.

Malloy Says Climate Change Harming Long Island Sound

Officials talked up plans to limit environmental damage to the estuary.

During a panel discussion featuring politicians and other state officials, Gov. Dannel Malloy said that global warming is one of the issues affecting the Long Island Sound, reports the Connecticut Post.

The discussion on Thursday in New Haven highlighted various measures that officials are taking to limit or reverse the environmental impact on the estuary.

concluded that the, “Long Island Sound exists now in a state of permanent crisis.” Both New York and Connecticut were criticized for conservation efforts. 

Still, there were some positives in the report. In the categories of coastal habitat, beach litter, and migratory habitat, the State of the Sound doled out grades of A, B+, and A- respectively. 

In July, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection into the Sound’s sharp decline in the lobster population. Lobster landings in Long Island Sound reportedly declined from 3.7 million pounds in 1998 to just 142,000 pounds in 2011. 

Ben Lasman contributed to this report. 

Sean M August 10, 2012 at 02:26 AM
Climate change is a farce. Weathermen cannot predict weather accurately for 7 days out.
carol August 10, 2012 at 02:47 AM
Scientifically and historically, climate changes and planetary shifts in our universe are normal. Problem today is that humans are excellerating the degenerative order of things. We do not need weathermen to tell us the truth. They get paid to tell us anything. The planet gets no pay. :) It will do what it will do unless we slow down the pollution we create here. If we do, the natural order of things can be just...normal, in its normal pattern. Probably too late for that though. Many humans just didn't get it.
Sean M August 10, 2012 at 01:49 PM
Carol, your conclusions are based on conjecture and false science. The environmental movement has been wrong for decades. 1970s-it was the Ice Age 1980s-acid rain 1990s-global warming now-climate change. The temperature naturally goes up and down. Humans have no discernible impact. The whole thing is a fraud to use government to control our lives and take our rights away. If the environmentalists were really worried about pollution, they would pitch a fit over India and China, where the real pollution is. However, they just want to go after the USA and will use any methods possible to tear down the USA, just like Obama and his thugs.
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 02:43 PM
The single largest effect that anthropomorphic climate change is having on the seas is acidification: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/acidoceans.asp http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=threatening-ocean-life http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=ocean-turning-to-acid-at-lightning-2008-11-24 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-dangers-of-ocean-acid Regarding scientific consensus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change EXCERPT: National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." ....No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position. END EXCERPT
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 02:47 PM
US Dept of Defense: http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of%2029jan10%201600.pdf See page xv, for example: EXCERPT: Crafting a strategic approach to climate and energy: Climate change and energy will play significant roles in the future security environment. The Department is developing policies and plans to manage the effects of climate change on its operating environment, missions, and facilities. END EXCERPT --go ahead and read the document for more! UK Ministry of Defense: http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/MicroSite/DCDC/OurPublications/StrategicTrends+Programme/ EXCERPT of document description, per UKMOD: ...a detailed consideration of how climate change, global inequality, population growth, resource scarcity and the shifting balance of global power will transform the strategic context and create persistent, complex, global challenges. END EXCERPT
Sean M August 10, 2012 at 07:49 PM
Dear Will You do not have consensus in science. That is a contradiction. All these agencies likely have one thing in common: they depend on government funding to exist. Last time I looked, the average temperature has declined in the past century. It is so easy to blow holes in your argument: 1. The community has been wrong for over 30 years on the environment. See previous comment. 2. Weathermen cannot predict weather 7 days out, let alone years out. 3. There is insufficient data to prove anything. We have a few hundred years of data out of how many millions of years in existence? The data is too small to conclude anything. The margin of error has to be so large that any change is within the margin of error. I learned this is Statistics 101. 4. All the solutions out of these socialist groups is to tear down the industrialized world including the USA. Never a mention on China, Russia, or India, where the real pollution is. The people peddling Climate Change, Global Warming, and the like are the same socialists and communists that have been peddling the same solutions to different problems for decades. If the climate issue is so bad, then why do liberals like Al Gore, Pelosi, and the like fly around on private jets lecturing us? If the problem is as bad as they say it is, they should at least do something about it.
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 08:16 PM
Don't let ideology blind you to science. "1970s-it was the Ice Age" See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling EXCERPT: This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles. END EXCERPT Were they REALLY predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s? No. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2009/0728/were-they-really-predicting-an-ice-age-in-the-1970s EXCERPT: In the 1970s, "they" refers to a handful of scientists making tentative predictions, and a handful of journalists who repeated those predictions. Today, "they" refers to every single major scientific body in the world. There's just no valid comparison. In fact, back in the 1970s, more scientists were worried about global warming than its opposite. END EXCERPT "1980s-acid rain" EXCERPT: Acid rain is a rain or any other form of precipitation that is unusually acidic, meaning that it possesses elevated levels of hydrogen ions (low pH). It can have harmful effects on plants, aquatic animals, and infrastructure.....The principal cause of acid rain is sulfur and nitrogen compounds from human sources, such as electricity generation, factories, and motor vehicles. Coal power plants are one of the most polluting. END EXCERPT
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 08:41 PM
