Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, September 15, 2018

California is set to launch a satellite to track greenhouse gases, as former US Secretary of State John Kerry and island nation leaders warned that the world is far off course to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures. Gov. Jerry Brown announced plans for the satellite on the last day of a climate change summit hosted by San Francisco, in a final rebuke to President Donald Trump's denial of man-made warming. "With science still under attack," Brown said "we're going to launch our own satellite, our own damn satellite, to figure out where the pollution is." Brown said the satellite will help pinpoint the source of planet-warming emissions.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Our own damn satellite"..... Guess nobody wants anything to do with NASA anymore.

#1 | Posted by J_Tremain at 2018-09-15 05:41 AM | Reply

"...to figure out where the pollution is..."

Who needs a sattelite to see the poop covered sidewalks, piles of needles, and Hep A, B, & C littering his state?

You're surrounded by the pollution of your own making, Jerry.

Interesting reading - www.google.com

#2 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-15 10:33 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Fix our roads, Moonbeam!

Fix our housing crisis, Moonbeam!

Fix our dams, Moonbeam!

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 10:40 AM | Reply

Na, the hell with the roads. Cal needs to send all their money into space and on a outdated train.

#4 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-09-15 01:14 PM | Reply

You don't need the satellite to understand IT IS THE CAR. Because they are mobile our ability to control their emissions is limited and there are SO MANY OF THEM (~270 million).

#5 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-09-15 02:57 PM | Reply

#3 Nulli = whiney bitch.

Why for God's sake don't you move from that -------- state.

(I can say -------- cause Trump says it)

#6 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-09-15 03:09 PM | Reply

-- Because they are mobile our ability to control their emissions is limited

Exactly. The eco-nuts want to limit our mobility and pack us into government cattle cars.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 03:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The eco-nuts want to limit our mobility"

Driving is a privilege.

Why should you have any greater mobility than humans of a cebtury ago? Civilization clearly didn't need such ubiquitous mobility to get this far.

Meanwhile, you hate people who mobilized across our border.

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 03:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

--Why for God's sake don't you move from that -------- state.

Another reason to move out.

"California plans to ban sales of internal combustion cars by 2035, outlaw them completely by 2050; assuming anyone will still be living there

twitter.com

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 03:18 PM | Reply

California is paradise, that is why folks live there . It's where my parents chose to live their golden years..
Of course they whine like you. But whining is fun

#10 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-09-15 03:40 PM | Reply

Not too mention .CA itself is on of the largest economies in the world. If N Korea can afford it ,drop in the bucket.

#11 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-09-15 03:45 PM | Reply

CA also has the most people in poverty.

#12 | Posted by Sniper at 2018-09-15 04:01 PM | Reply

"California plans to ban sales of internal combustion cars by 2035"

Good idea.
Sucks if you're an auto mechanic I guess, but you've got 17 years to figure things out.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 04:12 PM | Reply

Another reason to move out.
"California plans to ban sales of internal combustion cars by 2035, outlaw them completely by 2050; assuming anyone will still be living there
#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 03:18 PM

Stupid unrealistic California! Who do they think they are, China, India, Germany, the UK or France? Why don't they strive to meet the environmental standards of Somalia or Texas?

#14 | Posted by censored at 2018-09-15 04:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Fix our roads, Moonbeam!"

Let me guess: You'll be voting to repeal the gas tax:
"Road Repairs Jeopardized if New California Gas Tax Repealed, Stakeholders Say"
www.ttnews.com

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 04:18 PM | Reply

#15 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I just paid $3.95/gal in Santa Barbara before I turned in my rental car.

If they're collecting the gas tax now, and have been for decades, then why aren't the roads fixed?

If the roads are in bad shape now, all while collecting the gas tax, why would they be any worse off when the tax is repealed?

If the intended purpose of the tax isn't being met, then what...ask for more? For a friend.

#16 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-15 04:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

BTW, just a friendly public service announcement here.

If you ever have a few hours to kill before catching your flight out of LAX

and you think you might want to see Venice Beach once in your lifetime. Don't bother, trust me.

It's Skid Row with sand fleas.

#17 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-09-15 04:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"If they're collecting the gas tax now, and have been for decades, then why aren't the roads fixed?"

