Phil1111 1,149 #151 March 16, 2017 brenthutch********* Meanwhile both arctic and antarctic sea ice are at record low levels for the season. OMG all of that melting sea ice will surely seal the fate of coastal communities across the globe!!! Hair on fire, hair on fire. It hasn't been this awful since 1928! If you say so. I'd be more concerned about the melting glaciers, since they actually do affect sea level. From your article "In November, sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic was at record low levels for this time of year due to climate change. The more the ice melts, the higher global sea levels will rise." As we all (should) know, sea ice has no impact on sea levels. Knowing your scientific world view is informed by CNN explains a lot. I suppose you subscribe to USA Today as well. I know its tough for scientists with a degree from bannon U to wrap their minds around earth sciences. But: "“That may not sound like a lot, but consider the volume of ice now locked up in the planet’s three greatest ice sheets,” she writes in a recent issue of Scientific American. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to disappear, sea level would rise almost 19 feet; the ice in the Greenland ice sheet could add 24 feet to that; and the East Antarctic ice sheet could add yet another 170 feet to the level of the world’s oceans: more than 213 feet in all.” Bell underscores the severity of the situation by pointing out that the 150-foot tall Statue of Liberty could be completely submerged within a matter of decades." “That may not sound like a lot, but consider the volume of ice now locked up in the planet’s three greatest ice sheets,” she writes in a recent issue of Scientific American. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to disappear, sea level would rise almost 19 feet; the ice in the Greenland ice sheet could add 24 feet to that; and the East Antarctic ice sheet could add yet another 170 feet to the level of the world’s oceans: more than 213 feet in all.” Bell underscores the severity of the situation by pointing out that the 150-foot tall Statue of Liberty could be completely submerged within a matter of decades. [url]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-ice-melts-cause-rising-sea/ "What the World Would Look Like if All the Ice Melted If we keep burning fossil fuels indefinitely, global warming will eventually melt all the ice at the poles and on mountaintops, raising sea level by 216 feet. Explore what the world’s new coastlines would look like." http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/ LOOK BRENT.... A Friend!! VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV "Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is accusing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of releasing "propaganda" that is "brainwashing our kids." http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/324252-gop-sen-epa-brainwashing-our-kids Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #152 March 16, 2017 nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/12/arctic-and-antarctic-at-record-low-levels/ Record low levels in both the Arctic and Antarctic.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,534 #153 March 16, 2017 As long as the middle of America doesn't have - coral - glaciers - ocean flooding Etc It won't matter, some people won't give a flying fuck as long as something doesn't impact them directly. Unless, of course, it's about women in the military, or LGBT, or Islam. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,149 #154 March 16, 2017 "Today’s target is a big one: the fuel economy standards for cars and light trucks. In 2011, the Obama administration began crafting sweeping new rules that would steadily increase the efficiency of US passenger vehicles through 2025. By the final year, the Environmental Protection Agency expects new cars and light trucks sold in the US to average roughly 36 miles per gallon on the road, up from 25 mpg today..... Except there’s a major twist here. Technically, if the federal government goes too far in weakening Obama’s fuel economy standards, California has a waiver under the Clean Air Act allowing the state to maintain its own, stricter car rules that other states can adopt — a messy possibility that automakers hate. On top of that, California has a waiver for a program pushing automakers to sell more “zero-emissions vehicles” (mainly electric cars). New York and eight other states have also adopted this ZEV mandate, and it’s a major impetus for US electric car sales. In the months ahead, Trump could conceivably ask EPA head Scott Pruitt to look into rescinding California’s waivers if the state won’t play along. This isn’t part of today’s announcement, and it’s wildly unclear if the courts would even allow this, but Trump’s reportedly mulling such a step" http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/3/15/14828070/trump-fuel-economy-standards Oh well Ohio and Alabama rednecks will be able to buy big wheel trucks that get crappy mileage fueled by fracked oil. Tillerson will be happy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #155 March 16, 2017 Phil1111 Oh well Ohio and Alabama rednecks will be able to buy big wheel trucks that get crappy mileage fueled by fracked oil. Tillerson will be happy. Ahhh Most people who can think for themselves will be happy. I love my Duramax truck"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
