The rain stopped. The skies cleared.
And several dozen people gathered downtown last night, showing their disgust at President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris Climate Accord.
They held candles and signs, and sang songs like Bob Dylan’s “The Times They Are A-Changin’.”
The bipartisan crowd included 1st Selectman Jim Marpe, 2nd Selectman Avi Kaner, State Representative Jonathan Steinberg — and plenty of Fairfield County residents, grateful for the break in the weather after many days of rain.
The vigil began under blue skies …
… with participants holding homemade signs …
… and ended after dark. (Photos/Bruce McFadden)
I so appreciate people gathering and love seeing the photos!!! If I hadn’t been out of town for the weekend, I surely would’ve been there. I’m so gratified to read that so many states are independently supporting our environment. It was a devastating blow to our country on many levels, to be pulled out of The Paris Agreement. It is a complete horror for us, our children, and our grandchildren that our current administration doesn’t believe in science or that climate change is real. Let’s hope that the investigations get to the bottom of what is looking like Russia collusion, whatever else is going on with Russia besides the collusion that caused so many secretive and lied about phone calls and meetings with so many people connected to and in the WH, business conflicts of interest, and obstruction of justice, they will be removed from the WH very soon. Then we can help the environment recover from thelack of regulations that protected our rivers and streams and get us back on track with our international allies! Our country ford side-by-side with these allies and work together on so many issues and in a matter of 160 days or so so much of it has compromised from now. My hope is that our allies know that majority of our country wants to be in the Paris agreement and stand with our allies and the rest of the world protecting our planet.
Enough with “the Russians.” There is no “there” there.
Maybe enough for you. The rest of the country and the world will have had enough when all the investigations are complete and we have a definitive account of any and all cooperation between Trump operatives and Russia before, during and after the campaign. Like the undisclosed contacts made by Flynn, Manafort, Sessions, Page and Kushner. Their failures to disclose are felonies.
You’re counting your chickens before they hatch. In fact, you may have a Rooster there…
The 5 chickens I listed have already hatched. I expect that “crazy, nut job” Comey will have many more additional facts to share about this matter on Thursday.
I’m thinking about having an Obstruction of Justice party… hmm, what to serve?
Just because you give eggs a name, doesn’t mean they hatched. However, I did find evidence of some Real collusion, not only hatched, but boiled, fried and scrambled…
http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/news-anchor-uncovers-definite-evidence-of-15878909/
Nancy can serve them at her party!
Tell me, does One America Network make corrections when their reporting is false, wrong or incorrect? The New York Times does. So does MSNBC.
How I wish Trump would correct/apologize for his toxic, ignorant tweets to London’s Mayor Khan. How I wish someone would take Trump’s toys away from him.
Some thoughts:
Think about this…we are concerned about the future hypothetical catastrophic-only climate scenarios based on estimated climate sensitivity derived from imperfect computer models. Imperfect because it impossible to calculate all the given variables of everything on earth.
We then use these scenarios to push policies that are designed to potentially fix the potential catastrophic-only future scenarios by, in part, using money from the rich developed nations to develop the poor undeveloped nations that we are told will be affected by the future scenarios the most.
The United Nations Millennium Development Goals (recently renamed The Sustainable Development Goals) estimate they need 1.4 Trillion dollars to achieve their goals. This, by the way, is the same United Nations that founded the IPCC….considered to be the Bible when it come to climate change.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/nov/18/14tn-dollars-a-year-needed-to-reach-global-goals-for-world-poorest
Which all leads me to some questions:
1. When we talk about development on a global scale, how much more CO2 will be emitted in both the short and long run when you consider the massive increases in construction, manufacturing, transportation, shipping, use of the earths resources and consumption?
Does anyone have this number? I can’t seem to find it…
2. The global average temperature (GAT) has increased .8C over the last 140 years, Does anyone know what percent of this number is known to be a direct result of man?
Does anyone have this number?I can’t seem to find it..
3. Is the GAT based on temperatures at sea level? 10 feet off the ground? 500 feet off the ground? 1000?
And I could ask the same about average ocean temperatures….at what depth? Argo floats have not been in place long enough to depict a trend. (30 years is what scientists tell us)
4. Finally, I would like to ask about the “97% Consensus”. It is thrown around a lot as a way to end debate, but I find this to be a little odd for a few reasons.
If you go to the NASA web page under ” Scientific Consensus”, you will see one of their references is the “Doran and Zimmerman” paper. I find it odd that in this paper they base their 97% consensus on only 76 scientist.
From the paper:
“In our survey,the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/testfolder/aa-migration-to-be-deleted/assets-delete-me/documents-delete-me/ssi-delete-me/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf
The questions being…
1. When compared with pre-1800s
levels,
do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant
contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?
So last question:
Is it misleading to use this paper as a reference?
Also note that when they use the 97% number, they are talking about a consensus on whether or not the GAT has risen and whether man has played a part……NOT on how much man has played a part or what the future consequences are.