Where I live, roads are fixed.
I don't know what roads you're referring to, but all the roads I drive on are in pretty good shape.
Roads get fixed, roads break down again.
What's your point, since there's too many broken roads, you're going to cut the budget that fixes broken roads?
You 100% sure you're not a Trump voter?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 04:32 PM | Reply

"Some potholes grew so monstrous after recent heavy winter rains that California Highway Patrol officers in Oakland actually named one -- "Steve." They should have called it "Jerry," after Governor Brown, who has done little about the state's failing infrastructure except talk about it, while continuing to seek funding for a costly and unnecessary high-speed rail system. A bit of help for the weary motorist who's thinking about making a justifiable claim against Caltrans for the damage it's done to his car? Not in Brown's California. Chapman University professor and City Journal contributing editor Joel Kotkin wrote last year in the Orange County Register that Brown's goal "is to make congestion so terrible that people will be forced out of their cars and onto transit."

www.city-journal.org

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 04:34 PM | Reply

"I just paid $3.95/gal in Santa Barbara before I turned in my rental car."

Santa Barbara Gas & Propane
Regular
$3.41
www.gasbuddy.com

Buy the gas when you rent the car, it's cheaper and faster.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 04:34 PM | Reply

"who has done little about the state's failing infrastructure except talk about it"

You're voting to repeal that gas tax, right Nulli?

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 04:38 PM | Reply

"More taxes, tolls, or user fees might be tolerable if the additional dollars improved the roads. But California has a history of taxing motorists to pay for pet projects that have zero connection with improved street and highway conditions. The Golden State's existing patterns of density and sprawl have made reliance on car travel a necessity for most residents. Mass-transit advocates can wish for magical people-moving networks that will make cars obsolete, but the state's planners need to focus on repairing the infrastructure we already have before they start implementing their dreams of a shining California future."

www.city-journal.org

#22 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 04:42 PM | Reply

California is paradise, that is why folks live there

#10 | POSTED BY BRUCEAZ AT 2018-09-15 03:40 PM | FLAG:

That just means you're too poor to live in Hawaii, an actual paradise.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-09-15 05:00 PM | Reply

#22 has nothing to do with the gas tax.

However, this does:
Prop 6 Eliminates Funding For More Than 6,500 Bridge & Road Safety Projects.
https://noprop6.com

So, you're voting Yes on Prop 6 then?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 05:03 PM | Reply

--California is paradise, that is why folks live there

It is for the homeless, illegal immigrants, the Favored Fifth, and progressive plutocrats. For those in the middle housing is becoming unaffordable and commuting a nightmare.

#25 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-15 05:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"California is paradise, that is why folks live there"

"It is for the homeless"

LOL!!!

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-09-15 05:07 PM | Reply

#23 I did live in Kaui'i wise guy and it was paradise. Well only for a couple weeks and I couldn't afford it.😁
But there is a helluva lot more to California than LA or Oakland. And Nulli is free to move to Oklahoma because CA is so miserable.

#27 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-09-15 07:00 PM | Reply

There are "eco-nuts" in this world. In my mind they chase small problems, while larger grave problems are ignored. Most have their hearts in the right place, but even though managing a sustainable society should be a necessary policy, which our leaders rarely if ever mention, cost benefit analysis needs to be applied to all of our environmental problem.

By far and away the most dangerous pollution produced by humans are radioactive isotopes. There have been dozens of above ground atomic bomb tests and power plants accidents which have dispersed radioactive isotopes over every square inch of the planet. Some nuclear power plants, like Fukushima, are actively poisoning the Pacific Ocean and this is not an isolated event. There are about 222 radioactive isotopes that mankind is aware of and has produced as a result of developing nuclear power and nuclear weapons. These isotopes cause cancer, birth defects ad raise infant mortality. Human civilization is about 15,000 years old. Containing these poisons are a ridiculously difficult management problem because their half lives are so long. Here are just three examples:

iodine-129: 15,700,000 years, this stuff destroys your thyroid and kills babies.
uranium-235: 704,000,000 years, deadly
plutonium-239: 24,110,000 years deadly
Polonium-210: 138 days, this is the stuff that poisoned Mr. Litvinenko, who died a horrible death.

By in large NONE of these pollution problems are being handled in a manner consistent with public safety. If you are downwind you are at great risk and your government will deny any culpability. But, its worse than that, we are all exposed to these pollutants all the time because they were never managed properly.

Oil pollution, by comparison, has a full life of about 100 years, an ugly, but manageable problem (depending on its concentration).

Competition between the USA and Russia has placed untold risks to life on earth. Yet, this problem has never been addressed in an intelligent manner. Instead our Government has consistently covered up and denied the risks. If your Iraqi baby is born without any hands is the USA liable?

