All Things Environment

[DocBarrister]

Antarctica's huge Thwaites glacier melting faster than expected
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/weather/ ... index.html

I know most everyone here disagrees with me on this. This is planet earth doing what it will do when, where and how it wants to do it. So what is the game plan to stop this from happening? Drive more electric cars? Should we all become vegan? Do we need more wind turbines and solar energy? Do we need to stop cows from passing gas? What exactly is the mechanism that reverses climate change and puts the planet back on a happy, happy equilibrium of only modest disasters? The chicoms don't give a flying hoot about saving the planet. They are the folks hellbent on destroying it to become the new world superpower. Since the world is basically impotent at stopping anything the chicoms want to do, we can just concentrate on cow farts for right not and eating lots of broccoli.

Given what was mentioned in that article, it might be time to start planning a dike for Manhattan.

Old, outdated conservative ideas about energy are really threatening the United States’ future national security. While Republicans focus on the past—promoting fossil fuels, denying human-caused climate change—they ignore the future.

Green energy is the future and we need to end Republican control of this nation in order to get back in the game.

China is still investing heavily in fossil fuel energy production, but they are also investing heavily in green energy ... the future. Importantly, they are also investing heavily in the intellectual property rights associated with clean energy. That may mean our energy future is controlled by China.

And all because moronic conservatives in America refuse to even acknowledge climate change and the need for clean energy. Instead, they’re focused on how to dig up more fossil fuel from the ground.

Chinese export of renewable energy technology around the globe is set to boost Beijing’s clout as the influence of major oil exporters like Russia and Saudi Arabia wanes. China has by far the most renewable energy patents with the U.S., Japan and Europe lagging behind. “No country has put itself in a better position to become the world’s renewable energy superpower than China,” says a recent report by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation, chaired by former Iceland President Olafur Grimsson.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords under President Donald Trump provided China an opening to seize. America’s abandonment of global leadership on the issue was thrown into sharper focus by Trump’s empty chair during a climate change discussion at August’s G7 meeting in France. “The U.S. administration is not particularly interested in renewables at home let alone overseas,” says Simon Nicholas, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Now, China has firmly established its leading position in renewable energy output, as well as in related technologies such as electric vehicles, transmission lines and battery storage, and Beijing is managing to weaponize green technology in a way that strategic rivals like the U.S. may struggle to counter.

https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

Antarctica's huge Thwaites glacier melting faster than expected
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/weather/ ... index.html

I know most everyone here disagrees with me on this. This is planet earth doing what it will do when, where and how it wants to do it. So what is the game plan to stop this from happening? Drive more electric cars? Should we all become vegan? Do we need more wind turbines and solar energy? Do we need to stop cows from passing gas? What exactly is the mechanism that reverses climate change and puts the planet back on a happy, happy equilibrium of only modest disasters? The chicoms don't give a flying hoot about saving the planet. They are the folks hellbent on destroying it to become the new world superpower. Since the world is basically impotent at stopping anything the chicoms want to do, we can just concentrate on cow farts for right not and eating lots of broccoli.

Given what was mentioned in that article, it might be time to start planning a dike for Manhattan.

Old, outdated conservative ideas about energy are really threatening the United States’ future national security. While Republicans focus on the past—promoting fossil fuels, denying human-caused climate change—they ignore the future.

Green energy is the future and we need to end Republican control of this nation in order to get back in the game.

China is still investing heavily in fossil fuel energy production, but they are also investing heavily in green energy ... the future. Importantly, they are also investing heavily in the intellectual property rights associated with clean energy. That may mean our energy future is controlled by China.

And all because moronic conservatives in America refuse to even acknowledge climate change and the need for clean energy. Instead, they’re focused on how to dig up more fossil fuel from the ground.