evh 22 #156 March 16, 2017 Phil1111 In 2011, the Obama administration began crafting sweeping new rules that would steadily increase the efficiency of US passenger vehicles through 2025. By the final year, the Environmental Protection Agency expects new cars and light trucks sold in the US to average roughly 36 miles per gallon on the road, up from 25 mpg today..... Amazing.... how the hell can this be seen as a problem??? My old car easily manages 40 mpg.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #157 March 16, 2017 "The budget blueprint, released on Thursday, provides $5.7 billion for the EPA, down from $8.3 billion. The budget “discontinues” $100 million in funding for several climate change programs within the agency, including enforcement for a major Obama-era climate regulation, climate change research and international climate change support." It is going to be hard for busybody bureaucrats to regulate mud puddles on private property with no money!#WINNING! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonnyblu 0 #158 March 16, 2017 evh*** In 2011, the Obama administration began crafting sweeping new rules that would steadily increase the efficiency of US passenger vehicles through 2025. By the final year, the Environmental Protection Agency expects new cars and light trucks sold in the US to average roughly 36 miles per gallon on the road, up from 25 mpg today..... Amazing.... how the hell can this be seen as a problem??? My old car easily manages 40 mpg.... Simple. Lower gas mileage = more gas for them = more profit for me. Capitalistic life is simple when you don't have to think about anybody or anything else other than that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #159 March 16, 2017 brenthutch "The budget blueprint, released on Thursday, provides $5.7 billion for the EPA, down from $8.3 billion. The budget “discontinues” $100 million in funding for several climate change programs within the agency, including enforcement for a major Obama-era climate regulation, climate change research and international climate change support." It is going to be hard for busybody bureaucrats to regulate mud puddles on private property with no money!#WINNING! Also calls for the privatization of Air Traffic Control. Eliminates Sea Grant program. no more subsidies for flights to rural airports no more funding for PBS and NPR Eliminates National Endowment for the Arts Eliminates National Endowment for the Humanities Eliminates funding for National Historic Sites. Just so you can spend more on bombs and walls. Yup #WINNING Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #160 March 16, 2017 Who should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual should have the freedom to choose. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #161 March 16, 2017 brenthutchWho should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual should have the freedom to choose. Why, was there secret legislation that banned F150s? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #162 March 16, 2017 brenthutchWho should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual should have the freedom to choose. And I want my carburetor back! So called "Land of the Free"!"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #163 March 16, 2017 SkyDekker ***"The budget blueprint, released on Thursday, provides $5.7 billion for the EPA, down from $8.3 billion. The budget “discontinues” $100 million in funding for several climate change programs within the agency, including enforcement for a major Obama-era climate regulation, climate change research and international climate change support." It is going to be hard for busybody bureaucrats to regulate mud puddles on private property with no money!#WINNING! Also calls for the privatization of Air Traffic Control. Eliminates Sea Grant program. no more subsidies for flights to rural airports no more funding for PBS and NPR Eliminates National Endowment for the Arts Eliminates National Endowment for the Humanities Eliminates funding for National Historic Sites. Just so you can spend more on bombs and walls. Yup #WINNING I am in favor of large cuts to the Pentagon as well. The greatest threat to the U.S. is not global warming or ISIS, it is our debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #164 March 16, 2017 Not sure then why you are applauding a budget that doesn't cut the debt, but increases it and directs funding away from research to bombs and walls? And then call that #WINNING. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #165 March 16, 2017 brenthutch ******"The budget blueprint, released on Thursday, provides $5.7 billion for the EPA, down from $8.3 billion. The budget “discontinues” $100 million in funding for several climate change programs within the agency, including enforcement for a major Obama-era climate regulation, climate change research and international climate change support." It is going to be hard for busybody bureaucrats to regulate mud puddles on private property with no money!