Posted in Static News

Democratic presidential candidates talk climate change

   July 28, 2021  46 Comments on Democratic presidential candidates talk climate change

The 2020 Democratic presidential candidates presented their environmental policies in a town hall Wednesday evening. READ MORE: https://abcn.ws/2m31C0R

Ten Democratic candidates for president spent hours on Wednesday night discussing their climate change plans in detail, including how they would pay for it and what it would mean for both fossil fuels and Americans.

Here are five of the biggest takeaways on how Democrats would tackle climate change and where they disagree. https://abcn.ws/2m31C0R

#ABCNews #2020Candidates #News #Politics #2020Election #ClimateChange #Environment

source

Author: avnblogfeed

ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2022 | HOSTING BY PHILLYFINEST369 SERVER STATS| & THE IDIOTS ROBOT AND CONTROL INC. |(RSS FEED MODULE)| ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS (AVNBLOGFEED.COM)
Website Twitter

46 thoughts on “Democratic presidential candidates talk climate change”

  2. Talk, talk, talk. If you collect all the money in the world and "fix" climate change tomorrow in 5 years increasing population will put us back in trouble. Find a candidate that's working on population control. Or, totally waste time and resources.

  3. They know nothing about the science of climate change. Fukushima is by far that number one environmental issue.

  4. According to the Vostok Ice Core Records, CO2 level changes have followed Earth's overall temperature changes at an 800 year lag for the last 800,000 years. That means that our current CO2 levels are the result of Earth's overall temperature 800 years ago. World leaders have convinced their dependents that this works in the reverse order, relatively quickly, and that we are to blame, so that they can tax us out of a false shared guilt in order to be able to afford to "fight" climate change, an unstoppable natural cycle. The following is the source of this information:

    Historical Carbon Dioxide Record from the Vostok Ice Core

    Investigators
    J.-M. Barnola, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius
    Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Géophysique de l'Environnement,
    CNRS, BP96,
    38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex, France

    N.I. Barkov
    Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute,
    Beringa Street 38, 199397,
    St. Petersburg, Russia

    Period of Record
    417,160 – 2,342 years BP

    Methods
    In January 1998, the collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Ice cores are unique with their entrapped air inclusions enabling direct records of past changes in atmospheric trace-gas composition. Preliminary data indicate the Vostok ice-core record extends through four climate cycles, with ice slightly older than 400 kyr (Petit et al. 1997, 1999). Because air bubbles do not close at the surface of the ice sheet but only near the firn-ice transition (that is, at ~90 m below the surface at Vostok), the air extracted from the ice is younger than the surrounding ice (Barnola et al. 1991). Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed. Ice samples were cut with a bandsaw in a cold room (at about -15°C) as close as possible to the center of the core in order to avoid surface contamination (Barnola et al. 1983). Gas extraction and measurements were performed with the "Grenoble analytical setup," which involved crushing the ice sample (~40 g) under vacuum in a stainless-steel container without melting it, expanding the gas released during the crushing in a pre-evacuated sampling loop, and analyzing the CO2 concentrations by gas chromatography (Barnola et al. 1983). The analytical system, except for the stainless-steel container in which the ice was crushed, was calibrated for each ice sample measurement with a standard mixture of CO2 in nitrogen and oxygen. For further details on the experimental procedures and the dating of the successive ice layers at Vostok, see Barnola et al. (1987, 1991), Lorius et al. (1985), and Petit et al. (1999).

    Trends
    There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 – 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.

    References
    Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, A. Neftel, and H. Oeschger. 1983. Comparison of CO2 measurements by two laboratories on air from bubbles in polar ice. Nature 303:410-13.

    Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, Y.S. Korotkevich, and C. Lorius. 1987. Vostok ice core provides 160,000-year record of atmospheric CO2. Nature 329:408-14.

