all this millions of unsatisfied people and achieve the goal of selling useless expensive contraptions that would otherwise be unsellable?

Giving them one more reason to hate their fellow man who happens to have worked toward prosperity and generally abundance and wellbeing? Tell them that those bad "rich" people are destroying our habitat with this terrible pollutant that is CO2. Remember to fit in your speech appeals to the emotions, like animal being killed and statements that contain the words like "your children", "the future" and similar appeals.

Threaten university teachers with the sack if they dare to contradict this new religious dogma, stop publication of any article that is not global warming compliant, and lobby politicians to promote alternatives sources of energy, hiding their highly polluting potential in the production stage, installation stage, generating stages and disposal stages, and promise to harvest the green vote if they comply.

I must say that this strategy is not new, having been used very effectively in the middle ages by the prominent religion of the time that turned into a political force so powerful that no kingdom could exist without it's alliance.

Funny how we have not changed since Emperor Constantino in the year 300 realised that a unified religion was the way to go.
And the fact that we have information at the tip of our fingers seems to make no difference.

The reality is that humans believe what they want to believe. A bit like we make our own reality.

Oh well. I am only partially interested in all this circus and am more in the contemplative side of things, watching all the excitement like one watches a movie. The actors are mostly mediocre, but it is what it is.

Nature, if we can personalise it for illustrative purposes only, continues it's course despite us and certainly despite all the so called green initiatives. This era will go down in history as the era of stupidity when a large size of humanity fell for a rather clever fraud ... yet again.

Eppur si muove

[RaymondR]

You can argue all these subtleties all you want, I am not going to take any of these AGW or climate change folks seriously until I see them picketing the maternity wards of the hospitals and marching down the streets with FREE CONDOMS FOR ALL signs yelling

WADDA WE WANT.......CONDOMS

WENDA WE WANTEM........NOW

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It was probably elephant seals on walrus island or something. Still fill the same niche.

Same niche?

Walrus:
Dives to 80m in shallow water
Eats mostly clams, but also shrimp, crabs, tube worms, soft corals, tunicates, sea cucumbers.

Elephant Seals:
Dives to 1,550m in deep waters
Eats skates, rays, squid, octopuses, eels, small sharks and large fish.