The Associated Press

Gov. Patrick Unveils $50M Climate Change Prep Plan

Gov. Deval Patrick speaks during a news conference on his $50 million plan to take on the challenges of climate change, in Boston on Tuesday. (Charles Krupa/AP)

Gov. Deval Patrick speaks during a news conference on his $50 million plan to take on the challenges of climate change, in Boston on Tuesday. (Charles Krupa/AP)

BOSTON — Gov. Deval Patrick took the wraps off a $50 million plan Tuesday that he says will help prepare Massachusetts for the challenges posed by climate change on public health, energy, transportation and basic infrastructure.

The initiatives, unveiled by the governor at the New England Aquarium, include a $40 million grant program by the Department of Energy Resources to help cities and towns to shore up protections around energy services.

Another $10 million will be spent on what Patrick called critical coastal infrastructure and dam repair. That includes $1 million in municipal grants to reduce or eliminate risk associated with coastal storms and sea level rise and another $1 million for “green infrastructure” projects like beach and dune enhancement and salt marsh retention.

“The question is not whether we need to act. We’re past that,” Patrick said. “The world’s climate is changing and human activity is contributing to that change. Massachusetts needs to be ready.”

Patrick said the proposal also requires the Department of Public Utilities to work with utilities to determine ways “to accelerate storm hardening and deploy micro-grids and resiliency projects” to assure the transmission and distribution of energy.

State Energy Secretary Rick Sullivan said recent storms and power outages “serve as a reminder that it is critical we secure our energy grid to endure more extreme weather patterns.”

Transportation is another focus of the plan, according to Patrick, who was joined at the news conference by Boston Mayor Martin Walsh.

The proposal calls on the Massachusetts Department of Transportation to conduct a “statewide vulnerability assessment” for all of its facilities and adopt climate adaptation plans by 2015.

The Department of Conservation and Recreation, which operates a number of historic parkways, will conduct a separate assessment to see which of its roadways are vulnerable to flooding and sea level rise.

Patrick said his plan will also help the state prepare for the effects of climate change on health, including the infrastructure needed to protect drinking water and guard against the possible spread of disease.

The plan also calls for the appointment of a state climatologist and a single online “portal” for state resources on climate preparedness.

All but about $2 million of the plan will be paid with existing funds, officials said.

The $40 million municipal grant program will be covered by payments into a fund by electric retail suppliers who have insufficient renewable or alternative energy certificates to meet their obligations under the state’ renewable energy initiative.

The $2 million not covered by existing funds will be included in Patrick’s budget proposal for the 2015 fiscal year.

Administration officials say Massachusetts is already feeling the effects of climate change, including five major storms since 2010, a significant rise in Eastern Equine Encephalitis in mosquitoes that led to aerial spraying in 2012, and the 2013 closure of oyster bed for the first time in state history because of vibrio parahaemolyticus.

Patrick said the overall goal of the proposal is to acknowledge that climate change is already occurring.

“We’re taking this out of emergency response and putting it into how we plan for the future,” he said.

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on wbur.org.
  • Vandermeer

    Sorry to say that climate change is not addressed in the Commonwealth’s Science k-12 curriculum. IT SHOULD BE!

    • Jerry Bean

      What kind of person are you wanting to indoctrinate small children that are not yours to do so. Nazi’s did that sort of thing.

      • shawkins57

        It’s called “science”.

        • Jerry Bean

          No it is a politically made up non event just like acid rain. Oh acid rain was fixed, because it never existed.

          • Jack Wolf

            Unlike acid rain and the green house effect, our thinking skills are non-existent.

          • Jerry Bean

            Sorry to hear that Jack, get some rest.

          • shawkins57

            Where do you get this “information”? What makes you think that we can spew tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) into the atmosphere and have no impact?

      • dust truck

        you know who else wants to indoctrinate small children? Christian Fundamentalists.

        • Jerry Bean

          Shame on them.

      • Jack Wolf

        And what kind of person are you for sentences those small children a future hell on earth?

        • Jerry Bean

          Wow! Your mentally ill sorry for upsetting you.

  • Jerry Bean

    Mass. should vote this guy out spending 40 million on a non existing problem.
    Record cold winters, Antarctica 50% more ice than normal, just ask the climate change people in the expedition that got stuck in the ice.

    • shawkins57

      Weather is what is happening outside right now or in a given season; today there is a
      snowstorm, or we are having a cold winter. Climate
      is the pattern of weather measured over decades–usually periods of thirty years. Sea ice in Antarctica is increasing by about 1.5% per decade: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2012-355. On the other hand, Arctic sea ice is declining by about 11.5% per decade, and the ice sheets in both Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass. Furthermore, ocean temps are rising, the ocean is becoming more acidic, and sea level is rising. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

      • Jerry Bean

        Keep believing this nonsense, I was living in Norwich England very near the UEA when climate gate happened. Scientist were caught by their emails admitting it was all not true. Professors were fired and a huge coverup began. I was there and you can try to deny it but I lived there and know all about it.

