In Florida, officials ban term 'climate change'

a reply to: jrod

Not LAZY at all.
I need YOUR verifiable response AT a single spot like I HAVE.
you are the lazy one without a point made YET so far.
What are YOUR degrees in?
Mine is only a platry AAS in laser fiber optics.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Because NONE have proven it with any existing verifiable model and if so I want to look at it.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

What are you writing about? I find your post confusing and lacking in any substance. In other threads I have linked plenty of science data that back up man made climate change. It is you who is too lazy to do the research and take the time to explore the other threads that are loaded with useful links. Have you even read all of this thread, or you just going to play the burden of proof game?

All you are doing to drifting this thread with barely coherent posts.

This thread is about what Florida's government is doing in terms of censoring climate change studies and information. The evidence is there, as a Florida resident I want to see a proper investigation into what is going on.

www.saintpetersblog.com...

On February 27, Bibler attended a Florida Coastal Managers Forum, where a number of attendees discussed climate change and sea-level rise, among other environmental topics.

Bibler’s official notes reported all of that conversation.

DEP superiors directed Bibler to remove any “hot button issues,” such as explicit references to climate change. The letter of reprimand, dated March 9, accused Bibler of misrepresenting the “official meeting agenda (so it) included climate change.”

Bibler was instructed to take two days off, which was charged against his personal leave time. He later received a “Medical Release Form” requiring his doctor to provide the agency an evaluation of unspecified “medical condition and behavior” before being allowed to return to work.

“Bart Bibler has fallen through a professional looking glass in a Florida where the words ‘climate change’ may not be uttered, or even worse, written down,” said Florida PEER Director Jerry Phillips, a former DEP attorney.

This really happened, and this is the issue this thread is about.

a reply to: amazing

Is this a start?

a reply to: jrod

You have yet to answer one question I have asked you in ANY thread. You post meaningless quotes, and random stats.

I fear you have become what you hate the most.

a reply to: jrod

It appears a video has emerged wherein the head of emergency management avoids uttering the words "climate change" in testimony to the Florida State Senate.
LINK and embedded:

Once early one and again near the end of the video. Perhaps evidence that there is an unwritten rule.

originally posted by: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3
a reply to: jrod
.
.
I fear you have become what you hate the most.

Nice manipulation tactic there. So tell me what do I hate the most?


It does appear that states will have to formally recognize climate change in order to receive FEMA money now:

FEMA to States: No Climate Planning, No Money!

Governors seeking billions of dollars in U.S. preparedness funds will have to sign off on plans to mitigate effects of climate change.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard mitigation plans that address climate change.

This may put several Republican governors who maintain the earth isn't warming due to human activities, or prefer to do nothing about it, into a political bind. Their position may block their states' access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. Over the past five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters.

"If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn't want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics," said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council's water program. "The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state" because of his climate beliefs.

The policy doesn't affect federal money for relief after a hurricane, flood or other disaster.

Rick Scott is not the only governor who denies climate change.

Among those who could face a difficult decision are Republican Governors Rick Scott of Florida, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Greg Abbott of Texas and Pat McCrory of North Carolina—all of whom have denied man-made climate change or refused to take action. The states they lead face immediate threats from climate change.

The five governors' offices did not return requests for comment by press time.

a reply to: jrod

I'll let you draw your own conclusion on that one, don't want to get in trouble with the mods.

Denying climate change is insane. I don't think anyone, even those idiotic governors deny climate change. I think they probably disagree with AGW. There is a HUGE difference there, and that basic concept is somehow lost on dems/libs. I have no party affiliation, and find it sad that people feel the need to belong to a group so badly.

I don't understand why dems/libs keep calling people climate change deniers...who the hell ever denied that climate changes? People only argue whether or not man is the main factor in climate change.

I do think man plays a role in climate change, just not enough to make any significant temperature increase. I do think we play a HUGE role in polluting our planet. That is the real problem here.

Keep on making it about "settled science", and portraying anybody who doesn't agree 100% with the IPCC as an idiot. That will only divide people further.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Yet by labeling people lib/dem you are playing into the divide and conquer game.

How can you honestly write that. Are you ignoring the disappearing polar caps, the great increase of CO2(from man), as well as CH4(also from man), and scientifically proven concepts like radiative forcing?

Our forests are disappearing as a direct result of human activity, we are pumping all kinds of stuff into our atmosphere, yet here you are trying to pretend like man has little to due with the climate on this planet.

We have had a balanced and stable climate on this planet for a long time. What we have been doing and continue to do tips that balance.

Are you really going to shrug off spiking CO2 and CH4 concentrations as not that big of a deal, and NOT something that we may want to consider investing greatly to correct and prepare for the changes that we are already seeing and likely to see much more of?

a reply to: jrod

Well let's be honest. Who are the major groups out promoting "settled science", and calling people climate change deniers?

If you say anything other than libs/dems you are kidding yourself. So don't try and reverse this onto me. The truth hurts sometimes.

Of course cutting down forests is a terrible thing, and I have been fighting against deforestation and pollution for decades. If we cut down all the trees, and did not re plant, of course the climate would change. We aren't talking about that though are we.

We are talking about settled science when it comes to CO2 emissions and AGW. This is the reality of the argument. The government, IPCC, climate scientists, etc.. all use man made CO2 emissions as the MAIN factor in AGW.

There are thousands of variables when it comes to climate change, and rising CO2 levels doesn't matter that much. You are living a lie if you think that rising CO2 levels by itself can cause significant climate change.

I remember from elementary school that plants LOVE CO2. What do plants eat? CO2. Plants will grow faster, and larger when CO2 PPM are higher. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is something wrong with our oceans being filled with pieces of plastic. There is something wrong with our water supplies being contaminated with deadly chemicals. There is something wrong with cutting down trees and not replanting.

Pollution is WRONG...that still doesn't change the fact that CO2 emissions are the scapegoat being used to advance a very obvious agenda.

If you want to talk about the real problems like pollution, and deforestation I am all for it. Just leave the carbon tax, carbon credit trading out of it...biggest scam of the 21st century.

a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

Good question, I think you are making a mistake by trying to make this a left vs. right issue. There are many registered Republicans who love the outdoors, fishing, and hunting and understand the need for conservation of our environment.

So what if environmental issues are currently a Democrat issue, it is just something they cling to in order to appeal to their faithful, not much different that the Republicans who cling to issues like abortion, gay marriage bans, and even in some very special states they try to get evolution out of the public education curriculum.

It does appear to me that most of those who have issues accepting man made climate change, also have issue accepting good science like evolution and are much more likely to oppose gay marriage for no logical reason.

a reply to: jrod

So you have noticed that as well.

Twice just today I was in threads about equal rights and posters opposing it went off on rants about climate change.

That seems to happen pretty regularly. One thread about evolution had a creationist go on a tirade and wouldn't you know he slipped climate change into it.

The ones who do it seem like absolute whackaloons, but they sure get a lot of people agreeing with them.

a reply to: jrod

“We were told not to use the terms ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’ or ‘sustainability'"

"Weather weirding", "planetary roasting", and "anti-eco-suicide"

a reply to: jrod

Simply substitute the following phrases for the banned ones:

Heat death
Global inundation
Anthropocene extinction

"Climate scientist are agreed that world-wide temperatures have been rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to heat death on a global scale."

That should make the Republicans happy.

Huh? Another double post.