#28 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-09-15 07:19 PM | Reply

#28
Oh Bay, was just sitting here having a smoke and sipping my Gordens and coke. And I have to say at least we don't put lead in our gasoline and paint anymore.
You really have too piss someone off to worry about polonium.

#29 | Posted by bruceaz at 2018-09-15 07:44 PM | Reply

There sure are a lot of pro-oil folks on this thread. I wonder why they favor spending American dollars on Russian oil? True patriots, amirite comrades?

#30 | Posted by censored at 2018-09-15 09:14 PM | Reply

Amazing. California is quickly putting all other US states to shame in its aggressive war on pollution and global warning. May the rest of the world follow that golden example.

#31 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-15 09:28 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Sniper is just mad he can't afford to live in Nevafa let alone the golden state.

Get a job bum.

#32 | Posted by Tor at 2018-09-15 10:52 PM | Reply

Jerry Moonbeam is already in low earth orbit. What's he need a satellite for? To keep him company?

#33 | Posted by nullifidian at 2018-09-16 10:42 AM | Reply

Jerry Brown is easily one of the best governors in the history of the state of California, if not the US as a whole. Effective, yet principled. Faced with the dysfunction of national politics, he refuses to abandon the space program or to let the Trump regime silence climate science. People will look back on his administration with nostalgic admiration in the decades to come.

#34 | Posted by DirkStruan at 2018-09-16 04:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 1

Straight gangster move!

#35 | Posted by fresno500 at 2018-09-16 09:31 PM | Reply

WOW! Russians are all over this topic.

WINNING

#36 | Posted by getoffmedz at 2018-09-17 11:40 AM | Reply

"...warned that the world is far off course to avoid the worst effects of rising temperatures."

Damn, I was seriously hoping a light would have gone off in their brains, but alas, more of the same stupid crap. Climate change is occurring. And science has already proven it will happen faster and faster with or without anthropogenic warming, with the time difference being only ~100 years on a curve. We already know the climate is getting warmer. We also already know that we will be in a new ice age at some point. Yet, here we go with more dumbdonkey politicians using terrible logic to combat the issue. Stop spending money on trying to prove or disprove and start spending all that money on infrastructure that ensures we can avoid the worst effects. Avoidance will be because we build our shorelines up. Avoidance will be because we researched where crops will grow in different decades and follow the climate. Avoidance WILL NOT and CAN NOT, according to science, actually stop climate change. So why would anyone agree wholeheartedly with one "proven" science and just disregard all other "proven" science? Terrible. Just terrible.

#37 | Posted by humtake at 2018-09-17 01:01 PM | Reply

CA also has the most people in poverty.

#12 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Maybe if you go by total number because California is the largest state by ten million people.

But actually California is 35th for percentage of households under the poverty time despite the insane cost of living in many areas. Texas is 38th.

At the bottom are the typical Red states: Mississippi, New Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas etc etc etc.

The lowest rates belong to small states and blue states.

So was there a point you were trying to make?

#38 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-09-17 01:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's Skid Row with sand fleas.

#17 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

So Skid Row has bikini babes on roller skates now?

#39 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-09-17 04:00 PM | Reply

#22 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Great unbiased source ya got there:

www.city-journal.org "A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute"

The Manhattan Institute (MI) is a right-wing 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank founded in 1978 by William J. Casey, who later became President Ronald Reagan's CIA director.[1] It is an associate member of the State Policy Network.

It is actually the direct successor to the International Center for Economic Policy Studies (ICEPS) which was founded by the english chicken-king, Sir Antony Fisher, in 1977. He had previously set up the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, and before moving to the USA he had become a principle advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

The incorporation documents for ICEPS were signed by the prominent attorney and Wall Street speculator, William J Casey, who also served as the first chairman. Before going on to take over as director of the CIA, be also drew up the founding documents for both the National Review and the National Strategic Information Center where he became director of the NSIC also. [1]

According to the Manhattan Institute's own puff-piece, it is "focused on promoting free-market principles" and has a mission to "develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility."[2]

"The Manhattan Institute concerns itself with such things as 'welfare reform' (dismantling social programs), 'faith-based initiatives' (blurring the distinction between church and state), and 'education reform' (destroying public education)," Kurt Nimmo wrote October 10, 2002, in CounterPunch.[3] It was also recognised as leading the Republican/corporate efforts to destroy Ralph Nader and his supporters, in the 1990s. www.sourcewatch.org


#40 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2018-09-17 04:08 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort