Climate Change is Not ‘Coming’ to the Caribbean – It’s Here

I know we’ve got some diehard Environmentalists who post here but...

From the article:
“From 2000-2017 “scientists” have measured a 0.24 inch increase in sea level In the Caribbean.”

My question is:
How does one measure an increase of less than a quarter of an inch over the expanse of an entire sea, connected to every other ocean on a rotating planet, with a moon rotating around it, effecting local and planetary tidal systems, all of which is in constant motion, measured over a time frame of 17 years?

A few paragraphs later in the same article, is probably the most relevant paragraph in the report:
“With many factors fluctuating, it’s impossible to be precise about exactly how much the water will rise.”

Or will not rise?

Will you be prepared or will you not?
Will you take the report seriously?
Would you be willing to treat an already imperiled environment better?

This isn't just about us and the USVI.

Single fin you can measure in places like the Maldives where they have seen and documented the rise of the ocean as it has affected the islands directly. Go watch the documentary The Island President.

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

rosesisland wrote:
Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

Okay. How do you know this? Can you cite a source please?

BTW you can follow the money to either conclusion - as in yes there is global warming or no there isn't global warming.

Ca. Dreamers wrote:

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

Oh no, Chicken Little is at it again. Look at climate change, or as it used to be called Global warming until they realized that was not accurate. My moto is, the most YOU can do is be prepared for what comes, the least you can do is nothing.

But some people will not be happy until the Government starts taxing cow that poop, people that fart and anything else they can claim that creates a change in the climate rather than it's a natural occurrence. Believe it or not, St. Thomas gets hit with hurricanes some weather cycles more often than other cycles.

If the climate didn't change we'd still be in the ice age.

All I know is scientists have told us millions of years ago the earth was too hot to support life. Then it started to cool down (but was still relatively warm) and dinosaurs ruled the earth. They began to die out and eventually became extinct as the earth cooled some more. Cooling continued until most of the earth was covered in ice. A warming trend began and the ice retreated exposing more and more dry land. This warming trend will continue until Mother Nature decides to begin her next cooling cycle and move the earth toward another ice age. Every few million years the cycle will repeat itself.

How water is distributed across the planet causes the earth to wobble differently. Melting ice caps and glaciers (this is factually observed and measured) are shifting the weight of water globally affecting weather, water resources and ocean currents.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6332

You may want to change fuel sources from carbon to alternatives because you fear impacts of a manmade warming earth - or you may want to change fuel sources because dependence on carbon fuels is unsustainable. Different ways to get to the same result.

Alternatively, today's humans don't do anything. Let the future sort it out, which will happen anyway.

Afriend wrote:
If the climate didn't change we'd still be in the ice age.

All I know is scientists have told us millions of years ago the earth was too hot to support life. Then it started to cool down (but was still relatively warm) and dinosaurs ruled the earth. They began to die out and eventually became extinct as the earth cooled some more. Cooling continued until most of the earth was covered in ice. A warming trend began and the ice retreated exposing more and more dry land. This warming trend will continue until Mother Nature decides to begin her next cooling cycle and move the earth toward another ice age. Every few million years the cycle will repeat itself.

NASA just landed another probe on Mars, a planet that is 140 million miles away. They dropped it right where they wanted to safely & then communicated with it. This is amazing and the result of scientists, engineers, technicians, clerks janitors etc who's brilliance and teamwork made it happen. So then I think I'll side with the vast majority of scientists who say that global climate change will cause sea level increase, droughts and worse storms and that our CURRENT climate change is man made.

It's pretty hard to design or anticipate for every possible variable in a system as complex as the planet Earth. Hell, we can't even make a flu vaccine that works 100% of the time.... but if you see 90 something percent of scientists agreeing on something happening to within a small variability, I recommend believing them.

This article fact checks your claim about global warming scientists financially benefiting (beyond their salaries) from their research. To summarize - they don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1nR7rds0W0pvX7xHyjUXkC3QmDry9ZA9f6M1LHuUTtwjoRiqZ_V2VEGNY

Ca. Dreamers wrote:

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

Fishbait wrote:
NASA just landed another probe on Mars, a planet that is 140 million miles away. They dropped it right where they wanted to safely & then communicated with it. This is amazing and the result of scientists, engineers, technicians, clerks janitors etc who's brilliance and teamwork made it happen. So then I think I'll side with the vast majority of scientists who say that global climate change will cause sea level increase, droughts and worse storms and that our CURRENT climate change is man made.

