How do you deal with the fact of climate change/greenhouse effect?

[Dayman1984]

I think one of the more frightening aspects is going to be the proliferation of mosquito borne illnesses like Chikungunya virus, Dengue fever, and Zika virus in places we wouldn't usually expect (I.e.) further into the northern hemisphere. Not to mention the unforeseen devastating effects it may have on ecosystems we rely on.

 

[mike sherry]

Considering temperatures were higher in the midieval warm period, and we have had higher levels of co2 than today, I am absolutely not worried about it.

Once there's economic incentive to do so, we will work to lower the co2 level.

Obama pretending global warming (err I mean climate change, since temperatures stopped rising..) is more important than ISIS (and ending the drug war) is literally as batshit crazy as people saying Obama will have the government go door to door taking our guns away

Ever wonder why the only use a segment of our timeline on the temperature graphs? This is why. No one is denying a warning trend, there is however zero consensus that it is caused by co2 levels ie humans

 

[ocean size]

This is why. No one is denying a warning trend, there is however zero consensus that it is caused by co2 levels ie humans

Nonsense. There is definitely a consensus.

The med. warm was not warmer globally, and we understand the causes- limited volcanic activity and extra solar radiation. CO2 was higher long ago but solar irradiance was lower

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I like the idea that the worlds scientists are all bought by the liberals in a big conspiracy.

Trillions spent to buy these people off.

 

[sloppypie]

Considering temperatures were higher in the midieval warm period, and we have had higher levels of co2 than today, I am absolutely not worried about it.

Once there's economic incentive to do so, we will work to lower the co2 level.

Obama pretending global warming (err I mean climate change, since temperatures stopped rising..) is more important than ISIS (and ending the drug war) is literally as batshit crazy as people saying Obama will have the government go door to door taking our guns away

Ever wonder why the only use a segment of our timeline on the temperature graphs? This is why. No one is denying a warning trend, there is however zero consensus that it is caused by co2 levels ie humans

i think you are trying to be selective. whatever that graph shows, it does not accurately show the current levels of C02 compared to the historical levels of CO2.

i know a lot of conservatives have tried to crap on the "hockey stick" graph, but this is accurate. and the rapidness of the spike is what's alarming - i've read several studies that have looked at abrupt climate changes in the past, and some could happen as quickly as within decades, not even hundreds of years.

christopher hitchens once said something on the subject that i thought was very insightful - that we are taking on a very risky experiment with the only planet we have to inhabit. i find it odd given the level of evidence and logic behind it, that people really think it's all hooey b/c of "greed for grant money" and a NWO conspiracy takeover. it's all silliness - you are adults living in an adult world. time to start acting like it.

 

[unimackpass]

A interesting and informative perspective.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/

Environmentalists originally sounded the alarm about global cooling, then global warming, and now use an all-purpose climate change appellation. The Obama White House, which is pushing for various regulatory and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has adopted “climate disruption” as the new descriptor.

About a year ago, Moore, who earned a PhD in ecology, told Congress that no proof exists that carbon emissions from humans have caused even a “minor warming” of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years or more.

In an article for the Heartlander, published by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, about his climate change skepticism, Dr. Moore — one of a number of skeptics now coming forward — insisted that computer modeling is unreliable and that carbon dioxide is critically necessary for human life. He also declared that the influential United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is barking up the wrong tree, as it were, because it only considers human causes of global warming.

Moore also focused in on the political and economic components of “fear-and-guilt” inducing climate change.




Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/gr...ctually-climate-hysteria/#8qsoE8sCGehPODV7.99

 

[Hallelujah]

The Mount Saint Helens eruption put more carbon into the atmosphere than all humans combined since the beginning of time. deeeeeeerp

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

The Mount Saint Helens eruption put more carbon into the atmosphere than all humans combined since the beginning of time. deeeeeeerp

What does that have to do with man made pollution.

Out of curisotiy.

 

[IDL]

A interesting and informative perspective.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/greenpeace-founder-climate-change-is-actually-climate-hysteria/

Environmentalists originally sounded the alarm about global cooling, then global warming, and now use an all-purpose climate change appellation. The Obama White House, which is pushing for various regulatory and policy initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, has adopted “climate disruption” as the new descriptor.

About a year ago, Moore, who earned a PhD in ecology, told Congress that no proof exists that carbon emissions from humans have caused even a “minor warming” of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years or more.

In an article for the Heartlander, published by the Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank, about his climate change skepticism, Dr. Moore — one of a number of skeptics now coming forward — insisted that computer modeling is unreliable and that carbon dioxide is critically necessary for human life. He also declared that the influential United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is barking up the wrong tree, as it were, because it only considers human causes of global warming.

Moore also focused in on the political and economic components of “fear-and-guilt” inducing climate change.




Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/1946337/gr...ctually-climate-hysteria/#8qsoE8sCGehPODV7.99

There is definitely a fear based political strategy going on. Not that that disproves anything, but as a general strategy it is common to overblow things in order to get people to go along with whatever top down policy making and idiologies are desired, which tend to favor those in power.

As to the IPCC, yeah I think the framework is too much like 'humans are causing global warming, now develop theories and find evidence to show this'.

 

[unimackpass]

There is definitely a fear based political strategy going on. Not that that disproves anything, but as a general strategy it is common to overblow things in order to get people to go along with whatever top down policy making and idiologies are desired, which tend to favor those in power.

As to the IPCC, yeah I think the framework is too much like 'humans are causing global warming, now develop theories and find evidence to show this'.

A very thoughtful reply. Turning everything into a zero sum apocalyptic us against them game feels noble but is incredibly unproductive.

 

[mike sherry]

Nonsense. There is definitely a consensus.

The med. warm was not warmer globally, and we understand the causes- limited volcanic activity and extra solar radiation. CO2 was higher long ago but solar irradiance was lower

Show me the consensus that doesn't come from cook's fucked up study

 

[mike sherry]

i think you are trying to be selective. whatever that graph shows, it does not accurately show the current levels of C02 compared to the historical levels of CO2.

i know a lot of conservatives have tried to crap on the "hockey stick" graph, but this is accurate. and the rapidness of the spike is what's alarming - i've read several studies that have looked at abrupt climate changes in the past, and some could happen as quickly as within decades, not even hundreds of years.

christopher hitchens once said something on the subject that i thought was very insightful - that we are taking on a very risky experiment with the only planet we have to inhabit. i find it odd given the level of evidence and logic behind it, that people really think it's all hooey b/c of "greed for grant money" and a NWO conspiracy takeover. it's all silliness - you are adults living in an adult world. time to start acting like it.

That would be because that graph shows temperature not co2

 

[Fawlty]

The Mount Saint Helens eruption put more carbon into the atmosphere than all humans combined since the beginning of time. deeeeeeerp

nope.

 

[sloppypie]

That would be because that graph shows temperature not co2

it shows CO2 levels, not temperature. like when it has the big arrow pointing at the top and says "Current CO2 levels" and how the Y axis is labeled "CO2 parts per million."

so i'm not sure what you were looking at.

 

[chardog]

I don't let it bother me because I won't be around when the shit gets serious.

nor my grandkids or their grandkids. Climate change is slow at best, nature is a beast and you cant predict it.

 

[Octavian]

I would love to see a US construction bank be put together for massive investment or subsidization of solar and wind energy. Hell, all that BLM land in the west should be littered with solar farms and hundreds of thousands of windmills. There is a doubly positive effect to this since it decreases the need to import oil.. huge current account gains to be made for the US and the long term wealth effects are absolutely monstrous.

 

[Mike]

I shrug and say I'm a be dead before it gets really bad. Same thing I do about the massive overpopulation really.

 

[nostradumbass]

There's a segment of the right wing that accepts climate change as a real world phenomenon.

I think the best bipartisan approach to address climate change is through the carbon tax.

It's a market-friendly economic instrument that can reduce demand for carbon fuels and the revenue can be used to either offset the regressive nature of the tax or reduce the unsustainable federal deficit.

This website collects a wide variety of journals, public policy analyses, and research reports from various leading think tanks and political/scientific institutions that deal with this issue extensively-

http://www.carbontax.org/

Adding more taxes for every goddamn thing anybody does is a liberal approach, not a bipartisan one. Why the hell do you people think the answer to everything is giving the gov't more of your money?

If it's all over and the earth is screwed anyway, why would more taxes be beneficial to anyone other than the people collecting them?

 

[Kalmyk Fighter]

Adding more taxes for every goddamn thing anybody does is a liberal approach, not a bipartisan one. Why the hell do you people think the answer to everything is giving the gov't more of your money?

If it's all over and the earth is screwed anyway, why would more taxes be beneficial to anyone other than the people collecting them?

Carbon Tax = Revenue = Lower Fiscal Deficit.

It's a better alternative to cap-and-trade and ineffective regulation.

Conservatives aren't always against taxes- especially when it comes to moral vices like alcohol, cigarettes, etc.

Gregory Mankiw, among other prominent right-wing economists have endorsed carbon taxes.

 

[mike sherry]

it shows CO2 levels, not temperature. like when it has the big arrow pointing at the top and says "Current CO2 levels" and how the Y axis is labeled "CO2 parts per million."

so i'm not sure what you were looking at.

...that would be becuase the image i posted showed temperature and not co2. The fancy looking 'y axis' clearly is labeled as "temperature change in c"

so i'm not sure what you thought you were talking about, snarky asshole