Hilarious: a place that heavily relies on fossil fuels…FFs for the planes, FFs for the buses, cars, limos, taxis to get to and around the airport, FFs for the vehicles that move planes and luggage and stuff, among others…is super worried about CO2
(Boston Globe) Â In a major effort to address climate change, officials at Logan International Airport plan to make significant cuts to carbon emissions, curb energy consumption, and spend millions of dollars to protect runways and terminals from rising seas.
Airport officials said their plan makes Logan among the nation’s first major airports to take substantial action to confront its contribution and vulnerability to climate change.
You’re more than welcome to read the article, which essentially says “we’re going to spend oodles of money, mostly from taxpayers, since the airport is owned by the Government of Massachusetts, and cause the price of everything at the airport, including flights, to skyrocket, all for a mostly fictional idea based on looking into crystal balls.” All while continuing to have fossil fueled travel as their focus.
Teach,
It’s tough competing against yourself, but that’s the dumbest thing you’ve typed.
You criticize climate realists for not eliminating all CO2 emissions from their activities, at the same time you criticize them for working to reduce their emissions!!
Do you really advocate the closing of all airports and highways and roads??
That’s dumb even by right-wing standards.
Rather than mock and ridicule those trying to make a difference, just admit you don’t understand science and believe in magic.
The rate of sea level rise has been constant over the last 100 years and new studies show it has been decelerating over the last 10 years. There is no CO2 signature in it. There is no CO2 correlation to sea level.
Sea Level rise plots from six groups:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-FOmeQETELHw/VDQahtvYCNI/AAAAAAAAGjE/zqep6z6I2BY/s1600/sea%2Blevel%2Bdecel%2Bmulti-mission.png
If Logan airport decides that the long-term rate of sea level rise of around 3mm/year is a threat to the integrity of the runways because they cannot tolerate a six-inch rise over the next 50 years, then that is a rational decision. If they decide that reducing CO2 and taking measures to protect the runways from some mythical acceleration in sea levels that has not been measured, then that is an irrational decision that they can make casually because they are using Other People’s Money.
Which corresponds to global warming which corresponds to atmospheric CO2.
And will you link to the source for the GMSL graphic you supplied?
Thanks.
“Which corresponds to global warming which corresponds to atmospheric CO2.”
Sigh. Like talking to a 5-year old who just makes stuff up when they know nothing about the subject.
Sea level does not “correspond”, and it absolutely does not correlate (to use the adult term) with CO2, just as it does not correlate with temperature. The Pearson statistical correlation coefficient between CO2 and temperature in the modern era is -.2 to -.4 (UAH and Hadley temps respectively). That makes CO2 about the least correlated driver we have in atmospheric temperature.
You type such nonsense. And you identify “correlate” as an adult word? LOL
Would you please be so kind to direct us to where you obtain your information? It’s difficult to refute your falsehoods unless we know where you get your “information”. Otherwise, we might conclude you’re just making data (to use the adult term) up.
Sigh. ( I am all sadz too) Glanton feels quite sure that he knows more about science than the Chief Oceanographer of the U.S. Navy.
Teach is always warning us of DOOM from rising costs because of alarm over AGW
Americans are now paying the same percentage of their income on energy as they have done since 1970
Skyrocketing costs ??? Control by BIG GOVERNMENT because of controls on carbon pollution??? Those are as silly as Teach’s fears of regulation of nicotine