        • Jack Wolf

          Then why didn’t you know that 5 or 6 independent investigations found no wrong doing, and that their evidence was sound?

          • Jerry Bean

            That was years later and the American public had very limited and false information. Remember I lived there.

          • zlop

            They were highly respected incompetent dunderheads?

          • Jack Wolf

            Why the name calling instead of facts to support your position? Out of evidence I guess.

          • zlop

            “5 or 6 independent investigations found no wrong doing”
            Similar to poisoning a well, Not wrong to corrupt data?
            Implication of the fraud are Immense,
            $80 Trillion Carbon Disclosure Project, for example.

            Remember that we are dealing with an international criminal organization, which enforces through assassination.
            “The Capstone That Killed JFK”

        • shawkins57

          NOBODY was fired. 8 separate committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. PERIOD. You merely believe what you want to believe.

          • Jerry Bean

            I was there at the UEA and they got fired. Do you know the area? Give me a land mark.

        • shawkins57

          It is very hard to have a conversation with someone who cannot think for himself.

          • Jerry Bean

            You’ve already lost your argument when yo have to put someone down. I would love to have say that to my face.

        • zlop

          Defending the $80 Trillion Carbon Disclosure Project, University of East Anglia, Nobly Conspired to adjust Global temperatures.

      • Jerry Bean

        Scientist get their funding to find particular results, if they get different results, guess what, no more funding. Britain’s two top scientist can on nations TV and said that global warming was created by politicians and that was two days after climate gate. They even had to change the name “global warming” to climate change, I wonder why.

        • shawkins57

          Not true! Are you merely parroting information you’ve read?? Do you know any climate scientists personally? All science works the same day, and grant funding is very hard to come by. NOBODY is getting rich off of climate science. Do you know any climate scientists personally? All science works the same day, and funding is very hard to come by. Are you saying that all science around the world is suspect? Please do some research. Somehow every major scientific institution is lying? I would like to see your proof.
          Climategate was the result of stolen emails. Here is the link to one of many reports that vindicate CRU: Here is one report of many: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf, and if you take a look at all of the review boards, you will see that nobody made up any data. Secondly, nobody changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change”. Both terms have been around for a long time. Climate change is the result of global warming. Secondly, nobody changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change”. Both terms have been around for a long time. Climate change is the result of global warming. Please provide your scientific data to prove your points. Saying it does not make it so.
          I have a master’s degree and work with hundreds of climate scientists. They are wonderful, honest people. One of my climate scientist friends actually takes ships out into the fjords around Scandinavia, Greenland, and around Antarctica to understand how the oceans are impacting melting. That is a very dangerous and unglamorous job. They are away from their families for weeks at a time. Others fly funny little places around the Arctic to understand CO2 and methane release. Others fly over Nepal, Colorado and the Sierras to understand snow pack and albedo. They are risking their lives and ARE NOT getting rich!

          • Jerry Bean

            Was that your friend stuck in the ice in Antarctica that should have been in open water in the summer time?

          • zlop

            Winds changed at both Poles. Unlike other regions,
            In the Antarctic the longest day is the warmest.
            (Air falls into the Antarctic Vortex and outlows)

          • shawkins57

            No Jerry, we do not expect open water in the summer. In fact, scientists have predicted increasing sea ice in Antarctica. Do you read any scientific information, or only conservative papers and blogs that are feeding you this stupid information?

          • Jerry Bean

            Just the way you write I’m sure you are no scientist.
            Liberals are great name callers and label people they disagree with. I saw your picture you are no scientist.

          • shawkins57

            Are scientists supposed to “look” a certain way?

          • Jerry Bean

            You’re not a scientist you are a writer that lies.

            You even say no one was fired at the UEA and I know they were, so why would you lie. I was actually living there.

          • shawkins57

            Who was fired? Please give me names. 8 separate investigations were performed and found no wrongdoing or manipulation of data. Living there doesn’t mean a thing.

          • Jerry Bean

            “Doesn’t mean a thing”?

            Really? Is that your scientific opinion.
            Three people were fired and I don’t remember the names as this is not a paid job for me to sway opinion like you.

          • shawkins57

            Oh Jerry, give me a break. Show me where you read that anyone was fired. As I mentioned several times, 8 separate entities investigated the emails and found that they were taken out of context.

          • Jerry Bean

            Tell me why it made news around the world and years to investigate? Only to find emails were taken out of context.
            LOL
            You do realize other people read these blogs?

          • shawkins57

            Follow the money, Jerry. Do some homework and follow it up. Yes, the eight investigations showed that the emails were taken out of context.

          • Jerry Bean

            It took 8 investigations? Does than seem a bit excessive for something as little as an email taken out of context?
            Like I said there was a huge cover up shortly after, I was there, I know.
            Your information comes from things you read? LOL

          • shawkins57

            Gotcha! It wasn’t ONE email. 1079 emails were stolen. I actually read the reports, did you?