Answer your own questions yourself after a visit to the Arctic.
No problem Nancy, I didn’t expect you to answer the questions…
Tell you what, I’ll go to the Arctic and you go to Antarctica.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses.
Call me when you get there.
Keep in mind that the Arctic ice is floating on an ocean whereas the Antarctic Ice sheet is on land….
Maybe you take Antarctica, Bob. I’m actually booked to visit the Arctic later this year… I’ll take notes and photos and report back.
Right, no reason for you to go to Antarctica….it’s not a story
I wonder what the CO2 footprint is for a trip to the Arctic?.
I knew you would ask that! No worries, it isn’t a Disney cruise.
Will you be traveling using Solar or Wind?
And what’s the point in going to the Arctic?….since climate change is global, you can stay here and take notes and pictures!
C’mon, think of the polar bears!
By the way, just for the record, the population of Polar Bears has risen since 2005.
https://polarbearscience.com/2017/04/12/global-polar-bear-population-size-is-about-28500-when-updates-are-included/
Visiting the communities. Yes, people do live there. Surprise!
Dress warm…
The MMGW cult confuses correlation with causation. When you ask for the tests for causation their eyes glaze over.
What do you think the over/under is before Dan shuts down this thread?
Nobody has claimed or is claiming that global warming is “man made”.
Do you dispute that global warming is real, serious and that human activity is a significant factor in that process? Or do you agree with Trump that it is a Chinese hoax?
What do you think the over/under is that Micheal will answer either question?
You are a bit confused. If no one is claiming that global warming is man made, then what is the point of your question? Do you want me to be the only person to claim global warming is man made?
?’s Maybe, no, maybe. To establish whether of not human activity is a “significant” factor, one would need to test for causality; I can find no such tests offered by the MMGW cult.
Michael – You inserted “MMGW” aka man made global warming into the conversation, not me. The vast majority of scientists have concluded that GW is real and that human activity is a CONTRIBUTING factor, not the sole cause.
Just to clarify your “answers” for those playing along at home, it appears to be your view that you are uncertain about the reality of GW, that you do not believe human activity is a factor in in GW and that haven’t ruled out that it is a Chinese hoax. Feel free to clarify.
Russell that’s four questions. I answered three. Science is not done by consensus, if it were neutrinos would still have no mass.
well, you answered 3 out 4 questions. Now we’re making some progress! But we’re still not sure which of your maybe’s and no’s applied to which question and why you didn’t answer all four.
Gee Mike, you’re really making progress. That’s right, the science itself isn’t done by consensus. The consensus comes at the conclusion of decades of observation, experimentation, analysis and the results have been shown to to correct in repeated tests. That is the essence of the scientific method. I’m sure you know all about neutrinos.
Well, I do indeed claim that global warming is man made, that the entire industrialized world is responsible. Simple.
Take that up with Russell. You can claim whatever you want. It makes no difference to me, but Russell is keeping score.
But Michael, we never get to hear your opinion, only non opinions.
What, if anything, do you care about (besides not paying taxes)?
The only score that’s being kept is your ongoing refusal to answer any questions. Such as, what taxes, if any, do you believe citizens should pay?
You both have not been paying attention. I did answer three of your questions. Nancy’s question are incoherent, as are most of yours.
Method to your madness. Dan will certainly end the thread before you have the chance to reply to questions. No?
You didn’t answer all four and who knows which of your cryptic “answers” applied to which questions. Talk about incoherent.
Yes, it’s all so simple.
Then tell me Nancy, what percent of the .8C rise in GAT over the past 140 years do you feel man is responsible for? And where did you get the information that backs your answer to this question?
Every picture tells a story: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/
Check out all the action after 1950.
Correlation is not causation. Nice try though.
Yeah, why don’t you straighten out NASA in your spare time cause they obviously don’t know as much about science as you do. You’re your own Irwin Corey.
It’s math Russell it’s not science.
actually mike, it’s both.
What is your point?
Earlier you stated – “The vast majority of scientists have concluded that GW is real and that human activity is a CONTRIBUTING factor, not the sole cause.”
How much of a contributing factor?
Don’t you think it is an important question?
Yes, that is an important question. Who said it wasn’t?
Well, I doubt any other creature than man is responsible for our planet’s warming. I’ll ask my dog.
Cop out.
And apparently you have never read up on cow flatulence.
Global Warming is a dirty business.
Bring on the cows, and lose that dirty emission known as coal.
Why do you deny the science?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
Denying the deadly effect from coal is unconscionable.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
Maybe you should google more Nancy.
And maybe Google shouldn’t be your source of education. Funny.
So very funny, JBHart.
It isn’t. That was for you to get a start on knowing a little more about the causes. Like HFC 24, Methane from decaying biomass etc.
I guess you don’t have the ability to admit you may not be the sage of all things. BTW. are you buying voluntary carbon offsets for your trip to the Arctic? Practice what your preach
Thanks. Your concerns are understood.
This thread has run its course. Comments are closed.