Chinese export of renewable energy technology around the globe is set to boost Beijing’s clout as the influence of major oil exporters like Russia and Saudi Arabia wanes. China has by far the most renewable energy patents with the U.S., Japan and Europe lagging behind. “No country has put itself in a better position to become the world’s renewable energy superpower than China,” says a recent report by the Global Commission on the Geopolitics of Energy Transformation, chaired by former Iceland President Olafur Grimsson.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords under President Donald Trump provided China an opening to seize. America’s abandonment of global leadership on the issue was thrown into sharper focus by Trump’s empty chair during a climate change discussion at August’s G7 meeting in France. “The U.S. administration is not particularly interested in renewables at home let alone overseas,” says Simon Nicholas, an analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. Now, China has firmly established its leading position in renewable energy output, as well as in related technologies such as electric vehicles, transmission lines and battery storage, and Beijing is managing to weaponize green technology in a way that strategic rivals like the U.S. may struggle to counter.

https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/

DocBarrister

in ways large and small i'm grateful every day that those in our country can express their views openly, coarsely or with nuance, whether we agree with them or not, and freely work toward them. our founders gave us a gift that we need to constantly repay and be thankful for.
may we be better tomorrow.

[kramerica.inc]

And fortunately, freedom of speech allows us to see people like Doc for who they really are.

[old salt]

CA & their tinderbox W coast neighbors have problems that can't wait for green economy solutions which could not be implemented quickly enough if they existed.

The environmental groups which have blocked forest maintenance & management need to answer for their part in the horrific damage being wrought on the wildlife & forests they exist to protect.

[cradleandshoot]

CA & their tinderbox W coast neighbors have problems that can't wait for green economy solutions which could not be implemented quickly enough if they existed.

The environmental groups which have blocked forest maintenance & management need to answer for their part in the horrific damage being wrought on the wildlife & forests they exist to protect.

+1 It is so much easier to just blame it on CC/GW and keep moving along.

[MDlaxfan76]

Oregon?

[youthathletics]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

[MDlaxfan76]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

There appears to be this partisan-like attack on California's forest management practices as if they are somehow uniquely incorrect. Trump has famously talked about "sweeping" the forest floor ...Indeed, we've paid attention to California as it's been hotter and drier than anytime in the last 100 years and we've seen devastating wildfires season after season. But California has not been alone in this warming, just more so. And a larger population to impact.

Oregon is in the midst of massive wildfires at a scale totally unprecedented over the past 100 years. Hotter, drier and an east wind, with 5 massive fires raging through the night, rather than the cooling and less dry air at night providing firefighters a chance to turn the fire...but not this year.

It's definitely true that 100 years of the Federal decision to fight all fires quickly, a 'no-tolerance' policy, has led to 100 years of accumulation of dead wood accumulation that would in a purely natural situation have periodically burned off (not "swept") and there are few grassland breaks of the forest.

That increased tinder wasn't a big problem, except that as humans continued to spread further and further into the forests, with power lines and human mistakes, the chances of accidental fires has grown dramatically and the impact on human life and structures of course is also much greater. That spread of humans has only bolstered the zero tolerance Federal policy commitment to protect those humans and their structures...

Oregon, which is normally far wetter and cooler than California, has had increased big fires over the past couple of decades, but never more than one such in a given year...but 5 right now. Climate is catching up.

But hey, maybe we should 'sweep' forest floors.

[youthathletics]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

There appears to be this partisan-like attack on California's forest management practices as if they are somehow uniquely incorrect. Trump has famously talked about "sweeping" the forest floor ...Indeed, we've paid attention to California as it's been hotter and drier than anytime in the last 100 years and we've seen devastating wildfires season after season. But California has not been alone in this warming, just more so. And a larger population to impact.

Oregon is in the midst of massive wildfires at a scale totally unprecedented over the past 100 years. Hotter, drier and an east wind, with 5 massive fires raging through the night, rather than the cooling and less dry air at night providing firefighters a chance to turn the fire...but not this year.

It's definitely true that 100 years of the Federal decision to fight all fires quickly, a 'no-tolerance' policy, has led to 100 years of accumulation of dead wood accumulation that would in a purely natural situation have periodically burned off (not "swept") and there are few grassland breaks of the forest.