          • Jerry Bean

            Too funny, what are you five.

            I was there, I wouldn’t trust reports that took years to make.
            That in itself is suspect.

          • shawkins57

            The first report came out three months after the emails were stolen. The second report came out four months after the “incident”.

          • Jerry Bean

            That’s a lie, Sorry.

          • shawkins57

            Prove it.

          • Jerry Bean

            I’m happy with what I know, I’m not trying to change your mind on anything, I know you are a paid writer.
            I was there, and the week it happened two of Britain’s top scientist came out on national Television and said global warming was created by politicians.They were on for a while
            taking questions and answering them. I’m sure you didn’t see that in the States. If you don’t believe I was there ask me specific thing about Norwich.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, I am not a paid writer. I happen to be home sick today, which is why I actually have the time to write.

          • Jerry Bean

            Wealthy people should be your real focus as they use more natural resources per person than poor and the middle class.
            Billionaire’s would be the individuals, per person, contributing most to your global warming.
            Yet you never say that and it is a fact.
            The Walton’s (Walmart) have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans.

          • shawkins57

            Yes, I am aware of that the Walton’s have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans. Corporate America is a huge problem, and sadly they now have control over the United States through unlimited campaign contributions to politicians. We definitely agree on this point. The middle class in the U.S. is shrinking.
            The U.S. should take the lead on carbon and other greenhouse gas reductions, however China is a larger carbon emitter than the U.S. China emits 23% of the world’s greenhouse gases, followed by the U.S. at 19%.

          • Jerry Bean

            I saw a show on TV that explained how carbon credits will be used and apparently it will give the big polluters a green card to pollute even more. They just buy the credits from other companies that don’t use all of their own credits.That gives them the ability to pollute even more.

            So, it is obvious you are representing the big corporations that want carbon credits, you’re like a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

          • shawkins57

            I agree completely that carbon credits are not a good solution. I never said that I supported carbon credits. In addition, I do not represent big corporations. In the meantime, please answer the question as to whether or not you looked closer into the UEA issue. Did you read beneath the surface?

          • Jerry Bean

            I didn’t read anything I was there, I was a contractor there I saw it every day. I was there. I was there.
            I was there. Your comprehension is very poor.

          • shawkins57

            Being there doesn’t mean a thing. Read the reports. I comprehend that you got the accusations and initial reports, but you refuse to follow through and read any of the reports or follow-up. There are plenty of stories in the media that later turn out to be untrue. Most people fail to do any research or follow up.

          • Jerry Bean

            If you believe being there doesn’t mean a thing, well there really is no hope for you at all.

            Just think if a fireman wasn’t at a fire, being there doesn’t mean a thing. LOL.

            Why do police officers always want to question witnesses, being there doesn’t mean a thing. LOL

            How ridiculous you are!

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, you are basically stating that there is no need for a court system. Anyone accused of a crime is guilty without having a fair trial.

            A fireman at the scene at the fire is there to put out the fire, but he can’t determine the cause — that requires an investigation. Police officers rarely make arrests at the scene of a crime; they take their time with investigations before making those decisions.

            You think I am ridiculous because I THINK, RESEARCH, INVESTIGATE, instead of making a snap determination without any time for thought. You need to be fed through a tube (TV) rather than thinking for yourself. If you were there at UEA that day, why did they clear everyone? Why is Phil Jones still there?

            Jerry, good luck to you. You refuse to answer any of my questions. Like others who deny anthropogenic global warming, you refuse to answer a single question. You have a pre-determined beliefs and refuse to do any investigation.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, think and read. I stated below that corporations are a big problem, and then you follow my statement by writing that it is obvious that I represent big corporations that want carbon credits! That makes no sense. We need to seriously reduce our greenhouse gas emissions–I don’t care how it is done. I care about the Earth (as biodiversity is being destroyed rapidly), poor nations that are already experiencing climate change, young people and future generations who will suffer from the worst consequences of a warming world.

          • shawkins57

            The question is, did you take a closer look to see who these scientists really were? Did you follow up beyond the initial accusations? Although I have sent you links to some of ther reports directly, here is the article from “The Guardian”. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/07/climategate-review-clears-scientists-dishonesty

          • Jerry Bean

            I followed the money on global warming right up to the UN.

          • shawkins57

            You have not shown one iota of proof regarding any of your accusations.

          • Jerry Bean

            There is an article for each side of the fence, it does not make them true. It’s like TV, you watch a show and someone catches a fish and it just happens to be a salt water species that was caught in a fresh water pond. What is true?
            It’s people like you trying to sway the masses with IPCC nonsense.

          • shawkins57

            Do you even know what the IPCC is or what it does? Do you know that the IPCC performs no research? It merely reports the research. Do you really think that every science paper, every science journal, every major scientific institution, and every major academic institution in the world is lying about climate change?