#WINNING! Also calls for the privatization of Air Traffic Control. Eliminates Sea Grant program. no more subsidies for flights to rural airports no more funding for PBS and NPR Eliminates National Endowment for the Arts Eliminates National Endowment for the Humanities Eliminates funding for National Historic Sites. Just so you can spend more on bombs and walls. Yup #WINNING I am in favor of large cuts to the Pentagon as well. The greatest threat to the U.S. is not global warming or ISIS, it is our debt. Trump's campaign promise (ROFL) was to eliminate the DEBT in 8 years. Not the deficit, the DEBT. His first year's budget increases the debt, so he's given himself a bigger debt to eliminate in the next seven. I will be interested to see how that goes,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sonnyblu 0 #166 March 16, 2017 brenthutchWho should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual should have the freedom to choose. I don't have a problem with that, However: 2017 Ford F-150 Up to 19 city / 26 highway - $26,730 2017 Ford Taurus Up to 20 city / 29 highway - $27,345 Something just doesn't seem right about that. . . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 235 #167 March 16, 2017 sonnyblu***Who should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual should have the freedom to choose. I don't have a problem with that, However: 2017 Ford F-150 Up to 19 city / 26 highway - $26,730 2017 Ford Taurus Up to 20 city / 29 highway - $27,345 Something just doesn't seem right about that. . . I had a 1996 Saturn that got 39 mpg highway. The 2017 Ford Fusion Hybrid gets 41 mpg. Not sure I'd call that 20 years of improvement."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #168 March 16, 2017 >Who should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual >should have the freedom to choose. Absolutely. And CAFE rules give you that choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #169 March 16, 2017 kallend Trump's campaign promise (ROFL) was to eliminate the DEBT in 8 years. Not the deficit, the DEBT. His first year's budget increases the debt, so he's given himself a bigger debt to eliminate in the next seven. I will be interested to see how that goes, He is probably planning to "eliminate the debt" the same way he eliminated the debt from his casinos."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #170 March 16, 2017 billvon>Who should decide whether I drive a F-150 or a Prius. I believe the individual >should have the freedom to choose. Absolutely. And CAFE rules give you that choice. I don't need the government's help, I can decide for myself. http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/death_by_cafe_standards.html "The new regulations did accomplish one thing -- they killed drivers and passengers in large numbers. By lightening cars and removing material, auto companies were inadvertently discarding the armor that protected motorists in the event of a crash. Similarly, the compressed new models lacked space for impact forces to attenuate before causing damage and injury. Drivers in lightweight cars were as much as twelve times more likely to die in a crash." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #171 March 16, 2017 From that same article we get this absolute gem: Quote The new standards had no success in lowering fuel consumption. Quite the contrary -- since it now cost less to fill the tank, people drove more. Say what? Better mileage made it cheaper to fill your tank? American Thinker indeed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #172 March 16, 2017 >I don't need the government's help, I can decide for myself. Yes you can! Fortunately, you (not the regulations) get to decide what you buy. CAFE puts the burden on the manufacturer, not the consumer. >"The new regulations did accomplish one thing -- they killed drivers and >passengers in large numbers." Lee Iacocca, 1972: "If the EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." Alan Loofborrow of Chrysler, 1975: CAFE will "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years." Ford, 1978: CAFE will result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..." So if you listen to such people, now Ford is shut down, only subcompact cars can be sold, Ford only makes cars smaller than the Pinto, and drivers are dying in droves due to fuel efficiency regulations. Reality: Deaths per million miles driven, 1960:5 2010:1.3 Total highway deaths, 1972: 54,589 2010: 32,788 Average fuel economy, 1975: 14/12mpg 2010: 33/24mpg (cars/light trucks) Today: IIHS's top category for safety (Top Safety Pick+) includes the Prius Prime and the Volt. The Mercury Grand Marquis (one of the largest cars on the road) had a fatality rate twice average, and the Chevy Surburan had a fatality rate more than twice average. So here in reality, cars are over twice as efficient and over three times as safe since CAFE regulations started - and fuel economy has nothing to do with it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #173 March 16, 2017 "But I have to pay more for that!" the same people exclaim. "I am paying for CAFE when I don't need it! People can't afford cars because of the stupid CAFE regulations." # cars per licensed driver in the US, 1970: 0.8 2010: 1.1 "Well, that's because they have to buy them. It's unfair for government to make me pay more!" Average cost: 1975 $22,522 2015 $25,449 "HA! See? I'm paying more for NOTHING!" Average car horsepower: 1975 128 2013 223 (almost 2x more) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #174 March 16, 2017 Shows you just how futile government distortion of the market is. Goal: use less fuel Outcome: use more fuel, kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #175 March 16, 2017 brenthutchShows you just how futile government distortion of the market is. Goal: use less fuel Outcome: use more fuel, kill people Uhm no, it shows that the author is an idiot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