    Barnola, J.-M., P. Pimienta, D. Raynaud, and Y.S. Korotkevich. 1991. CO2-climate relationship as deduced from the Vostok ice core: A re-examination based on new measurements and on a re-evaluation of the air dating. Tellus 43(B):83- 90.

    Delmas, R.J., J.-M. Ascencio, and M. Legrand. 1980. Polar ice evidence that atmospheric CO2 20,000 yr BP was 50% of present. Nature 284:155-57.

    Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov, V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987. Vostok ice core: A continuous isotopic temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000 years). Nature 329:403-8.

    Lorius, C., J. Jouzel, C. Ritz, L. Merlivat, N.I. Barkov, Y.S. Korotkevich, and V.M. Kotlyakov. 1985. A 150,000-year climatic record from Antarctic ice. Nature 316:591-96.

    Neftel, A., H. Oeschger, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, and R. Zumbrunn. 1982. Ice core measurements give atmospheric CO2 content during the past 40,000 yr. Nature 295:220-23.

    Pepin, L., D. Raynaud, J.-M. Barnola, and M.F. Loutre. 2001. Hemispheric roles of climate forcings during glacial-interglacial transitions as deduced from the Vostok record and LLN-2D model experiments. Journal of Geophysical Research 106 (D23): 31,885-31,892.

    Petit, J.R., I. Basile, A. Leruyuet, D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, J. Jouzel, M. Stievenard, V.Y. Lipenkov, N.I. Barkov, B.B. Kudryashov, M. Davis, E. Saltzman, and V. Kotlyakov. 1997. Four climate cycles in Vostok ice core. Nature 387: 359-360.

    Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Benders, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

    Raynaud, D., and J.-M. Barnola. 1985. An Antarctic ice core reveals atmospheric CO2 variations over the past few centuries. Nature 315:309-11.

    CITE AS: Barnola, J.-M., D. Raynaud, C. Lorius, and N.I. Barkov. 2003. Historical CO2 record from the Vostok ice core. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.

    Revised February 2003

  5. what we need is a real climate debate with accredited scientists, not these jackoff, corrupt, power hungry demos. Aoc was a bartender, duh, 8 months ago

  6. If the Marxist democrats ban all fossil fuels what will our armed forces run their tanks, planes, and ships on? Pixie dust and unicorn farts???? "Sir, we can't fight, our tank needs to charge up on coal-powered electricity, to save the planet, sir."

  12. The Democrats need to point out one verifiable fact, more people are retiring over the next 10 years than are graduating from high school. Baby Boomers are retiring faster than new workers are entering the labor force. There will be a labor shortage regardless of who is president. Do not let Trump claim he made this happen!

  15. CLIMATE COLOR LAW..1…NO LATIMO CAM HAVE BABY…2..NO BLACK PERSON CAN EAT OR COOK BBQ…3..ALL ASIAN NON OTHER ASIAN MUST EAT VEGGIE THAT THEY GROW..4..ONLY RICH WHITE SUPREMACIST DEMOCRAT CAN DRIVE CAR, YOU ALL WALK..5…NO ONE IN YOUR FAMILY WILL OWN LAND OR THIMGS…6..SANDER LAW, WE KILL YOU WHEN WE FEEL LIKE IT..7 ONLY NON WHITE OR THE OTHER WHITE MUST WORK IN FACTORY..8…GEORGE ORWELL 1984 BOOK IS THE BIBLE…9 WE ARE LORD AND YOU ARE PEASANT…10.. NEVER FLUSH THE LAW OF TOILET…OR WIPE…

  17. Thanks for mentioning Inslee. I love the fact that the other candidates recognize his importance. Looks like Sanders has the most comprehensive plan, per usual.

  19. REMEMBER: GLOBAL WARMING – CONSPIRACY THEORY JESSE VENTURA. Watch this episode – back in 2009 he was exposing this lie and the trillion dollars made pushing this lie.

  20. From a former democrat, I can’t believe these democrats spent 7hours on this topic. What a waste…not a big deal considering most these idiots are just pandering morons.