            There is no scientific evidence against climate change.

          • Jerry Bean

            There are plenty of articles debunking it as well.
            What is happening now is average Joe public is not believing it anymore. These con jobs have a 10 to 13 year life like acid rain.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, do you really believe that all of the pollutants were spew into the environment have no impact on Earth? Just think about it! Yes, there are plenty of “articles” in blogs, but they are not scientific articles. Many of these bloggers are paid by the oil, coal and gas industry or by conservative think tanks. You must read, “The Guardian”.

          • shawkins57

            Typo “we spew”

          • shawkins57
          • shawkins57

            English: “You’re not a scientist; you are a writer who lies.” Although I don’t lie, at least I use proper English and am well-educated.

          • Jerry Bean

            Too bad about being a decent human being, you just didn’t make the cut.
            Did you know liberalism is a form of mental illness?

          • shawkins57

            Oh sure, the fact that I am trying to educate the public on climate change proves that I am mentally ill. Nice try. Once again, it becomes automatic that some people who cannot think for themselves equate belief in climate science with being liberal.

          • Jerry Bean

            It’s obvious in your blogs, all of them.

            LIBERALISM = COMMUNISM

          • shawkins57

            You are completely delusional.

          • Jerry Bean

            I know, anyone can look you up and see what I see.

          • shawkins57

            Did you get this idea from Ann Coulter? She is a great example of of decent human being. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/12/17/Ann-Coulter-Liberalism-Is-an-Aspect-of-Mental-Illness

          • Jerry Bean

            No about three years back if you googled liberalism pages and pages of liberalism is a from of mental illness would come up.

            For a scientist you sure seem like a journalist.

          • shawkins57

            I am trying to control my laughter! Let me introduce you to Google Scholar, where you might start to look for real information on science and medicine, including mental illness. In the meantime, I just googled the word “gullibility”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gullibility

          • Jerry Bean

            Your like a copy cat monkey I write LOL and now your laughing. I wrote No once and then you write no several times……no wonder you believe in global warming, now that’s funny.LOL

          • shawkins57

            English, Jerry, English! This is gibberish!

          • Jerry Bean

            And you accused me of not thinking for myself..Oh the irony.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, “your” is possessive: example, your house, your car. You’re is the contraction for you are.

          • Jerry Bean

            Thanks.

          • shawkins57

            English: “You ever say no one was fired at the UEA, and I know there were; so why would you lie?

          • Jerry Bean

            I notice you change the amount of your posts to appear not to be a writer.

          • shawkins57

            Your comprehension is very poor. As I mentioned before, I was home sick for two days and now I am back at work. Read, Jerry, read. For the last time, I am not a writer. Writing is a part of all scientific work (proposals and papers), but I am not a professional writer.

          • Jerry Bean

            That is completely opposite of the actual reality that happened. All those climate scientist deliberately navigated in Antarctic waters that should have been solid ice.
            Now that is just absurd.

          • shawkins57

            The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1767.html
            http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n12/full/ngeo1627.html

          • Jerry Bean

            Why don’t you be honest this is about carbon credits. The way the new system will work is really more detrimental to the environment in the future.

          • zlop

            And when tour carbon credit runs out,
            you will be eco-sustainably recycled.

          • shawkins57

            Scientists do not care how carbon is reduced. Scientists do research and make it available to others to determine policy.

          • Jerry Bean

            Since funding is so hard to come by I’m sure scientist will be so honest even if they jeopardize potential funding.

          • zlop

            He who pays the Scientist, calls the Warming.

          • shawkins57

            WHAT???

          • Jerry Bean

            How much CO2 is released by the oceans?, you should know.

          • zlop

            “reservoir or pipe? do we need to treat the CO2 in air as a reservoir or as a pipe connecting all living things?”

          • shawkins57

            There is a satellite launching in July that should tell us that information.

          • Jerry Bean

            It’s 94% you should know that. What kind of scientist are you?

          • shawkins57

            No, Jerry, that is not correct. The ocean absorbs approximately 94% of the excess energy.

          • Jerry Bean
          • shawkins57

            Ball is tied to ExxonMobil — follow the money. Ball was a “scientific advisor” to the oil industry funded Friends of Science, an organization well known for its climate skepticism and politically charged attack ads. Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is also predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station, a climate denial website run by the PR firm DCI Group.

            Tin Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

          • shawkins57

            He is also tied to the Heartland Institute, a conservative think-tank funded by ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers.

          • Jerry Bean

            And your connected to George Soros as a climate spin writer.

          • shawkins57

            You are funny. Yes, George and I are close friends. He pays me millions of dollars to do this.

          • Jerry Bean

            If your a scientist then you must be well aware that earth has VERY stable temperatures and climates compared to any other planets we know of. The reason is…..OUR VAST AMOUNT OF WATER.