It's pretty hard to design or anticipate for every possible variable in a system as complex as the planet Earth. Hell, we can't even make a flu vaccine that works 100% of the time.... but if you see 90 something percent of scientists agreeing on something happening to within a small variability, I recommend believing them.

Does this make you not want to live in the VI? Serious question...

So....
What can the human race do to restore the climate? Not slow down warming, but restore it. Is that even possible?

Let say we could.

What point in time do we try to restore it to?
What was the perfect “time/climate” for the human race?

The opinion piece is just that. If you read it critically, there are some gaping holes and the author bounces around between Grant money (Ignoring the sources) and salary.

Gator's Mom wrote:
This article fact checks your claim about global warming scientists financially benefiting (beyond their salaries) from their research. To summarize - they don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1nR7rds0W0pvX7xHyjUXkC3QmDry9ZA9f6M1LHuUTtwjoRiqZ_V2VEGNY

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

Sorry, this was not an opinion piece. The author is a reporter who specializes in fact checking.

At universities, grant money contributes to salary - it is not in addition to it. Salaries are paid from a variety of sources.

Most grant money for scientific research sources from the federal government. Most universities take about 50% of federal grant monies to pay for facilities and administrative costs (or overhead) to fund their bloated infrastructures. The balance of funds are spent against a pre-submitted budget that has to be adhered to or you have to pay the money back.

JohnnyU wrote:
The opinion piece is just that. If you read it critically, there are some gaping holes and the author bounces around between Grant money (Ignoring the sources) and salary.

This article fact checks your claim about global warming scientists financially benefiting (beyond their salaries) from their research. To summarize - they don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1nR7rds0W0pvX7xHyjUXkC3QmDry9ZA9f6M1LHuUTtwjoRiqZ_V2VEGNY

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

In your opinion, the author “specializes” in fact checking

Would NGO/Think tank salary/speaking fees/etc be included in their salary?

Like I said opinion, one you likely agree with, but that doesn’t make it a “fact”

Gator's Mom wrote:
Sorry, this was not an opinion piece. The author is a reporter who specializes in fact checking.

At universities, grant money contributes to salary - it is not in addition to it. Salaries are paid from a variety of sources.

Most grant money for scientific research sources from the federal government. Most universities take about 50% of federal grant monies to pay for facilities and administrative costs (or overhead) to fund their bloated infrastructures. The balance of funds are spent against a pre-submitted budget that has to be adhered to or you have to pay the money back.

The opinion piece is just that. If you read it critically, there are some gaping holes and the author bounces around between Grant money (Ignoring the sources) and salary.

This article fact checks your claim about global warming scientists financially benefiting (beyond their salaries) from their research. To summarize - they don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1nR7rds0W0pvX7xHyjUXkC3QmDry9ZA9f6M1LHuUTtwjoRiqZ_V2VEGNY

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

You are incorrect. The NYT cites that the author of the article is a reporter who specializes in fact checking. That is not my opinion. Argue with the NYT.

Universities have wrangles with the issue of professors taking side gigs and not claiming money from them for years. Most major universities now have ethics policies and procedures that require profs to notify them of side gigs - and funds from the side gig go into the university coffers and credit to the prof's salary/benefits. These funds are particularly useful to a prof on 9 month a contract so he/she can be paid over the summer. Taking side gigs without notifying the employing university is a serious infraction and may result in termination.

JohnnyU wrote:
In your opinion, the author “specializes” in fact checking

Would NGO/Think tank salary/speaking fees/etc be included in their salary?

Like I said opinion, one you likely agree with, but that doesn’t make it a “fact”

Sorry, this was not an opinion piece. The author is a reporter who specializes in fact checking.

At universities, grant money contributes to salary - it is not in addition to it. Salaries are paid from a variety of sources.

Most grant money for scientific research sources from the federal government. Most universities take about 50% of federal grant monies to pay for facilities and administrative costs (or overhead) to fund their bloated infrastructures. The balance of funds are spent against a pre-submitted budget that has to be adhered to or you have to pay the money back.