Oops, left out the link for acid rain excerpt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain To continue.... Weather and climate are 2 different things, something you might have learned about in Statistics 101. Regarding climate data: http://nature.nps.gov/geology/nationalfossilday/climate_change_earth_history.cfm EXCERPT: Using fossils and many geologic clues, geologists have reconstructed Earth's climate going back hundreds of millions of years. END EXCERPT Click around on that site and the links it provides for a wealth of info on how scientists use core samples and fossil data to chart climate changes over hundreds of millions of years. Also try this article, one of a million where you can see how long-term climate records of the planet are constructed from core sample and fossil evidence: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/ancient-fossils-provides-climate-record-evidence-clues-to-our-future.html EXCERPT: By measuring the isotopic content of oxygen in a combination of fossilized mollusk and plant samples, it is possible to determine the temperature at which the specimens originally formed, Tripati said. While this method enables climate reconstructions dating back millions of years without the need for ice core samples... END EXCERPT Please do not confuse deep concern for our planet's future with "socialist groups... [aiming] to tear down the industrialized world including the USA." Face the facts, nobody likes them.
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 08:50 PM
Hi again Sean, I by chance found one of your enviro-bogeymen published an article just hours ago showing carbon pollution scamming in....INDIA: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/10/the-carbon-credit-hoax/ EXCERPT: According to the New York Times (link), a group of industrial gas companies in India gamed the ‘carbon credit’ system to (1) increase the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted while (2) earning large ‘profits’ they wouldn’t otherwise have earned and in so doing (3) bought political influence to keep the practice going while (4) driving the price of their highly polluting product down so that (5) less polluting products couldn’t compete and (5) more of their highly polluting product was used. The purported intent of carbon credits is the exact opposite of all of this. The basic story is that companies in India (and China) were producing a coolant gas that also produced a highly polluting waste by-product. Both the coolant and the by-product are potent greenhouse gases. Carbon credits were offered to induce the companies to destroy the by-product rather than releasing it into the atmosphere. But by paying the companies to both produce the gas and to destroy the waste the good capitalists running them quickly saw that the more gas and waste they produced the more money they made. In fact, it seems that the companies produced to the maximum limit of the carbon credits being offered.... END EXCERPT
Sean M August 10, 2012 at 10:49 PM
You can quote left wing publications all you want. You cannot have consensus in science. Either something is fact or not. The world goes through natural cooling and warming cycles. Nothing I say will ever convince you of anything else.
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Hi Sean, Maybe you can face the facts when they are presented to you from "the right"? I understand the distastefulness of anything associated with national-level Republican or Democratic Party politicians (remember the Patch article above?), but scientists are overwhelmingly in agreement that man-made climate change is occurring. A Conservative's Approach to Combating Climate Change http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/a-conservatives-approach-to-combating-climate-change/257827/# EXCERPT: Though my political leanings are most definitely right-of-center, and it would be convenient to believe otherwise, I believe there is sufficient evidence that global warming is a serious environmental concern. I have worked on this issue for twenty years, including a decade at the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I edited this book. I believe human activities have contributed to increases in greenhouse concentrations, and these increases can be expected to produce a gradual increase in global mean temperatures. While substantial uncertainties remain as to the precise consequences of this increase and consequent temperature rise, there is reason to believe many of the effects will be quite negative. END EXCERPT If you click my link to the original article, the author provides further links embedded in the original text I excerpt here.
Will Wilkin August 10, 2012 at 11:30 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/12/22/conservatives-climate-change-facts/ EXCERPT: I understand the skepticism that exists (I shared in it, in fact, until I began to explore this matter in a more systematic way). I would therefore urge people to read the careful work of Richard Muller, who was skeptical that global warming has taken place but has now concluded it is real (for more, see here). One might study this report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (ICPP). Alternatively, read this report by the National Academy of Sciences, which is trustworthy. (The science academies of Britain, China, Germany, Japan, and other nations all believe there is strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.) In 2006, the Climate Science Program, a federal program under the direction of the Bush White House and sponsored by agencies including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found “clear evidence of human influences on the climate system.” There are several others I could cite. But for some on the right to insist that AGW is a hoax, the product (more or less) of a massive conspiracy, is, I believe, damaging to conservatism. END EXCERPT The original is loaded with links.
Sean M August 11, 2012 at 03:26 AM
I will not continue going back and forth with someone who has made up their mind. The sample of a few hundred years is too small to correlate anything. That is basic statistics. It is so because the margin of error would be too big, dwarfing any supposed deviation in temperature. The planet goes through natural changes and has done so long before humans ever existed.
Will Wilkin August 11, 2012 at 03:48 PM
We haven't been "going back and forth." You've put up zero evidence to support your position of calling the science academies of the US, Britain, China, Germany, Japan and other nations all "farce" and "fraud," then after I show you examples of millions of years of climate data you reply in oblivion about "the sample of a few hundred years." Sean, I suspect you don't actually have much interest in science anyway.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something