          • zlop

            Yes, water is a negative feedback.
            “Water Vapor Feedback – Is it positive or negative? – YouTube”

          • shawkins57

            Yes, that is true. However, that is changing. As the ocean absorbs over 93% of the excess energy, it expands. Sea level also rises due to the melting of ice sheets.

          • Jerry Bean

            If you really are a scientist then what you are doing is really an injustice to man kind. Science has really lost a lot of respect in the world as most people do not believe in the conspiracy of global warming, so now anything scientific is now suspect and you must be proud of that.
            You must know it is all about carbon credits.

          • zlop

            It is about legally binding Global Tyranny.

          • shawkins57

            Oh please, do you really think that any scientist would make a dime off of carbon credits? The only reason that scientists have lost respect is due to all the money ($1 billion per year) pumped into climate denial by oil, gas, coal companies, the Koch brothers, Heartland, and other conservative groups. Unfortunately, many people have fallen for all of the lies promoted by these organizations. These are many of the same people and groups that told us that tobacco was safe. These people, organizations and companies are the ones who are being unjust; the price that will be paid will be a collapse of the ocean ecosystem; disruption of agricultural patterns, a scramble for dwindling resources, and rising sea levels, which propel population shifts and require massive emergency spending as we try to react to the growing crises.
            You have bought every lie that these organizations want you to swallow – hook, line and sinker. The perfect fish.

          • Jerry Bean

            30,000 scientist sued Al Gore, even the owner of the weather channel.
            Everyone that disagrees with you is either stupid, a fish or some other name you can come up with. That sounds like the true behavior of a liberal liar not a scientist. So I’m sure you are a paid writer to spin global warming.

            If true, what are the real dangers of global warming? What would be the positive outcome of global warming? You are trying to tell everyone there is only negative consequences.
            Warming will probably open new land to farm, longer growing times for areas now farmed etc.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, that is not true.
            1. No lawsuit was ever filed.
            2. The 30,000 “scientists” are people with at least a Bachelors of Science in some field, including computer science and other non-research science degrees. They signed a petition back in 1998 saying that they did not believe in global warming. Many of them are dead now. None have agreed to be party to a lawsuit.
            3. John Coleman never owned the Weather Channel. He founded the Weather Channel and is no longer affiliated with it.

          • Jerry Bean

            Your replies are contradictory and everyone can read it.

          • shawkins57

            Correct English: “Your replies are contradictory, and everyone can read them.” Which replies are contradictory?

          • Jerry Bean

            You’ve lost you argument, I never said I was a writer.
            You said you were a scientist, at least I’m honest.
            My children can look at me and say “dad is a honest good man and never wavered from his moral principles”

            Can’t imagine what your poor children have to look up to.
            Such a sad, sad thing for a father.

          • shawkins57

            Just wait until your children suffer from the impacts of climate change and know that their father was fighting against any positive action!

          • Jerry Bean

            Ha Ha That’s funny. There is no proof of global warming and the climate is always changing. Remember I was living in Norwich when the scientist were caught red handed.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, show me the proof that there is no global warming and that scientists were fired. I want proof.

          • shawkins57

            Agriculture
            Positive: It is possible that higher latitudes may become productive with global warming, however the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth.
            Negative: Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal variation, which is already occurring, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact the welfare of domestic livestock and the ability to grow crops. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail.
            Health
            Positive: Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups.
            Negative: These groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deaths attributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately 5X as great as winter deaths prevented. Warmer climates will also promote the migration of insects like mosquitoes, and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.
            Polar Melting
            Positive: An ice- free Arctic passage would allow some commercial benefits.
            Negatives: The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat will cause the ocean to absorb more heat. Also, as the Arctic warms, the permafrost melts, which will release methane, a very potent greenhouse gas. Melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets will add further to sea-level rise.
            Ocean Acidification
            No positive, all negative: additional CO2 being absorbed in the water will destabilize the entire oceanic food-chain.
            Melting Glaciers
            No positive, all negative: Approximately one-sixth of the world’s population depends on fresh water supplied by glacial melting –drinking water in these regions will become scarce.
            Sea Level Rise
            No positive, all negative: low-lying areas will be impacted. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater inundation will also contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers will become polluted with salt water.
            Environmental
            Positive: It is possible that rainforests will become greener in the Amazon, and vegetation may increase in northern latitudes.
            Negative: increased oxygen-poor zones in the ocean, contamination of fresh water, increased fires, vegetation die-off due to droughts, increased risk of coral extinction due to bleaching, decline in global photoplankton, also impacting the ocean food web. We are already seeing changes in migration patterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity,and disruption to food chains and species loss.
            Economic
            All negative, no positive: Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP.
            The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global GDP.

          • Jerry Bean

            Wow if you believe all that you believe anything.

          • shawkins57

            Please rewrite in English, Jerry; you make no sense.

          • Jerry Bean

            For a writer you need to improve your English as well.

