Global Warming Has Made the Weather Better For Most In US -- For Now (latimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares an article on LA Times: Since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970s, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S.. But it won't always be that way, according to a new study. Research shows Americans typically -- and perhaps unsurprisingly -- like warmer winters and dislike hot, humid summers. And they reveal their weather preferences by moving to areas with conditions they like best. A new study in the journal Nature has found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did 40 years ago. "Virtually all Americans are now experiencing the much milder winters that they typically prefer, and these mild winters have not been offset by markedly more uncomfortable summers or other negative changes," writes Patrick Egan, a political scientist at New York University, and Megan Mullin, professor of environmental politics at Duke University. However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before. The paper does not predict how changing weather patterns will influence migration patterns over the coming century.

Comments

Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

It has been better for the US, therefore it must be good.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[operagost]

No, no one is saying that, you stupid troll.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?

Serious question... Because you're asking that person to change their lifestyle and pay more money, to help people they don't know and will never meet.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[known_coward_69]

how did people live in central asia and siberia thousands of years ago if it's supposed to be a frozen tundra? how did the mongols cross it along with the huns? maybe this is normal weather?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Kohath]

Because the rest of the world helps the US so much.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[myowntrueself]

It has been better for the US, therefore it must be good.

By 'better' they probably just mean 'hotter' because everyone likes really hot weather, right?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[myowntrueself]

how did people live in central asia and siberia thousands of years ago if it's supposed to be a frozen tundra? how did the mongols cross it along with the huns? maybe this is normal weather?

Mongolia has been having increasingly frequent Dzud winters, where it gets below -50C and even Mongolian cattle, sheep, goats and horses die off. And those fuckers are extremely tough.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

They do. The US wouldn't have close to this standard of living without those working for cheap in China, or without oil from Venezuela and the Middle East.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[William Baric]

Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[kheldan]

No, no one is saying that, you stupid troll.

It's not the best way of saying it, but the essense of it, I believe, is correct. The average person (pedants: as defined for the entire population, not just Slashdotters, so hush your mouth!) doesn't grok 'climate science' any better than they understand 'rocket science' enough to fabricate and launch a satellite into geosynchronous orbit, so when someone talks about 'global warming', what do they do? They look outside the window at what's going on, or maybe look at the weather forecast; the average person is not the most forward-looking person you'll ever meet, they're more concerned about tomorrow, or next week, or maybe as far as next month, but 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now? Usually, not so much. If the weather has been nice where they are, they're not going to get very disturbed by the abstract ideas of some news report that says in 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, things won't be pleasant, and similarly, they find it difficult to get too upset by the fact that people they don't know in some country they'd be hard-pressed to find on a map is experiencing what is for them bizarre and destructive weather patterns. If you want to see the majority of U.S. citizens being forefront-of-their-thoughts concerned about 'global warming', you'll likely have to wait until they're being seriously inconvenienced by it, which of course will be way, way too late to do anything about it. Which is why scientists and others who do understand the implications of global warming keep amplifying their reports on it -- which of course just causes the deniers of global warming to amplify their claims that they're just spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Then the religious types chime in to muddy the intellectual waters even further, confusing the faithful with passages from the Bible that aren't even necessarily relevant.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[HornWumpus]

They deliver that oil out of the goodness of their hearts? No? Well you're just a fuckwit than.

Trade is for mutual benefit. Our it wouldn't happen.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll listen to someone speak on altruism after I see dirt under their fingernails from helping a neighbor weed their garden, or see them give 20% or more of their money to charities that aren't owned by them or their family trust. I'll listen to someone speak on altruism after they give up their own Christmas so they can bring Christmas to a family down the street that couldn't afford it. I listen when someone uses the word to enrich their own life through selfless improvement of the lives of others, purchased by time, blood, and sacrifice.

Forgive me for not listening to politicians, celebrities, and climate scientists when they speak on altruism. They use it as a word to control the lives other people, rather than using it as a way to help those people get control of their own lives

They use the term "altruism" in the same way many of them use "love" to describe deviant, non-exclusive, consequence-free sexuality. It's a sick, twisted perversion of the word used with the intent to destroy that which they refuse to work for and therefore cannot obtain or understand, at worst, and an ignorant teenager explaining physical infatuation, at best..

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Who is saying they shouldn't? They also should. Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year.
That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions. The typical Indian can still double. But by altruism they shouldn't raise them 10 fold.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Etherwalk]

Why is it that altruism should only go one way? Why is it us who should show altruism and not the other ones?

Nobody said that it should. But as an evolutionary matter, it is good if it goes primarily forward (i.e. if we care about the future of our species and of our children more than we care about our own.)

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[thinkwaitfast]

Aren't we constantly told that workers in China and India lower the standard of living in the US? No more high paying jobs, etc.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[William Baric]

So what you're saying is that we should cut our emissions so they don't suffer from bad consequences of Global Warming, and they should raise theirs so we can benefit from the good consequences of Global Warming?