That increased tinder wasn't a big problem, except that as humans continued to spread further and further into the forests, with power lines and human mistakes, the chances of accidental fires has grown dramatically and the impact on human life and structures of course is also much greater.

Oregon, which is normally far wetter and cooler than California, has had increased big fires over the past couple of decades, but never more than one such in a given year...but 5 right now. Climate is catching up.

But hey, maybe we should 'sweep' forest floors.

Think about what we are being told in all the stories we read, why would an increase in a couple degrees over the past decade cause more fires...seriously? It needs close to >800 degrees to ignite wood. Keep in mind a place like Fresno has also had in increase in rain, ever so slightly.

IMHO, blaming CC is a low rent excuse, one for the less informed to believe. Clearly, a temperature less than ~105 degrees F will not start a fire, Ca, has always had fires, has always tended too and "swept underbrush". This article does a fair job at defining the crux...it is much like our local Ches. Bay issues.....it is complicated. You are too smart to be blaming Climate.

[RedFromMI]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

There appears to be this partisan-like attack on California's forest management practices as if they are somehow uniquely incorrect. Trump has famously talked about "sweeping" the forest floor ...Indeed, we've paid attention to California as it's been hotter and drier than anytime in the last 100 years and we've seen devastating wildfires season after season. But California has not been alone in this warming, just more so. And a larger population to impact.

Oregon is in the midst of massive wildfires at a scale totally unprecedented over the past 100 years. Hotter, drier and an east wind, with 5 massive fires raging through the night, rather than the cooling and less dry air at night providing firefighters a chance to turn the fire...but not this year.

It's definitely true that 100 years of the Federal decision to fight all fires quickly, a 'no-tolerance' policy, has led to 100 years of accumulation of dead wood accumulation that would in a purely natural situation have periodically burned off (not "swept") and there are few grassland breaks of the forest.

That increased tinder wasn't a big problem, except that as humans continued to spread further and further into the forests, with power lines and human mistakes, the chances of accidental fires has grown dramatically and the impact on human life and structures of course is also much greater.

Oregon, which is normally far wetter and cooler than California, has had increased big fires over the past couple of decades, but never more than one such in a given year...but 5 right now. Climate is catching up.

But hey, maybe we should 'sweep' forest floors.

Think about what we are being told in all the stories we read, why would an increase in a couple degrees over the past decade cause more fires...seriously? It needs close to >800 degrees to ignite wood. Keep in mind a place like Fresno has also had in increase in rain, ever so slightly.

IMHO, blaming CC is a low rent excuse, one for the less informed to believe. Clearly, a temperature less than ~105 degrees F will not start a fire, Ca, has always had fires, has always tended too and "swept underbrush". This article does a fair job at defining the crux...it is much like our local Ches. Bay issues.....it is complicated. You are too smart to be blaming Climate.

It is not a direct temperature effect - the hotter weather does not cause ignition, but causes dryness. So the lack of moisture in the forests is magnified (because the warmer air can carry away more evaporated water) and when ignition occurs (lightning, power lines, humans, etc.) the burns are fiercer and more able to get out of control.

[MDlaxfan76]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

There appears to be this partisan-like attack on California's forest management practices as if they are somehow uniquely incorrect. Trump has famously talked about "sweeping" the forest floor ...Indeed, we've paid attention to California as it's been hotter and drier than anytime in the last 100 years and we've seen devastating wildfires season after season. But California has not been alone in this warming, just more so. And a larger population to impact.

Oregon is in the midst of massive wildfires at a scale totally unprecedented over the past 100 years. Hotter, drier and an east wind, with 5 massive fires raging through the night, rather than the cooling and less dry air at night providing firefighters a chance to turn the fire...but not this year.

It's definitely true that 100 years of the Federal decision to fight all fires quickly, a 'no-tolerance' policy, has led to 100 years of accumulation of dead wood accumulation that would in a purely natural situation have periodically burned off (not "swept") and there are few grassland breaks of the forest.

That increased tinder wasn't a big problem, except that as humans continued to spread further and further into the forests, with power lines and human mistakes, the chances of accidental fires has grown dramatically and the impact on human life and structures of course is also much greater.