          • shawkins57

            Jerry, I am not a writer, but I do use correct English.

          • Jerry Bean

            Not always , maybe you should go back and edit some of your mistakes.
            Einstein never finished college yet he was a genius, Unless you disagree of course. LOL

    • Jack Wolf

      Your powers of observation is short sighted at best.

      • Jerry Bean

        Thank you and have some rest.

    • zlop

      Global Warming Professors are not infallible.

    • Jack Wolf

      That Antarctic ice growth is from a change in the winds and the freshening of the water. Fresh water freezes before salt water, and it’s freshening because of ice melt due to the greenhouse effect.

  • ReduceGHGs

    Here’s an amazing article that shows just how strong the consensus is.
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/01/14/climate_change_another_study_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

    The consequences of a warming earth are not good. Consider raising sea levels that will inundate low lying areas, stronger storms, reduced fresh water supplies, ocean acidification, and much more.
    More of us need to get involved. Apathy only advocates more of the same destructive behaviors.
    http://www.ExhaustingHabitability.com

    • Jerry Bean

      So the very wealthy people are the root of the problem as they use more natural resources than everyone else. Wouldn’t you agree?

      • ReduceGHGs

        No, I do not agree. For an idea of the “root” of the problem I suggest an interesting film… I Am It’s a documentary by Tom Shadyac.

        • Jerry Bean

          So you disagree to facts.

          • ReduceGHGs

            The wealthy are not the “root” of the problem. You may think they are and label that belief a “fact” but that doesn’t make it so.

          • Jerry Bean

            It is not disputable. How is it not a fact?

          • Jerry Bean

            How is it not a fact?

            I can’t wait to hear your theory. LOL

          • ReduceGHGs

            Maybe you didn’t take econ in college. That would have helped. No room to teach you the basics here, and it is basic economics. But again I suggest the I Am documentary.

          • Jerry Bean

            I knew you could never make up something to counter fact, it would never be believable.

    • zlop

      According to ExhaustingHabitability — “biosphere’s sustainable human carrying capacity may not be much greater than 2 to 3 billion”

      At the Club of Rome conference, a Russian scientist estimated,
      with the technology of 1970, 35 Billion cold be supported.

      “Robert Zubrin on Agenda 21, Loss of Freedom and Population Control – YouTube” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYMYDsGF8hs

      • ReduceGHGs

        In the long run, that 2 or 3 billion number may be right. The 9 billion we’ll reach soon has it’s foundation on fossil fuels. This will end one way or the other. Will tech save us so we aren’t forced to reduce our numbers? We’ll see but it’s not something to bet on.

        Agenda 21 parnoia…. silly. I have no time for conspiracy nuts.

        • zlop

          “I have no time for conspiracy nuts” !
          Then pay attention to Conspiracy Facts.
          Be victimized by Noble Deception conspirators?

        • Jerry Bean

          He is a doctor and you call him a nut.

          • ReduceGHGs

            For all I know you could be him and/or his (your) profession could be posting nonsense, parroting propaganda to raise public doubt where no reasonable scientific doubt exists.

            Yes, there are many “nuts” that babble on about global conspiracy theories. And by the way, some doctors are nuts. It isn’t a license that shields them from mental illness.

          • Jerry Bean

            The big push is to try and convince people global warming is a problem, it’s on every media outlet almost everyday.
            The doubt exists more and more each day especially when record cold temperatures occur.
            You are the propaganda monger, your blogs show it clearly.

            Still waiting for your theory why wealthy people do not use more natural resources than the poor and middle class, per person.

          • ReduceGHGs

            “big push”… the distribution of information that people need to know

            It is broadcast widely and often because the threat is very real and it affects people globally for generations.

            Cold weather events don’t translate to anything but cold weather events. Very different from climate.

          • Jerry Bean

            Not one word of that was true.

          • ReduceGHGs

            so weather events ARE climate? What tha?

            Maybe jerry bean is drinking too much jim beam! Now that a Japanese billionaire owns it will it leave a bitter taste?

          • Jerry Bean

            Notice you always attack the person when your argument isn’t true, so typical.

          • ReduceGHGs

            So you really do think weather events and climate are the same thing? And you say MY argument isn’t true but can’t back up your own with ANY credible sources? lol! Yes, I attack opinion because it’s baseless and try to have some fun at the same time. Lighten up and do some HONEST research. The science is settled. Why do you cling so tightly to a position that been so discredited?

          • Jerry Bean

            No Jack, nice spin though you’re must be a professional, it was NOT opinion you attacked…….just to be clear.

          • ReduceGHGs

            Wipe your tears and work on developing a reasoned opinions about climate change that is supported by credible scientific research.

          • Jerry Bean

            Yea I’ll do that, work on politically created non event.

            Jack I was at the UEA when the scientist got busted.

            Why do you hold tightly a fabricated con job.
            Who’s crying …..I’m winning all arguments.