I don't think you understand how climate works.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[jellomizer]

Well it has been recognized for a while. That Global Climate change will have areas which benefit from it and those that will not.
For the most part, and why it is hard to call people to action, is that we as humans are rather adaptable to climates, so while our long term environmental food cycles and water cycles are affecting a lot of life in the world. We as humans are not so affected. Attempts in the past to try to exaggerate the effects on humans (Images of NYC flooded so you can only see the top of the statue of liberty) May mobilize some, but it also turns a lot of people away, as these potent images, which turn out to be false, discredits the more realistic problem.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Altruism and selfishness represent opposite extremes on a wide spectrum. You seem to be committing a fallacy of excluded middle. Failing to be altruistic doesn't automatically make one selfish.

Demanding altruism from others is also a bit strange. Usually it is because the one doing the demanding is actually being selfish in some way. They want something to be true (for whatever reasons) and are going around demanding that others make personal sacrifices (without reward) to make it so.

Historically speaking, the common good is better served through government intervention.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Rockoon]

"They" do not think it. You think it. Stop projecting.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

It's called altruism.

Excellent concept, but a bit abstract for the average person.

Millions of Americans are just trying to pay the rent/mortgage, feed their families, keep their jobs, and retire with dignity.

Next to those concerns, the concerns of an Indian half way around the planet are rather far down the list.

You might not LIKE that, but it is reality and ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

But also, because the rest of the world could (and should, legitimately) tax trade with polluting countries, which could impact that selfish Iowa boy even more.

No decision happens in a vacuum...

First, a lot of the rest of the world is polluting as well, so everyone taxes everyone else and we're back to square one.

Second, from a practical point of view, you generally shouldn't pull the tiger's tail. The United States of America has the most powerful military on Earth and we control the world's reserve currency. We are more likely than not to come out on top of such a dispute. The Iowa country boy (or girl) may well tell our leadership to go kick someone's ass until they leave us alone.

Now you might think the above is rather... well, not what you would choose... and that's fine... but remember that most Americans don't even have a passport and even fewer have ever left the country. Most don't really think much about other nations, except when it comes to economics and their jobs.

You don't have to like the above, but disliking it doesn't make it go away or make it untrue.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Let say we should all reduce our emissions to 4 tons/person/year.

That would still be much too high, we need to get it lower than that to really stop the CO2 rise.

That means the typical American must cut 80% of their emissions.

That is true, and that has zero chance of happening any time soon. You might *want* it to happen, but various forces are at work, largely political and economic, that will prevent it from happening within our lifetime.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

If the weather has been nice where they are, they're not going to get very disturbed by the abstract ideas of some news report that says in 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now, things won't be pleasant, and similarly, they find it difficult to get too upset by the fact that people they don't know in some country they'd be hard-pressed to find on a map is experiencing what is for them bizarre and destructive weather patterns.

Quoted for truth...

The average person out in the world simply doesn't pay this nearly as much attention as people who post on message boards about it. Even my wife, who has to listen to me talk about this from time to time, doesn't really care all that much.

Oh sure, if you say "do you care about the Earth's environment for your children", she'll say "yes, of course, we should keep it clean". Then if you follow up and say, "So are you ok to give up your nice big truck and get a small car, and watch clothes by hand, and have no air conditioning?", she will say: "Are you nuts? No!"

If you were to push her on it, she'll probably say something like, "Even if I give all that up, nothing will change and other nations will keep polluting".

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[MightyMartian]

For now, it's screwing other people over. Within a few decades it will be screwing that country boy and his kids over. And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

But as an evolutionary matter, it is good if it goes primarily forward.

This is false. Evolution is a random walk to best fit the current environment. Which is always changing. It's not 'forward'.

But then, the climate is changing much faster than large species evolution can keep up, so we're screwed anyway.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[jedidiah]

The climate fear mongers have to desperately address the fact that the facts on the ground are contrary to the media narrative. You can only insult people so much before they just tune you out.

This is why "Global Warning" is now called "Climate Change".

An obvious response to the retort "then it must be boiling someplace else" might be to point to the geopolitical complications of climate change. Much like with GMOs, it's not always about the "but science". There are a wider range of issues to be considered.

Climate hysterics are usually absent any suggestions regarding how to handle the situation. The who's and how's are actually the least interesting part of the discussion.

One of the British talking heads actually gets this and has moved on to the "now what" part of the discussion.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[jedidiah]

Grok is actually a pretty useful term. The fact that it was fabricated by a novelist is no good reason to shun it. It's a meaningfully distinctive term.

Most people don't actually grok this stuff. They just repeat what others have said. It's total appeal to authority nonsense like quoting lines out of the Bible. It's even less sophisticated than that actually.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions, while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.
In the end, the equilibrium is when everyone emit the same amount of CO2. Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[jedidiah]

Both China and the US could tell the rest of the world to f*ck off and do pretty well. We're large countries with a lot of useful land and ample natural resources. People like to fixate on the US as an industrial power but we really never stopped being an agricultural one. That's what ultimately matters in the end.

The Iowa farm boy can likely adapt to what comes. It's the urban city dwellers that will suffer first and worst.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[shawn2772]

Just curious... But why do you expect a country boy (or girl) from Iowa to care about someone on the other side of the planet?

Because I expect them not to be assholes. I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet. I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.

Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans? I've certainly never noticed that on my visits to Iowa, nor in the Iowans I've met elsewhere.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[religionofpeas]

Appeal to authority is completely fine, as long as it's true authority.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

You may be told that. It doesn't mean it's true.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[religionofpeas]

The US has had a negative balance of trade since the 70's, meaning that each year they need to borrow money from the rest of the world to support their standard of living.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[religionofpeas]

This is why "Global Warning" is now called "Climate Change".

The term "Climate Change" has been pretty common for several decades now. The IPCC, for example, was founded in 1988.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Hognoxious]

Is that that "manishs destiny" I've been hearing about?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

And really, it's already screwing the country boy over, but just in more subtle ways, like rising food costs and the increasing price of his property insurance.

Perhaps, but he might be more concerned about next month's rent or mortgage payment than what might happen in 20 years.

You cannot expect someone to have a long range view when they are simply trying to live day-to-day.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ubi_NL]

isn't that part of that bible doctrine you seem to like so much?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[MightyMartian]

But you do expect governments to take a long range view.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Read this whole discussion. You'll find plenty of slashdotters who seems to think that way.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Altruism and selfishness represent opposite extremes on a wide spectrum. You seem to be committing a fallacy of excluded middle.

I fail to see the middle in this particular example. "I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Because I expect them not to be assholes.

Prepare to be horribly disappointed...

I expect people with a basic education to have learned a little empathy, to have read some books in which they walked in another person's shoes and saw through another person's eyes, and learned to understand that other people are real, and that everyone is better off when we have a little consideration for one another -- even for people we'll never meet.

See my first point... your expectations are not reality. We could debate all day long if they SHOULD be, but that is another conversation... they aren't, today...

I also expect an Iowa country boy (or girl) to understand that their children or grandchildren may very well meet those people from the other side of the world, and that the meeting will go better if the Iowans haven't spend the last three generations screwing up the lives of the people they're meeting.

Actually no, the Iowa child is highly UNLIKELY to grow up and meet the person from the other side of the planet... unless we're are war with them...

Or is basic human decency and a measure of foresight somehow absent in Iowans?

I suspect you measure "basic human decency" differently than some people. They will be friendly and nice to you, but they are mostly concerned with their own lives, paying their own rent/mortgage, feeding their kids, keeping their jobs, etc.

While they care in the abstract about "people everywhere", on a day-to-day basis it is not realistic to expect them to become MORE poor to maybe kinda sorta help someone, somewhere else. And that is what you're asking them to do, in the here and now.

It might well benefit their children in the long run, but it hurts them in the short run and most people don't do what hurts in the short run.

---

If you want to talk about making a difference, then if all Americans were so "empathy" towards the world, we should all turn off our air conditioners right now. That "comfort" is hurting everyone else, right?

Honestly, what do you think the odds of that happening are? Zero? Less than Zero? Not a snowballs chance in hell?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

But you do expect governments to take a long range view.

I do? Not really, not the US Government...

Why? Because we hold national elections every 2 years and everyone is up for relection at least once every 6 years.

In the House, everyone is up for election every 2 years, so frankly if it isn't happening in the next 2 years, it isn't much on their RADAR screen...

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

because random anonymous slashdot posters from around the world represent the majority of americans.

just start your own "i hate americans thread" thread and stop pretending you care about the climate, you troll.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

No, what I am saying is that heavy polluters (such as the Americans) should be forced to reduce their emissions

Ahh yes, your "one world government"...

Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this? You and what Army?

You might think that response is flip, but I challenge you to walk among average Americans, as a foreigner, and tell them that you think Americans should be "forced" by someone else to do anything.

You'll quickly get reminded that we have the most powerful military in the world, and if you'd like a demonstration, you're welcome to try.

while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.

Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.

The irony is that I fully get that, I just don't think it is going to happen. To cut world-wide by 80% would require the US to cut by 90%, we'd go to war to prevent it.

Of course, I am not against trade, so the African should have a right to lease his emission rights to the highest bidder.

Right, again we find the real interest... wealth transfer... What you REALLY want is money, which is why COP21 didn't really accomplish anything, because the poor nations won't shut up about money.

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

you just hate americans. why did you mention iowa? no one else did. or maybe you just hate white people because youre racist?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

I fail to see the middle in this particular example.

That is because you don't want to... but it is there...

"I am from Iowa, I don't care about the rest of the world, why would I change anything?" is pretty much the definition of selfishness.

That isn't what is being said, that is what you choose to hear...

In reality, the person from Iowa isn't saying anything at all because this isn't on their radar screen. It might be number 127 on their "care about list".

If you actually asked them, a more accurate response might be:

"I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood. Perhaps the people who live there can move?"

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

That is true, and that has zero chance of happening any time soon. You might *want* it to happen, but various forces are at work, largely political and economic, that will prevent it from happening within our lifetime.

Yes but it comes back to the fundamental issue. Most won't change the simplest thing in their life to allow things to get better. Instead they'd rather wait for the government to force their hand.

How many people do you know purchased a truck or high consumption vehicle because the gas prices were going in the shitter? I know at least 2. That's a small drop in the bucket but it starts with simple change which I don't believe will happen without government involvement. Sad isn't it?

It's the ignorant attitude towards the issue that's the most bothersome, the "I don't give a fuck" attitude. Since people won't act on their own lets hit their pocketbook. Add massive taxes on energy. See how much motivation people have to buy a more appropriate car, appliance, house... Let businesses build on greener ideas. This worked when the gas prices moved up. That's what motivated the solar industry to bloom and the car companies to become more efficient. Additionally more tax money hopefully means investments in greener energy sources.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Yes but it comes back to the fundamental issue. Most won't change the simplest thing in their life to allow things to get better. Instead they'd rather wait for the government to force their hand.

Maybe... maybe not...

Last year I replaced all the bulbs in my house with LED... I had some CFLs (I replaced those too), but still had many incandescent...

All are gone now, 100% LED, even the closets...

It is a nice gesture, but it won't change the outcome because I still have a huge house and 8 tons of air conditioning running and drive a 3 ton truck...

I don't put solar up because it doesn't make economic sense, but I will when it does...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

One of the British talking heads actually gets this and has moved on to the "now what" part of the discussion.

You can't get to "now what" when you can't even get the majority to agree there's a problem coming (present for others).

Was it at the G20 that climate change was one of the most discussed topic? Maybe I have my summits all wrong but I do recall there being a discussion to get countries like China to work with the rest of the developed countries. Anyhow, the fact that the topic was seriously discussed more than before is a sign that "now what" may be in the process of being determined.

Personally, I think governments have to all agree to spend the future generation's money towards greener power plants. It's the only way we get out of this potential disaster quickly.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

How many people do you know purchased a truck or high consumption vehicle because the gas prices were going in the shitter? I know at least 2. That's a small drop in the bucket but it starts with simple change which I don't believe will happen without government involvement. Sad isn't it?

I drive one of those trucks, but I also drove it back when gas was $4/gal. I've owned a Yukon XL for a long time now (our current one is our third). I find the vehicle useful, so the gas price doesn't bother me. Gas could be $8/gal and it wouldn't change the vehicle I drive.

The problem is that a better version of that vehicle isn't offered. Where is the EV Suburban? How about the EV Minivan? The EV SUV? (and the Escape doesn't count). I suppose Toyota makes the Highlander Hybrid, but at $50K, it is out of the price range of most people.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

It's the ignorant attitude towards the issue that's the most bothersome, the "I don't give a fuck" attitude.

I don't think it is that bad... I think many people care, it just isn't in their top ten list of cares...

My wife is more worried about what is for dinner this week, getting the kids to their activities, making sure the house is kept nice, spending time with her friends, planning for retirement.

The "environment" is nice, but it ranks below all that.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Since people won't act on their own lets hit their pocketbook. Add massive taxes on energy. See how much motivation people have to buy a more appropriate car, appliance, house...

All that would do is crush the economy, put millions out of work, destroy home values, and cause endless other problems.

People replace cars, on average, every 11 years. Some every 3 years, others drive them 20+ years.

But houses get replaced far less often. My home was built in 2001, it is 3,800 sqft. It likely will be standing in the year 2100. You can't say "buy a more appropriate house" when someone else just has to buy mine.

Unless you plan to tear them all down, but that isn't realistic.

The truth is, the changes had to happen 30 years ago... Today, it is far too late to stop, you won't cut CO2 in the time we have left to do it in to stop global temps from running way past levels that the experts say is safe.

We simply will have to adapt to the world that comes.

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

because random anonymous slashdot posters from around the world represent the majority of americans.

I never said that. I was replying to operagost who said "no one is saying that", which is obviously not true.

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Wrong, read the discussion before making stupid comments.
https://slashdot.org/comments....

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[butchersong]

Well, it would be pretty cool to populate the arctic and I suppose the increase in ocean would be a boon for marine life..

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't *know* what authority is true authority unless you yourself grok the subject.

Yes, you can follow the crowd or the opinion of people you believe to grok the subject, but you yourself don't actually *know* that, you just have whatever reason to believe that they know. And if the people who you believe to be authorities are wrong, then so are you.

So the root of it is a trust issue and I'm not sure there is a generic solution.

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[Type44Q]

I'm guessing from your username that that would be the Jolly Green Giant?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

other countries don't have the same problem with climate deniers/skeptics/whatever:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this?

Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it, but if we have to, the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much. That would be legal under WTO treaties.

Raise? You really haven't done the math, have you? They can't raise, they need to cut. Everyone needs to cut. The whole planet, on average, needs to cut 80% of the CO2 output by 2050, or we're in a pile of trouble.

Well first a cut of 20% is better than no cut. And a raise of 20% is better than a raise of 50%.
If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?

What you REALLY want is money

Me? I'm part of a rich, polluting, western country. I wouldn't get any of that money.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people do you know purchased a truck or high consumption vehicle because the gas prices were going in the shitter? I know at least 2. That's a small drop in the bucket but it starts with simple change which I don't believe will happen without government involvement. Sad isn't it?

I drive one of those trucks, but I also drove it back when gas was $4/gal. I've owned a Yukon XL for a long time now (our current one is our third). I find the vehicle useful, so the gas price doesn't bother me. Gas could be $8/gal and it wouldn't change the vehicle I drive.

The problem is that a better version of that vehicle isn't offered. Where is the EV Suburban? How about the EV Minivan? The EV SUV? (and the Escape doesn't count). I suppose Toyota makes the Highlander Hybrid, but at $50K, it is out of the price range of most people.