  21. Better talk about Prophetic from the Holy Bible than Climate Change that was coined by Al Gore specially forget the false news let'talk about prophecy so that we can graps the news that is happening now. It is all in the Bible it must be spread all around the Globe that the Great Tribulation is very near it is not CLIMATE CHANGE

  22. Effects of Democrats climate plans:

    Goodbye Pennsylvania
    Goodbye Michigan
    Goodbye Ohio

    Good luck winning 2020 without those state

  23. Green new deal is just the progressive socialists plan to control every aspect of our lives. No meat, no cars, no air travel, thermostat set to 85 degrees, vote harvesting, water rationing, guaranteed socialistic income, socialized medicine, socialized schools and of course no alternative views allowed or to be tolerated. Sound like Russia, Cuba, China or Venezuela? Something has dramatically changed in the Democratic Party we all need to wake up to.

  24. The question for the Democrats right now is who do they turn to if Biden falters. Though the other front runners are capable and well-meaning folks, they have gone too far to the left to win in the general election. Only one candidate has remained in the middle with both feet on the ground — and yet he is too far behind in the polls. Nonetheless, the Democrats had better start looking at this candidate because they may have no one else to turn to.

  27. .
    PLANT A TREE for FREE! . FDR cause a billion trees to be planter , these idiot democrats need to start reading American history and PLANT A TREE for FREE!
    In 1932, FDR took America’s political helm during the country’s worst economic crisis, declaring a “government worthy of its name must make a fitting response” to the suffering of the unemployed. He implemented the CCC a little over one month into his presidency as part of his administration’s “New Deal” plan for social and economic progress. The CCC reflected FDR’s deep commitment to environmental conservation. He waxed poetic when lobbying for the its passage, declaring “the forests are the lungs of our land [which] purify our air and give fresh strength to our people.”

    The CCC, also known as “Roosevelt’s Tree Army,” was open to unemployed, unmarried U.S. male citizens between the ages of 18 and 26. All recruits had to be healthy and were expected to perform hard physical labor. Blacks were placed in de-facto segregated camps, although administrators denied the practice of discrimination. Enlistment in the program was for a minimum of 6 months; many re-enlisted after their first term. Participants were paid $30 a month and often given supplemental basic and vocational education while they served. Under the guidance of the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture, CCC employees fought forest fires, planted trees, cleared and maintained access roads, re-seeded grazing lands and implemented soil-erosion controls. They built wildlife refuges, fish-rearing facilities, water storage basins and animal shelters. To encourage citizens to get out and enjoy America’s natural resources, FDR authorized the CCC to build bridges and campground facilities. From 1933 to 1942, the CCC employed over 3 million men.

    Of Roosevelt’s many New Deal policies, the CCC is considered by many to be one of the most enduring and successful. It provided the model for future state and federal conservation programs. In 1942, Congress discontinued appropriations for the CCC, diverting the desperately needed funds to the effort to win World War II.

    Citation Information

    Article Title

    FDR creates Civilian Conservation Corps

    Author

    History.com Editors

    Website Name

    HISTORY

    URL

    https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fdr-creates-civilian-conservation-corps

    Access Date

    September 6, 2019

    Publisher

    A&E Television Networks

    Last Updated

    July 28, 2019

    Original Published Date

    November 16, 2009

    BY HISTORY.COM EDITORS

  32. ABC, NBC, and CBS only promote unscientific climate hysteria for base partisan political reasons. The greenhouse gas theory has been disproven, so all the talk about fossil fuels causing global warming is ridiculous. Carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant and is the fundamental basis and fuel for all life on Earth. Real pollution, such as smoke and soot, causes cooling as it blocks sunlight and reflects it back into Space. So everything the Democratic Party and their media outlets are saying about "climate change" is a great pile of stinking political dung. First they scare you and then they control you. Please see Moderating Climate Change Hysteria at http://renewable.50webs.com/climate.html

  33. I think everyone knew they were gonna agree with each other on this, like every other damn thing they talk about.

    Also, how the hell are we gonna get those trillions of dollars to pay for their plans?