          • ReduceGHGs

            You MAY have been there but so what? They were cleared of any wrong doing so “busted” doesn’t apply. But lets not miss the forest for the trees, jack. Climate change studies date back over 30 years. Misinterpreting the emails is no excuse for rejecting decades of global reaffirming scientific research.

            So where’s your evidence that NASA, AAAS, NAS, AGU, MET, and many others have all be “conning” us?

            “Winning”? lol! Keep telling yourself that? You still haven’t provided credible support for your opinion. Now what are baseless opinions worth? Depends on your perspective, right?

          • Jerry Bean

            Why do police officers interview witnesses, they may have been there, but so what.

            WOW!

          • ReduceGHGs

            Why do courts accept expert testimony? Because members of the jury often don’t understand the issue fully.

            The experts have reviewed the matter several times. Your claim to being a “witness” to the “crime” is suspect on many levels.

            So again… So where’s your evidence that NASA, AAAS, NAS, AGU, MET, and many others have all be “conning” us?

          • Jerry Bean

            What a stretch….C for effort.

          • ReduceGHGs

            still can’t come up with any credible support? how come?
            f or failure to think critically.

          • Jerry Bean

            I don’t need to, you’re a paid writer with 2077 posts.
            Everyone can see that, I win.

          • ReduceGHGs

            Paid? Well then, someone owes me megabucks for over 10 years of solo effort! Tell me who?

            still can’t come up with ANY credible evidence to support your beliefs? how come?

    • Jerry Bean

      Wealthy people produce most of the destructive behaviors per person.

      One wealthy person may own several houses, several automobiles, several jets and helicopters, ocean yachts and the list goes on.
      Yet you say “they are not the problem.” Really????
      If you can make a statement like that I’m sure everything else you say is true. LOL

    • Jack Wolf

      Two open access published papers regarding the consensus include John Cook and Oreskes. They conclude that the consensus is strong, and from what I see in the journals, they are spot on.
      All this talk about scientists not agreeing on global warming and the greenhouse effect is a bunch of hooey and I think deliberately propagated by those seeking to maintain the status quo.
      Unfortunately that status quo is going to kill us all, including them. Their greed blinds them I suppose.

      • ReduceGHGs

        Well said!

        I too think that it’s too late to stop some of the nasty effects of climate change. The question is at what point will the “tide” turn. And it will turn. All we can, should, and must do is to continue to work for change. Defeatism and apathy won’t help.

        Good luck!

  • Jerry Bean

    If global warming is true the the logical thing to do would be to hold every wealthy person accountable.
    Wealthy individuals use more natural resources per person than anyone else.
    Yet not one climate scientist makes mention of this. Why???

    • zlop

      “hold every wealthy person accountable”
      Greenhouse gases only cool a little, do not
      blame great emitters for the coming Ice Age.

      • Jerry Bean

        I began with “if”.

        • zlop

          If the Earth is Cooling, and Greenhouse gases cool,
          then “hold every wealthy person accountable”?

      • Jack Wolf

        You need to review basic physics. Greenhouse gases, like methane and co2, react with long wave radiation and prevent it’s energy from escaping into space.
        Perhaps you confuse this greenhouse effect with aerosols that include sulfur dioxide emissions. They can cool the planet and can mask the effect of greenhouse gases to some extent.
        Or, perhaps you just mean to confuse.

        • Jerry Bean

          Jack wolf you’re another paid writer, how did you make your comments private on your profile. Didn’t want anyone to figure out your agenda?

          Jack Wolf, Shawkins57 and ReduceGHGs are obviously paid bloggers who try and sway public opinion about climate change and carbon credits.

          Now it is extremely obvious they are working for big corporations.

          Carbon credit are an insidious method of allowing big corporations to pollute even more. You see when a large corporation uses up all their carbon credits they can purchase more of them from companies that don’t need or use all the ones they have allowing big corporations to pollute even more.

          • Jack Wolf

            I have absolutely no financial interest in the energy or environmental sector nor am I paid in any way shape or form. Nice try though. And, I keep myself private because as I’m sure you are aware, there are a lot of creeps out there.
            I do it because I have the time, I have kids, and am aware of how serious the climate situation is. I admit it’s selfish too – I had hoped to have a nice happy retirement, but that plan is out the window now that we can expect a 4C warming by 2050.

          • zlop

            “we can expect a 4C warming by 2050″
            You actually believe that?
            That is just an UNelected Nations UPCC scare.

            There is a good video to understand, those who pontificate.
            “The Truth About Karl Marx” uTube

          • Jack Wolf

            University of New South Wales’ Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science Prof Steven Sherwood:

            “When the processes are correct in the climate models the level of climate sensitivity is far higher. Previously, estimates of the sensitivity of global temperature to a doubling of carbon dioxide ranged from 1.5°C to 5°C. This new research takes away the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates, meaning that global average temperatures will increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide.”