I have a truck-SUV, not the wanna-be car-SUVs of late. Sure, the fuel consumption is high. About 18 miles per gallon last time I checked. But price per gallon and miles per gallon aren't absolutes. Gallons burned in a period of time is a real number. It's always an interesting conversation with a smug prius-type person that tries to "shame" me into trading in my truck. People * Miles/Gallon matters too. My old truck wins with 3 or 4 people vs 1 alone in a prius. And I can have 5 people, 3 dogs, 4 bikes and 2 kayaks with barely a hit on the mileage. This is it's purpose in life. Good luck getting a prius to be as useful.

The prius coworker example, she drives 50 miles to work, I go 4, and prefer to ride a bike when the weather is nice. Even at a ridiculous fuel economy advantage, she burns 2 gallons everyday while I burn half a gallon if any at all. She gets a new car every year, my truck is 7 years old. It goes on, but gets personal. (And don't worry, last time I mentioned it, some slashdotter wrote a nice scientific sounding flame about how me riding my bike to work is worse for the planet. Crop fertilizers, transportation, refrigeration, and on and on. Supposedly I'm responsible for releasing 25% MORE CO2 into the air when I leave the truck at home and ride a bike. You just can't win with these "climate religion" people...)

I'm all for being a good steward of the planet, "we do not inherit the Earth, only borrow it from our children", and all. But god damn fucking hell, these enviro-religous wackjobs just don't seem to have any common sense. My barely used old truck is not killing the planet, (as shown by lower overall total consumption), but prepare for the wrath of satan's panties if you suggest buying a new iphone every year is a bad idea...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

I am from Iowa, I do care about the rest of the world, but not enough to destroy my own life over it. I'm not going to stop driving a pickup truck or turn off the air condition because an island in the Pacific might flood

How is that a middle ground? That's pure selfishness. A middle ground could have been "I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has had a negative balance of trade since the 70's, meaning that each year they need to borrow money from the rest of the world to support their standard of living.

You might amend that to say the government has been borrowing and spending far beyond our means. It isn't, for the most part, individual people.

While your comment sounds hostile, from my point of view it's just sad. The state of affairs being left by the "greatest generation", (and their children the boomers), is a mess of unimaginable proportions. My generation is being systematically converted to serfs, hey unless they decide to make slavery legal again. My children's generation will come of age with a national debt running to nearly 1 million dollars per person. Everything they will possible earn for their entire lives has already been spent.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

That's why the solution is to tax gas even more. She uses more gas with her Prius because she drives more? Then she pays more.
You keep your SUV in your garage? You don't pay. Simple and fair.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[kheldan]

If you were to push her on it, she'll probably say something like, "Even if I give all that up, nothing will change and other nations will keep polluting".

Exactly. That's what I envision the majority of people's attitude towards this is. What really needs to happen? Is a universal changing of hearts and minds on the subject. Good luck with that! The person that comes up with the Magic Formula to do that will solve all the worlds' problems in one fell swoop -- and will also, unfortunately, be very likely to end up the ruler of the entire world, for good or ill. ;-)

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Well it would be simpler if the Americans forced themselves by electing a government that will do it

You're talking about a country that has laws that allow this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016...

Under Idaho's 1972 "Child Protective Act," parents are immune from prosecution for any charges - including involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide - if they depend exclusively on faith healing.

Good luck with that...

the rest of the world could theoretically unite and tax the US for polluting too much

Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.

If the planet, on average, want to cut 20%, that could mean that US have to cut 50% while some African countries get to emit more. What's wrong with that?

There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years. But I'd be happy to be surprised.

Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make. Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

It's called altruism.

Altruism is voluntary.

Government-mandated "altruism" is simply confiscation at gunpoint and redistribution.

The planet has (geologically) just come out of an ice-age and is still climbing the warming slope before once again descending to another ice-age. Human contribution to the warming trend amounts to a rounding error in this meta-trend.

Global warming alarmism is simply a propaganda tool being used by those seeking ideological/political power and control, and who desire global wealth and political power redistribution.

The climate will change regardless of any actions we take or don't take and humans will do what humans do best and have always done.

Adapt and prosper.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k).
Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid. And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

No decision happens in a vacuum...

First, a lot of the rest of the world is polluting as well, so everyone taxes everyone else and we're back to square one.

Well not really, European countries and Japan would get an advantage compared to US/Canada/Autralia because they pollute a lot less.

Second, from a practical point of view, you generally shouldn't pull the tiger's tail. The United States of America has the most powerful military on Earth and we control the world's reserve currency. We are more likely than not to come out on top of such a dispute.

You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?

Now you might think the above is rather... well, not what you would choose... and that's fine... but remember that most Americans don't even have a passport and even fewer have ever left the country. Most don't really think much about other nations, except when it comes to economics and their jobs.

You don't have to like the above, but disliking it doesn't make it go away or make it untrue.

I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

"I'm willing to put in place a cap and trade system that could mean it will be more expensive to drive my truck if it can help reduce the emissions of my polluting country".

Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?

Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.

Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.

If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.

---

Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...

A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Because you're asking that person to change their lifestyle and pay more money, to help people they don't know and will never meet.