  35. I don't care what's in Joe Biden's heart, I care about what's in his brain. Fortunately, I don't need to do research on it because his brain has deteriorated to the point where he can no longer function like a normal human being.

  38. fidel can talk about maduros prized parakeet colony if he wants, hes not getting anywhere near the executive leadership his corrupt polluted dishonest disgraced intern impeached ford flopped circus of anti constitutional actresses want need and literally have to try and rig again to save their traditions and guilt projection policies of garbage. but good luck lol.

  39. The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary.

    Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (The U.N. Driven Study often cited as saying “All the Science proves Global Warming) created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.

    Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.

    In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit hypothesis – that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from human-related greenhouse gas emissions — is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor. It simply ignores the alternative and null hypothesis, amply supported by empirical research, that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

    The results of the global climate models (GCMs) relied on by IPCC are only as reliable as the data and theories “fed” into them. Most climate scientists agree those data are seriously deficient and IPCC’s estimate for climate sensitivity to CO2 is too high. We estimate a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels (from 280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7 Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming. The recently quiet Sun and extrapolation of solar cycle patterns into the future suggest a planetary cooling may occur over the next few decades.

    In a similar fashion, all five of IPCC’s postulates, or assumptions, are readily refuted by real-world observations, and all five of IPCC’s claims relying on circumstantial evidence are refutable. For example, in contrast to IPCC’s alarmism, we find neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history. In any case, such evidence cannot be invoked to “prove” a hypothesis, but only to disprove one. IPCC has failed to refute the null hypothesis that currently observed changes in global climate indices and the physical environment are the result of natural variability.

    Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice, policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political conflicts of interest. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is an international panel of nongovernment scientists and scholars who have come together to present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming. Because it is not a government agency, and because its members are not predisposed to believe climate change is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions, NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed – or not reviewed – by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the issue of global warming. NIPCC’s conclusion, drawn from its extensive review of the scientific evidence, is that any human global climate impact is within the background variability of the natural climate system and is not dangerous.

    In the face of such facts, the most prudent climate policy is to prepare for and adapt to extreme climate events and changes regardless of their origin. Adaptive planning for future hazardous climate events and change should be tailored to provide responses to the known rates, magnitudes, and risks of natural change. Once in place, these same plans will provide an adequate response to any human-caused change that may or may not emerge.

    Policymakers should resist pressure from lobby groups to silence scientists who question the authority of IPCC to claim to speak for “climate science.” The distinguished British biologist Conrad Waddington wrote in 1941 (Waddington, C.H. 1941. The Scientific Attitude. London, UK: Penguin Books),

    "It is … important that scientists must be ready for their pet theories to turn out to be wrong. Science as a whole certainly cannot allow its judgment about facts to be distorted by ideas of what ought to be true, or what one may hope to be true (Waddington, 1941)."

    This prescient statement merits careful examination by those who continue to assert the fashionable belief, in the face of strong empirical evidence to the contrary, that human CO2 emissions are going to cause dangerous global warming.

  40. I would not recommend watching the entire thing and take a shot every time you heard the word 'ban'. It's harmful to your health.

  42. Hillary will be drafted at convention MI and PN must be flipped biden pushed because bearnie warren cant flip them its apparent biden physically/ mentally wont hold up hillary got within 1.25 to 1.68 % of taking those st
    ates she will be canidate

  45. Protest voters forgot all about climate change , and the needs of future generations , in 2016 , and let a climate change denier become President. The pro life people who hate Trump still vote for him because they never forget about their primary cause. They know that Trump will put a pro life person on the Supreme Court.

  46. This group of leftist hypocrites are intentionally targeted children to push their political objectives. They are using guilt to terrorize young people with their lies and propaganda. They are destroying science while simultaneously destroying the mental health of children.

Comments are closed.