            Here’s another:

            Met Office warns of catastrophic global warming in our lifetimes

            • Study says 4C rise in temperature could happen by 2060
            • Increase could threaten water supply of half world population

            Also see “Turn Down The Heat” All these were recently publish in the last year.
            But, what does Karl Marx have to do with any of this?

          • zlop

            “increase by 3°C to 5°C with a doubling of carbon dioxide”
            They are proved wrong, by the lowering of clouds, reasoning. Additionally, distributions of concentrations adjust to Maximize Cooling. (little room to wiggle — Surface Pressure accurately predicts Atmospheric Thermal Effect)

            “But, what does Karl Marx have to do with any of this?”
            Hypocrisy of those who pontificate.
            “Climate change report: science fiction – Sun News Network”

          • Jack Wolf

            Sun New Network. My, my. Well, that may convince the 50% of Americans with below average intelligence, but that won’t cut it in the halls of science, or with me. I think I’ll stick to getting my science news from scientists.
            And, nothing in the cloud phenomena I saw quantified how much effect this would have on negating the greenhouse effect. I think your grasping for straws. But, boy I sure hope your right and it negates that methane non-linear feedback in the Arctic, cause it’s a big one, and we’re in deep trouble whether you see it or not.

          • zlop

            “I think I’ll stick to getting my science news from scientists”
            Thinking is obsolete. That is the agenda. Dumb down,
            and download opinions from the promoted experts.

            “negating the greenhouse effect”
            Search and correlate — “greenhouse gases cool”

            “negates that methane non-linear feedback in the Arctic”
            In the past, despite large methane releases, there was not a great correlated change of temperature (glaciation extent has varied considerably, which modulated methane releases)

            All feedbacks are negative “Water Vapor Feedback – Is it positive or negative? – YouTube”

            If all the estimated CH4 were released at once, almost 2% of the present mass of O2 would be consumed, and CO2 would rise to more than 2,000 ppmv

          • Jerry Bean

            1654 posts and you have no financial interest, it must be true if you say so.

            Selfish like a narcissist?

          • zlop

            Newer learning, endlessly repeating, not realizing that they are usefool idiots. The KGB agent, Yuri Bezmenov, coined the phrase. Reminds me of Arthur Miller’s distinction between Dumb ans Stupid. (dumb lacks mental capability, stupid knows)

          • Jerry Bean

            “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”………………Winston Churchill

          • zlop

            Winston, or his script writers, had some good ones.
            “After the first Nazi air raid on London Sept. 7, 1940 which killed 306 people, Winston Churchill remarked, “They cheered me as if I’d given them victory, instead of getting their houses bombed to bits.”

    • Jack Wolf

      No, the logical thing to do is stop emissions otherwise the problem worsens. Obviously if you’re not emitting anything, like most poor nations, you can’t reduce emissions. That is why it is incumbent upon the developed nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or seek other forms of energy if you are an poor state.
      And, yes, climate scientists are aware that rich nations use more energy then poor nations. Dr. Alley at Penn State just mentioned that recently in fact.

      • Jerry Bean

        You still can not tell anyone that rich people use more natural resources than poor or middle class, per person.
        The fact are the facts and you can’t spin it.

      • Jerry Bean

        Nice twist Jack I said rich individuals, not nations.

        It’s all about carbon credits Jack, you’re busted.

  • Jerry Bean

    Rich people use more natural resources per person than
    poor or middle class.

    How is it possible to be counter productive since wealthy people have access to more natural resources than the majority of people.

    The Waltons (Walmart owners) have as much wealth as the bottom 40% of Americans.
    It’s not rocket science.

  • zlop

    How is Gov. Deval Patrick compromised?
    Do the Carbon Mongers have the Wood on Him?

  • Jack Wolf

    There is a strong consensus in the scientific community that human caused climate change is rapidly occurring. See J. Cook or N. Oreskes, To suggest otherwise truly puts coastal states in danger since it stifles both mitigation and adaptation.
    If anything, Gov. Patrick’s efforts are too little too late. Engineers will need to either hold back the Atlantic Ocean along the entire east coast, or prepare to move inland. These impacts are just now beginning and they will get far worse.
    Residents may be in denial about this, but I hope businesses and corporations step up to the plate and move inland. Their employees will follow and their assets will be saved. Lives will be saved too.

    • Jerry Bean

      How many degrees is the earth warming? Can’t wait for your answer.

      How long do we have before the coasts are under water?

      • Jerry Bean

        Your silence speaks volumes.

        • zlop

          Give him time, he is searching the
          “strong consensus in the scientific community”

          • Jerry Bean

            Now that’s funny.

  • zlop

    “overall goal of the proposal is to acknowledge that climate change is already occurring” Why not put it on a billboard, and have school kids recite it?
    “Climate Change Activist Group Blow up Kids People in Commercial Warning Graphic” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUxvjJMpztM

Most Popular