U.S. President Donald Trump wants to roll back vehicle emission standards because he does not believe carbon emissions cause climate change.

U.S. President Donald Trump wants to roll back vehicle emission standards because he does not believe carbon emissions cause climate change.
Photo Credit: CBC

February was second hottest on record, NOAA

The earth experienced the second hottest February on record in 2017 in spite of the fact that there was no El Nino effect warming the planet’s waters. Calculations by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that the temperature for the month was 13.08 C, which was almost one degree (.98) warmer than the average for the 20th century.

In previous years, that kind of heat was not reached unless El Nino was at play. NOAA scientist Ahira Sanchez-Lugo told Associated Press the results were clear evidence of climate change.

Trump to rollback efforts to fight climate change

U.S. President Donald Trump has called climate change a hoax and in his budget proposal plans to cut funding for his State Department’s Global Climate Change Initiative and the United Nation’s Green Climate Fund.

He also wants roll back vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards imposed by outgoing President Barak Obama. The state of California is likely to resist.

Ontario promises to work with California and others

The Canadian province of Ontario yesterday vowed to work with California and other U.S. states on initiatives to mitigate climate change.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Environment, International, Science and Technology, Society

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

*

2 comments on “February was second hottest on record, NOAA
  1. Rod says:

    (part 2)
    Not to mention the fact that, all those variables are constantly changing from second to second. To even suggest that temperature data is in any way meaningful in terms of climate is, quite simply, stupid! The influence of climate on temperature data is indistinguishable from the dozens of other factors influencing any individual reading. To suggest that throwing it all into one pot and just rendering it down actually means something, is completely devoid of reason. A completely ignorant and meaningless exercise, how stupid can they get? And then they wave it in all our faces as if it is written in stone and infallible. What boundless hubris!
    The data and graphs are pure science fiction from a purely fictitious science, Climate Science. A science in name only that should be relegated to the only thing it is good for (????), predicting the weather!

  2. Rod says:

    The very notion that anything of any value can be derived from the arithmetical reduction of global temperature data, is completely naive and totally lacking in any scientific basis! It is obviously the product of non-scientists, or as they call themselves, Climate Scientists. Meteorology is not science and never will be, because meteorology is the antithesis of science and science is incomprehensible to the minds of meteorologists.
    NOAA would have we ignorant and gullible masses believe that the temperature data is a direct measurement of “climate.” How idiotic and simple minded! (These people are what the gullible public believe are scientists.) The instantaneous temperature at any place on the planet and at any point in time, is the net result of the combined effects of Sun, cloud cover, local terrain, local vegetation, time of day, time of year, etc. etc. etc…… climate is only one tiny aspect of the ambient temperature.
    (continued)