Oregon, which is normally far wetter and cooler than California, has had increased big fires over the past couple of decades, but never more than one such in a given year...but 5 right now. Climate is catching up.

But hey, maybe we should 'sweep' forest floors.

Think about what we are being told in all the stories we read, why would an increase in a couple degrees over the past decade cause more fires...seriously? It needs close to >800 degrees to ignite wood. Keep in mind a place like Fresno has also had in increase in rain, ever so slightly.

IMHO, blaming CC is a low rent excuse, one for the less informed to believe. Clearly, a temperature less than ~105 degrees F will not start a fire, Ca, has always had fires, has always tended too and "swept underbrush". This article does a fair job at defining the crux...it is much like our local Ches. Bay issues.....it is complicated. You are too smart to be blaming Climate.

It is not a direct temperature effect - the hotter weather does not cause ignition, but causes dryness. So the lack of moisture in the forests is magnified (because the warmer air can carry away more evaporated water) and when ignition occurs (lightning, power lines, humans, etc.) the burns are fiercer and more able to get out of control.

Thanks, Red.

youth,
I'm a little surprised that you would have thought that anyone was suggesting that the fires were ignited due to weather temperature. Red's correct, low moisture is the key to why fires spread fast and furious. They are ignited naturally by lightning or man-induced by accidents, power lines, etc.

Of course, there are indeed complicating factors...this isn't my field, so I'm listening and reading and discussing with all of you guys, learning as I go along. With that caveat, weather patterns, not just temperatures, are impacted by climate change effects globally. One of the unusual factors in Oregon apparently has been this unusual dry east wind rather than the normal prevailing moist winds from the west. If I'm not mistaken, Oregon's getting a little help from a turn in the weather, thank god, but the magnitude of this fire season is due to unusually warm, dry weather over an extended period, with fires fanned by the dry east winds.

We also have this other man-made effect of 100 years of zero tolerance fire and forest management policies. That's not climate change, but is a man-made effect that we try to stop fires before they kill people and destroy human structures...and when coupled with super hot and fry weather, the natural moisture in those forests turns to dry tinder...

[youthathletics]

What does your shortest ever post mean?

There appears to be this partisan-like attack on California's forest management practices as if they are somehow uniquely incorrect. Trump has famously talked about "sweeping" the forest floor ...Indeed, we've paid attention to California as it's been hotter and drier than anytime in the last 100 years and we've seen devastating wildfires season after season. But California has not been alone in this warming, just more so. And a larger population to impact.

Oregon is in the midst of massive wildfires at a scale totally unprecedented over the past 100 years. Hotter, drier and an east wind, with 5 massive fires raging through the night, rather than the cooling and less dry air at night providing firefighters a chance to turn the fire...but not this year.

It's definitely true that 100 years of the Federal decision to fight all fires quickly, a 'no-tolerance' policy, has led to 100 years of accumulation of dead wood accumulation that would in a purely natural situation have periodically burned off (not "swept") and there are few grassland breaks of the forest.

That increased tinder wasn't a big problem, except that as humans continued to spread further and further into the forests, with power lines and human mistakes, the chances of accidental fires has grown dramatically and the impact on human life and structures of course is also much greater.

Oregon, which is normally far wetter and cooler than California, has had increased big fires over the past couple of decades, but never more than one such in a given year...but 5 right now. Climate is catching up.

But hey, maybe we should 'sweep' forest floors.

Think about what we are being told in all the stories we read, why would an increase in a couple degrees over the past decade cause more fires...seriously? It needs close to >800 degrees to ignite wood. Keep in mind a place like Fresno has also had in increase in rain, ever so slightly.

IMHO, blaming CC is a low rent excuse, one for the less informed to believe. Clearly, a temperature less than ~105 degrees F will not start a fire, Ca, has always had fires, has always tended too and "swept underbrush". This article does a fair job at defining the crux...it is much like our local Ches. Bay issues.....it is complicated. You are too smart to be blaming Climate.

It is not a direct temperature effect - the hotter weather does not cause ignition, but causes dryness. So the lack of moisture in the forests is magnified (because the warmer air can carry away more evaporated water) and when ignition occurs (lightning, power lines, humans, etc.) the burns are fiercer and more able to get out of control.

Thanks, Red.

youth,
I'm a little surprised that you would have thought that anyone was suggesting that the fires were ignited due to weather temperature. Red's correct, low moisture is the key to why fires spread fast and furious. They are ignited naturally by lightning or man-induced by accidents, power lines, etc.

Of course, there are indeed complicating factors...this isn't my field, so I'm listening and reading and discussing with all of you guys, learning as I go along. With that caveat, weather patterns, not just temperatures, are impacted by climate change effects globally. One of the unusual factors in Oregon apparently has been this unusual dry east wind rather than the normal prevailing moist winds from the west. If I'm not mistaken, Oregon's getting a little help from a turn in the weather, thank god, but the magnitude of this fire season is due to unusually warm, dry weather over an extended period, with fires fanned by the dry east winds.

We also have this other man-made effect of 100 years of zero tolerance fire and forest management policies. That's not climate change, but is a man-made effect that we try to stop fires before they kill people and destroy human structures...and when coupled with super hot and fry weather, the natural moisture in those forests turns to dry tinder...

You guys are proving my point and the "sweeping the forest" point... of course I know a couple of degrees temperature swing is not going to cause ignition, which is why I articulated the poor CC/GW easy answer we are being fed in articles. And yes, I understand dew point, WB, RH, and even enthalpy just fine. If you pour enough gasoline on the ground and there is an ignition source it will burn a lot of things down as well...until the fuel or oxygen source is gone, which is why we have tons of precautions to avoid ignition of something so flammable....same applies with a tinder box forest floor. There is no need to overthink it.

[RedFromMI]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

[njbill]

You guys are overlooking the most obvious cause.

https://gfycat.com/neatdarkbeaver

[old salt]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

Exactly. There's too much dead timber & underbrush in the at risk regions of the west to "sweep" it all, but blaming it on CC & waiting for a GND is just a dodge & cop out.

It can be attacked tactically by more active maintenance of forests near developed areas & cutting fire breaks to segment at risk forests & channel, in advance, the path the inevitable wildfires will take. The Enviro groups should be working on ways to save wildlife & provide them escape paths to refuge forest areas when the inevitable wildfires ignite.

The difficulty in simply discussing it analytically in this forum, without it being politicized, demonstrates how much political gridlock prevents coming to grips with a long escalating crisis.

[a fan]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

Exactly. There's too much dead timber & underbrush in the at risk regions of the west to "sweep" it all, but blaming it on CC & waiting for a GND is just a dodge & cop out.

It's two things. Budgeting and rich people.

The Dept. of interior doesn't have the money, and 90% of these issues are on Federal Land. There's no money for management...it's all being blown trying to keep fires under control and away from properties.

Then the folks...and investors....in these areas don't want the burns. That one might change.

As for budgeting? That's up to Congress to change the investment. We're wasting billions fixing these problems, when we could spend millions to manage forests and PREVENT larger problems. It's what we do soooooo well in America now.

[cradleandshoot]

California has always had wildfires since I was a kid and long before that. As long as there is a dry season and they have the santa anna winds it will always be an issue. When I was at Ft Bragg the entire training area was criss crossed with north/south and east/west firebreaks. The entire area was a huge pine forest with decades of old pine needles piled up everywhere. We started fires all the time, fortunately we were able to knock them down petty quickly. It easy easy to blame CC/GW. Maybe when we reverse it back to the good old days and the earth is at equilibrium with itself, we can go back to the good old mildly intense wildfires. The one thing I do understand, there is no natural disaster that happens on planet earth today that is not the fault of CC/GW. That is if you believe some people.

[youthathletics]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

Exactly. There's too much dead timber & underbrush in the at risk regions of the west to "sweep" it all, but blaming it on CC & waiting for a GND is just a dodge & cop out.

It's two things. Budgeting and rich people.

The Dept. of interior doesn't have the money, and 90% of these issues are on Federal Land. There's no money for management...it's all being blown trying to keep fires under control and away from properties.

Then the folks...and investors....in these areas don't want the burns. That one might change.

As for budgeting? That's up to Congress to change the investment. We're wasting billions fixing these problems, when we could spend millions to manage forests and PREVENT larger problems. It's what we do soooooo well in America now.

A couple of things could help stipend the fed.state budget for "forest sweeping". (i) Builders incur an "impact fee" for forestry preservation. (ii) instead of releasing their bond once they line their streets with trees, it is released after they have paid their impact fees once the build(s) are completed. (iii) another opportunity for a P3 program...one that uses funds for technology to detect heat/fire using GPS and Thermal imagery with more sq/mile support. (there are programs out there that can find underground water and gas leaks in pipes based on GPS imagery.

Sure, these are 'ideas' that are already likely in use, but there certainly needs to be a better method of response...much like what we see when we are hit with other natural disasters and large utility firms support each other, nationally. Water/Chemical dropping helos on the ready.

[Peter Brown]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

Exactly. There's too much dead timber & underbrush in the at risk regions of the west to "sweep" it all, but blaming it on CC & waiting for a GND is just a dodge & cop out.

It's two things. Budgeting and rich people.

The Dept. of interior doesn't have the money, and 90% of these issues are on Federal Land. There's no money for management...it's all being blown trying to keep fires under control and away from properties.

Then the folks...and investors....in these areas don't want the burns. That one might change.

As for budgeting? That's up to Congress to change the investment. We're wasting billions fixing these problems, when we could spend millions to manage forests and PREVENT larger problems. It's what we do soooooo well in America now.

A couple of things could help stipend the fed.state budget for "forest sweeping". (i) Builders incur an "impact fee" for forestry preservation. (ii) instead of releasing their bond once they line their streets with trees, it is released after they have paid their impact fees once the build(s) are completed. (iii) another opportunity for a P3 program...one that uses funds for technology to detect heat/fire using GPS and Thermal imagery with more sq/mile support. (there are programs out there that can find underground water and gas leaks in pipes based on GPS imagery.

Sure, these are 'ideas' that are already likely in use, but there certainly needs to be a better method of response...much like what we see when we are hit with other natural disasters and large utility firms support each other, nationally. Water/Chemical dropping helos on the ready.

Arson isn’t global warming.

[youthathletics]

That is also why we need controlled burns in forests - which is relatively easy in forests without houses/towns.

But back when I lived in N. Florida, it was quite common to travel north into southern GA and see all sorts of controlled burns in forests primarily used for wood pulp production...

Exactly. There's too much dead timber & underbrush in the at risk regions of the west to "sweep" it all, but blaming it on CC & waiting for a GND is just a dodge & cop out.

It's two things. Budgeting and rich people.

The Dept. of interior doesn't have the money, and 90% of these issues are on Federal Land. There's no money for management...it's all being blown trying to keep fires under control and away from properties.

Then the folks...and investors....in these areas don't want the burns. That one might change.

As for budgeting? That's up to Congress to change the investment. We're wasting billions fixing these problems, when we could spend millions to manage forests and PREVENT larger problems. It's what we do soooooo well in America now.

A couple of things could help stipend the fed.state budget for "forest sweeping". (i) Builders incur an "impact fee" for forestry preservation. (ii) instead of releasing their bond once they line their streets with trees, it is released after they have paid their impact fees once the build(s) are completed. (iii) another opportunity for a P3 program...one that uses funds for technology to detect heat/fire using GPS and Thermal imagery with more sq/mile support. (there are programs out there that can find underground water and gas leaks in pipes based on GPS imagery.

Sure, these are 'ideas' that are already likely in use, but there certainly needs to be a better method of response...much like what we see when we are hit with other natural disasters and large utility firms support each other, nationally. Water/Chemical dropping helos on the ready.

Arson isn’t global warming.

Barack says it is CC...

Then there is this...