The opinion piece is just that. If you read it critically, there are some gaping holes and the author bounces around between Grant money (Ignoring the sources) and salary.

This article fact checks your claim about global warming scientists financially benefiting (beyond their salaries) from their research. To summarize - they don't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&fbclid=IwAR1nR7rds0W0pvX7xHyjUXkC3QmDry9ZA9f6M1LHuUTtwjoRiqZ_V2VEGNY

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

Ca. Dreamers wrote:

Climate has changed since the beginning of time. Global warming is an out and out lie. The earth has actually cooled over the past several decades. Oh, yeah, just follow the money as you continue to be hoodwinked!

Absolutely Correct!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CD

You're both so ignorant it's laughable. I'm not even going to begin trying to change your minds because facts don't matter to people like you.

CD

You're both so ignorant it's laughable. I'm not even going to begin trying to change your minds because facts don't matter to people like you.

Why do you have to get so personal? If that is their opinion then so what. Why do you feel the need to have to change people's minds? People are allowed to have a different view point that maybe different to yours you know.

Gator's Mom wrote:
You are incorrect. The NYT cites that the author of the article is a reporter who specializes in fact checking. That is not my opinion. Argue with the NYT.

Was there a vote I missed where the opinion writer was elected the arbiter of Fact Checking?

Your appeal to authority (the NYT) does not bolster your opinion that this is a "fact"

Gator's Mom wrote: Universities have wrangles with the issue of professors taking side gigs and not claiming money from them for years. Most major universities now have ethics policies and procedures that require profs to notify them of side gigs - and funds from the side gig go into the university coffers and credit to the prof's salary/benefits. These funds are particularly useful to a prof on 9 month a contract so he/she can be paid over the summer. Taking side gigs without notifying the employing university is a serious infraction and may result in termination.

This is what we call a strawman argument and has zero bearing on their direct compensation from the University, which was the basis for your "Fact" they arent getting rich.

Professors (actually all employees) at major universities cannot do work-related side gigs (speaking engagements etc.) and get paid extra for them. Fees go to their employers for whom they are representatives. Fees however can credit toward summer pay for 9-month contract employees that include most professors.

A university employee might work at Target part-time after hours for extra income since this is not (usually) related to his/her university employment - but the employee still has to report this to the university that has the right to tell him/her to quit the part-time gig or risk termination.

These policies and subsequent complicated reporting procedures are academia's response to untrue allegations that professors and research scientists who work for universities can be "bought" by donors or other outside influencers. There may be rogue players but most academics just want to do their work, get tenure, and support their families.

Universities now promote anonymous ways employees can report their colleagues who break these rules.

Linda Qiu is a fact-check reporter, based in Washington. She came to The Times in 2017 from the fact-checking service PolitiFact.

You better go back to your Fox news safe space LOL.

NugBlazer wrote:

You're both so ignorant it's laughable. I'm not even going to begin trying to change your minds because facts don't matter to people like you.

CD

Gator's Mom wrote:

You better go back to your Fox news safe space LOL.

What is with the personal attacks in this forum? Regardless of what God you pray to, political view or opinion you may have, having the conversation is healthy. However, when someone will not convert to your opinion or viewpoint, people have to resort to immature and childish comments? Seriously?

It is actually embarrassing considering a lot of newcomers visit this site to educate themselves on potentially moving to the VI. Great advert.

Since when is being a called a Fox news viewer considered an insult?

You forgot to include Alana being called "Chicken Little."

Good grief.

stxdreaming wrote:

You're both so ignorant it's laughable. I'm not even going to begin trying to change your minds because facts don't matter to people like you.

CD

Gator's Mom wrote:

You better go back to your Fox news safe space LOL.

What is with the personal attacks in this forum? Regardless of what God you pray to, political view or opinion you may have, having the conversation is healthy. However, when someone will not convert to your opinion or viewpoint, people have to resort to immature and childish comments? Seriously?

It is actually embarrassing considering a lot of newcomers visit this site to educate themselves on potentially moving to the VI. Great advert.

I agree JohnnyU,
The New York Times have lost considerable credibility over the years. I remember them begging people not to cancel their subscriptions after the last presidential election. Their left leaning agenda nearly bankrupt them.