https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nce-reaction/#link-UGT7VT3DLFDJBMNR4HPNUOO6B4 5 min ago Influential climate group calls on Biden to ‘pass the torch’ By Maxine Joselow Reporter focusing on climate change and environment The Sunrise Movement, an influential youth-led climate group, called Friday for President Biden to step aside to save his climate legacy. Sunrise is the first major environmental group to publicly urge Biden to drop his reelection bid. The decision by Sunrise, which played a key role in rallying support for Biden’s signature 2022 climate law, was first reported by the New York Times. “Joe Biden’s next climate legacy-defining act must be to pass the torch to a new nominee,” Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director the Sunrise Movement, said in a statement. “Another Trump Presidency would cause catastrophic and irreversible damage to our climate,” she said, adding, “After speaking with young people around the country over the last few weeks, I’m concerned that Joe Biden isn’t positioned to mobilize young people and win in November.” Asked for comment, Seth Schuster, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said Biden has done more to tackle climate change than any other president. “He’s proud to have passed the most significant climate legislation in American history during his first term, and will ensure we continue the essential work to save our planet by defeating climate-denier-in-chief Donald Trump this November," Schuster said. Other big environmental groups, including the League of Conservation Voters and Climate Power, have continued to back Biden since his dismal debate performance on June 27.
part 3 https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/its-later-than-you-think excerpt: First, we were surprised at the results. The shortest emergence timescale was 120 years and the longest was 550 years (at 95% confidence, subtract 40 years for 90%). In other words, if we were to take the projections of Bender et al. 2010 as true — of an 81% increase in Category 4 and 5 storms to 2100 — then it would take more than 200 years to meet the threshold of detection under the IPCC framework for detection and attribution. Second, not all individual models in our study projected increasing intense hurricanes. Two of the four individual models projected decreases, and detection of decreases also takes a very long time. In either case the large emergence timescales result from the projected changes being relatively small in comparison to documented variability. Third, for the smallest change (under the HadCM3 model), the emergence timescale is more than 500 years. Note that change — a decrease in damage potential of 9% — is much smaller than the other model projections, and smaller projected changes imply longer emergence timescales. The IPCC AR6 projection of a 1% or no decrease in the global incidence of Category 4 and 5 storms would never be detectable in observational data. Our results were apparently also a surprise to the broader community. Kerry Emanuel, of MIT, replicated our study by utilizing a set of four different climate model projections for future hurricane incidence from his research (Emanuel et al. 2008). These models projected much larger future changes than did Bender et al. 2010. Even so, Emanuel 2011 confirmed our results, finding from only one model a timescale of emergence of less than 100 years (the values for the four models are 40, 113, 170, and >200 years). more at the link
We Don't Need No Stinking Science Climate Fueled Extreme Weather, Part 4 https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/we-dont-need-no-stinking-science excerpt: Everyone knows that in recent years climate change has fueled floods, storms, and drought, making them much more common and intense. For instance, a 2023 Pew Research poll found that 84% of Americans believed that climate change had contributed to worsening floods, storms, or drought in their local communities. The widespread public belief in climate change as a cause of the weather events that we experience and see on social media is nowadays conventional wisdom. It is a fact so obvious that it barely needs to be supported at all. As renowned climate scientist Michael Mann explains, the detection of climate change is as simple as “turn on the television, read the newspaper or look out the window to see what is increasingly obvious to many.” Given these apparently undeniable realities we might wonder why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) spends so much time and effort on assessing the science of the detection and attribution of changes in climate. Well, for the IPCC at least, science still matters. Given widespread popular beliefs and media-friendly experts willing to cater to those beliefs, many are surprised, shocked even, to learn that the IPCC has arrived at conclusions on extreme events and climate change that are completely at odds with conventional wisdom and popular opinion. According to the IPCC, we cannot in fact simply “look out the widow” and observe climate change — even for video-friendly hurricanes, floods, and drought. In fact, the IPCC currently concludes that we will not this century be able to detect with high confidence changes in the statistics of most weather events beyond internal variability — and this holds even if the world were to follow a projected implausible RCP8.5 future. The massive gap between public and media opinion and the state of scientific understandings of trends in extreme events is as large as any I’ve encountered on any topic over the past 30 years.1 The fact that this gap is encouraged and reinforced by many who profess climate expertise makes this issue truly unique among issues where science meets policy and politics. Let’s take a look at the details. more at the link
I guess if we can't make a knives out type of cartoon for this nasty betrayal, we could show these kids feeding Biden into a churning windmill?
The ignorance and climate change denial in here is mind-blowing. These jokers think they are climate scientists, and will deny climate change is happening until their death. Funny how most are the same folks who defend the pathological liar running for President in the GOP, and the far right radical anti-science extremists.
Ever one throwing their middle finger to science has one thing in common. Right wing extremism and ignorance.
Part Five It's All About the Base(line) Climate fueled extreme weather, Part 5 https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/its-all-about-the-baseline excerpt: The IPCC explains that the effects of successful mitigation policy would first be detected in carbon dioxide concentrations, then decades later in average global temperatures, and for other variables not until later this century, at best: Among global quantities, emergence of the response to differing CO2 emissions – representing differences between low- and high-emissions scenarios – is first expected to arise in global mean CO2 concentrations, about 10 years after emissions pathways have started diverging . . . Taking internal variability explicitly into account, Tebaldi and Friedlingstein (2013)and Samset et al. (2020) found emergence of mitigation benefits in GSAT [global surface air temperature] changes about 25–30 years after RCP2.6 emissions diverge from the higher-emissions trajectories in RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 . . . . . . the response of many other climate quantities to mitigation would be largely masked by internal variability during the near term, especially on the regional scale (high confidence). The mitigation benefits for these quantities would emerge only later during the 21st century (high confidence). In plain English this means that the effects of climate mitigation policies on the weather you experience in your lifetime would not be detectable, even if you are born in 2024. This explains why for most variables associated with extreme events the IPCC’s projection of the “time of emergence” of a climate change or climate mitigation signal is so far into the future. None of this means that human-caused climate change is not real or important. What it does mean is that those politicians, scientists, and journalists who are promising to stop or slow down extreme weather and its impacts through energy policy are peddling misinformation. more at the link
In the Hangout thread about Houston House Prototype another poster noted that another insurance company is pulling out of FL for coverage for mobile homes. We are seeing insurance companies making market decisions in regard to a changing climate based on their own profitability. Climate change isn't some Marxists attack on Capitalism but industries are making capitalistic decisions based on climate.
LIES! No one is pulling out of Florida because of climate change. It's socialist Biden policies that are scaring them away. When Trump is president, he will prevent Hurricanes from coming to Florida and insurance will return giving the BEST rates to Floridians. you will see!
This is the problem with using twitter as your education source. You're totally being manipulated and probably don't care so maybe it's what you want. For the rest. 1. Antarctica HAS warmed the last 70 years, significantly in fact. So scientists don't struggle at all, because any climate scientist worth their boots knows this. 2. Antarctica does warm less than the Arctic because....real shocker - the Antarctica doesn't have a gulf stream pumping warmer water around its ice. And...it's higher elevation too!
How many times do people have to call out the lies in these twitter posts before you stop posting them?