So, just like taxes, sometimes we have to do things we don't like as individuals, in order to help the group as a whole.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? Good luck collecting on that "debt"...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Are you actually serious? You expect the average American to say that?

You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.

Half of America is living pay-check to pay-check, asking them to pay anything more for energy would just push them into the poor house.

Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.

Cap-and-trade is a stupid idea anyway. It says that you can pollute so long as you pay someone else. Except the stuff still gets emitted, solving nothing.

If you actually set the cap to a number that would be useful, there would be nothing to trade since we wouldn't have an economy.

Wrong again. You always bring the perfect solution fallacy. Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.

Finally, cap-and-trade is just wealth transfer again...

A carbon tax at least leaves the money right here, and that might get done at some point. But sending the money overseas? America will tell you to shove that idea where the sun doesn't shine.

Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there?
Anyways I'm open to both solutions. With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't make economic sense for you, but as a whole it does. Energy is highly subsidized and you're not seeing the actual costs.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

...while the low polluters (such as the Africans) should be forced not to raise theirs too much.

So you want to prevent Third World populations from advancing to 20th-century (never mind 21st-century) levels of technology/industry/medicine and living standards by force?

Strange definition of "altruism" you have there.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

No, I want them to have the same emissions rights as we do. We will reduce ours while they raise theirs, meeting them somewhere in the middle. And that middle should mean a reduction compared to the current level.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Theory is nice, but in reality that isn't going to happen. If by chance it did, you'd just start WWIII. It isn't a realistic solution.

And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.

There is almost zero chance the US will cut CO2 by 50% within our lifetimes. Maybe within our children's lifetime. I think we'll be lucky to get a 20% cut in the next 35 years.

So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer. That mean the US will reduce emissions from about 20/tons/person/year to 18. Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.

   

Cutting by that much would simply require changes and sacrifices that Americans don't want to make and see no reason to make.
  Remember that most Americans do not have a passport and have never left the country. A whole lot of Americans see foreigners as people who take their jobs.

And they are either wrong or selfish. I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Livius]

If you want to see the majority of U.S. citizens being forefront-of-their-thoughts concerned about 'global warming'

I suspect the biggest problem with people in the US understanding global warming is not the warming part, it's understanding what 'global' means.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Livius]

Trade is for mutual benefit.

...when the trading partners have equal bargaining power.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[shawn2772]

It must suck to live in your head.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.

Maybe... but I wasn't saying what is "good" or "bad", I was saying what was...

So let's start with 20% or even 10% if you prefer.

Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.

Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time. The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.

Just don't ever blame the Chinese until they reach that point too.

This is not democracy, and it isn't "playground fairness". We can blame the Chinese all we want, and they can ignore us. :)

And they are either wrong or selfish.

That is an opinion, a point of view...

Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".

Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.

Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.

I hope you'll help me so that they change their minds.

My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago. I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.

Let me toss a point your way. Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?

Yes, I know, some people will say, "why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

You asked for a middle ground. Not my fault if you don't like it.

But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,

You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.

I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.

Tell that to those living with nothing in Africa.

Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?

Setting a cap at current world levels would still be better than no cap. And there would still be an economy.

True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either... All it would do is cause wealth transfer. Why should the Iowa person become more poor so you can feel good about yourself, all the while nothing is actually happening?

If you actually had a solution that you could say, "this is it, this will solve the problem, we're saved, you just have to do X", you actually might be shocked to find the person from Iowa (and Texas, and other places) would say yes. The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.

The real solution is so extreme, it isn't even worth discussing. So talk of "well, lets just start at 10%, then 20%, and we'll get there". That is a nice way of saying, "lets toss you nice froggy into the pot of water, it isn't that hot... we'll just turn it up slowly..."

Your premise that the money should stay in the US is flawed. Why shouldn't it go overseas if those living with the impacts of US pollution live there?

Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves. Those of us who are the "makers" get tired of the "takers", and that is all cap-and-trade really is.

As for the pollution, I agree it sucks, but life isn't fair and frankly... we developed industry first, so there you go... If clean tech is so cheap and great, they should be falling all over themselves to adopt it. Perhaps in 100 years they'll pass us if they play their cards right.

With a carbon tax, you need to dynamically adjust the tax to meet targets, however./quote.

If you're Spock from Vulcan, yes... :) Humans and politicians are funny however, I doubt it would work that way in practice...

We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Well a Yukon XL also starts at $51k, so you could have had a Highlander Hybrid ($48k).

The Yukon XL that is $51K doesn't compare, it is the base model with cloth seats while the Highlander Hybrid is fully loaded.

Further, you can't say that because they aren't remotely the same type of vehicle. Can the Highlander tow 4 tons, carry 7 people in comfort, while hauling everything and the kitchen sink in the back?

The Yukon also has a real 4WD system, vs the AWD system of the Highlander.

Fully loaded, the Yukon XL stickers at about $80k, so really not the same thing.

Also worth noting is how few Highlander Hybrids are sold, they are a very small volume vehicle.

Toyota also launched a much more affordable Rav4 Hybrid.

Yea, but that isn't a SUV, it is a fancy hatchback.

And the Prius V also have enough cargo for most people.

Completely different use case... and frankly the Prius is an expensive status symbol more than it is helping the environment.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

You are going to invade, say, the UK because they tax your pollution?

Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy" :)

It is very simplistic to say that you'd tax our exports, Trump is getting a lot of attention in the US calling for a blanket 30% import tax on anything made in China, but the reality is far more complex...

You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one. You would upset and turn over the alliances and power balance of the world over CO2. Any gain you might think you make would be lost in the ensuing mess.

I get that. I think it was best summarized by my the first post. F*ck the rest of the world. Those who modded me down should read your comments, they'd see I were right.

No, you just phrase it as harshly as possible without considering the other side...

Americans have no desire to fall on our swords if it won't actually accomplish anything. And it won't.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe. I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no one is saying that, you stupid troll.

It's not the best way of saying it, but the essense of it, I believe, is correct.

In other words, you're a pack of assholes that don't give a shit about the other 6.7 billion people on the planet as long as your ok. If you were wondering why people hate you, now you know.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who exactly is going to force Americans to do this? You and what Army?

Perhaps nature and her army of hurricanes and tornados.

You might think that response is flip, but I challenge you to walk among average Americans, as a foreigner, and tell them that you think Americans should be "forced" by someone else to do anything.

A change in temperature that radical for the US would have consequences. I'd suspect that constant destruction of assets due to extreme weather events would be the outcome that will force you. Of course it is probably already too late so by the time that realization is made there will be new denials.

You'll quickly get reminded that we have the most powerful military in the world, and if you'd like a demonstration, you're welcome to try.

And the crappiest heathcare of all westernized nations, but what would you know. But at least your miliatry will be able to fill sandbangs and have a war on weather. Like the big muscular belligerent drunken asshole at the bar being a jerk and throwing their weight around. No one likes that guy.

The saddest thing is you used to be really nice, before all that power corrupted you.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

And the fourth Reich would have Washington DC as its capital. The US would be on the wrong side unlike in the first two WW.

Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.

Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.

WOW - just, WOW. You make the Third Reich's final solution look silly. That you even mention such a thing speaks volumes about how selfish you really are. That's psychopath talk there.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Now who has the "perfect solution fallacy" :)

You clearly don't seem to get what it means. Invading the UK is not a perfect solution, not even an imperfect one.

You'd start a trade war, and if you're not careful, a real one.

From my point of view, polluters already started the war by exporting their greenhouse gases to other countries.

The changes that have to be made to REALLY make a difference would be unacceptable, even in Europe.

Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.

I'm not quite sure you understand what a 80% cut in energy consumption would really mean, but you are more or less asking everyone to go back 200 years in time.

Look, let me tell you this straight. You are an idiot if you think the only two possible outcomes are either a 80% cut or the status quo (a big increase over the next decades).
Also, even if I were asking for a 80% cut, I am not asking it to everyone, only to the big polluters.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the ignorant attitude towards the issue that's the most bothersome, the "I don't give a fuck" attitude.

I don't think it is that bad... I think many people care, it just isn't in their top ten list of cares...

My wife is more worried about what is for dinner this week, getting the kids to their activities, making sure the house is kept nice, spending time with her friends, planning for retirement.

The "environment" is nice, but it ranks below all that.

It's your kids problem, let them worry about it.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

But it really isn't the middle ground... That implies that the person from Iowa owes an "equal life" to the person in India or Africa,

You're thinking that somehow resources should be divided equally, that the person in Iowa who lives in a 2,000 sqft house, has 2 cars, 3 kids, a job, etc. should somehow worry about the person far, far away.

I don't think you're being realistic with that thinking.

It's not about equal life or equal resources. However, the person in Iowa is polluting the air of the African. That means the Iowan owes the African. Wether you like it or not.

Fair enough, but why exactly is that the person in Iowa's problem? To be honest, the people in Africa aren't really living in the 21st century anyway, not most of them (some are of course). Look at the tribal warfare, the endless slaughter... When they decide to drop all of that, they might find they can build themselves a civilization and won't need our help. We did it hundreds of years ago, what's holding them back?

Let's just hope they don't, isn't it? Otherwise, they'd send us their pollution too and it would be even worse.
Your thinking in the end is nothing more than racism. The African don't deserve to pollute and live just like we do. If we lower our emissions, they should lower theirs too.

True, but it wouldn't accomplish anything either...

Nothing? You must be kidding. Capping the CO2 at current levels would accomplish a lot. It would be far better than the current trend, which is a big raise worldwide, which could be even bigger (thanks to countries in Europe making some effort).

The problem is, your "solution" solves nothing, but costs us money.

Are you denying the consequences of global warming?

Because it is our money, not theirs. They didn't earn it, we did. If they want money, they can go earn it themselves.

And why wouldn't that logic apply to pollution? It's your CO2, keep it in your country. Sending your CO2 abroad is just as bad as stealing their money.

We can't even get a small gas tax increase passed, and most people agree it needs to be done.

By "we" I assume you mean the US. Other developed countries already tax gas far more.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Sure, but those drops won't have a major impact on the outcome.

You are wrong. It would have a big impact. You seem to think the status quo means no increase in emissions. The status quo means huge increase.

Frankly, I suspect a 20% drop will happen almost by default, just due to people buying more efficient stuff over time.

Great, that means with little effort we could do 30%, isn't it?

The problem of course is that over the next 35 years, how much will the US population grow? 10%? That wipes out half of the 20% drop.

Imagine how bad it would have been if there was no 20% drop.

That is an opinion, a point of view...

Consider for a minute that if push came to shove, many Americans would say, "ok, if the world can't support everyone, perhaps it is time for some of them to go".

Rather than cut our own way of life, if we removed 2/3 of the people in the world, that helps solve the problem too.

Note: I'm not endorsing such a plan, nor saying it is a good one. I'm simply saying there is more than one way to solve a problem.

Yep. There are various ways to solve the problem. One of them is massive war crimes and genocide, the other is to reduce emissions. Which one do you prefer?
By the way, this plan again sounds like "Fuck the rest of the world".

My mind was only changed in the past year, and I'm at least somewhat smarter than the average person, or at least better off. The climate scientists did a REALLY crappy job of shouting about the problem 30 years ago.

How so? What new data did we get in the past year? I don't recall any. Global warming is known and accepted since 30 years.

I think we're WAY past the point where it can be stopped.

I understand your binary logic. Either we stop it or we don't. And if we don't, then any reduction in CO2 emissions is worthless. This logic is just wrong.

Have you considered that it might cost less to adapt to the changing world than to try and prevent it from happening?

Yes. From the information I have, it isn't the case. That's the whole point. Otherwise we wouldn't try to avoid a too big increase in temperature.

"why not do both". Well, sometimes you can't, if you split your efforts, sometimes both sides fail.

Only in your binary world where climate change either happens or not. In the real world, the best solution may be to keep global warming to 2C while at the same time adapt to this 2C increase.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

So you want to prevent Third World populations from advancing to 20th-century (never mind 21st-century) levels of technology/industry/medicine and living standards by force?

No, I want them to have the same emissions rights as we do. We will reduce ours while they raise theirs, meeting them somewhere in the middle. And that middle should mean a reduction compared to the current level.

We don't currently have the technology to produce the energy necessary to maintain a 21st century 1st-World living standard and technology level at the emission reduction levels that have been put forth as necessary to have a significant and meaningful impact.

This means the US population would face reductions in medicine, food, technology products/services and transportation, all of which would affect the poorest the worst, costing avoidable widespread death & suffering, and you would be telling Africans they are not allowed to advance these things for the lives of their own people beyond *just here*...and no more.

Based on models that can't even reproduce historic climate changes of the past with any reliability.

Yeah. Good luck with that. Better wear a helmet.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.

I don't agree with that premise. That is probably why we're having such a hard time with this one...

Whatever is spent to obtain a 10% reduction is likely better spent adapting to the changes that are coming, because that 10% won't much a serious difference in the long term outcome.

Also, even if I were asking for a 80% cut, I am not asking it to everyone, only to the big polluters.

That won't be enough... The experts says it needs to be 80% of industrial nations and 60% for everyone else... that is what it will take to hold to 2C.

Look, let me tell you this straight. You are an idiot if you think the only two possible outcomes are either a 80% cut or the status quo (a big increase over the next decades).

Now, now, no need to call me names. I don't think I've called you any.

I don't think any future big increases are happening, all major parties get the problem, changes are being made. I think a 10-20% cut per PERSON will happen regardless, just because of better technology and improved laws about fuel economy, plus wind and solar, while not super cheap, are indeed much cheaper, so they'll be used more.

I'm simply saying it won't remotely be enough to stop run away warming and that the changes that the experts say will be required... aren't going to happen.

---

Let me put this another way. If you're on the Titanic, 10 min after it hits the iceberg... you can talk all day long about small changes to try and keep the ship afloat. A bucket brigade, sailing it in reverse, counter flooding... None of it would have changed the outcome...

You know what WOULD have helped? All hands on deck, ripping up the decks and turning them into lifeboats. They had one mission, keep 1,500 people out of the freezing water for 100 minutes. They had, from the time it hit the iceberg, 2 hours and 40 min. In that time, they could have built makeshift lifeboats out of decking and other materials.

Would it have saved everyone? No, but it would almost certainly have saved someone...

What stopped them from doing it? They spent half the time the ship was sinking refusing to believe it could sink, then even after the crew told the passengers that the ship would sink, many refused to believe it anyway.

The point is, you think cutting 10-20% will help, but it won't. Even the experts say it won't. Cut big, or adapt to a new world...

---

Side note: Counter flooding actually might have bought the ship another 30-60 min, give or take. It wouldn't have saved the ship and it likely wouldn't have bought 1 hour, 40 min, but it would have kept it more level making it easier to build life rafts.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

However, the person in Iowa is polluting the air of the African. That means the Iowan owes the African. Wether you like it or not.

According to whom? Serious reply to what I consider to be a serious point you've made. You seem to think that it is a given, settled, the the Iowan owes the African something. I don't agree with you. More to the point, I doubt the Iowan agrees with you and likely doesn't care much what someone in Europe thinks about him/her. The more names you call them, the less they'll listen.

Nothing? You must be kidding. Capping the CO2 at current levels would accomplish a lot.

No, actually it wouldn't accomplish anything. You think it would, because you're been sold the lie that there is some safe CO2 level that we can keep emitting. There might have been in the past, but now we're so far past it, we simply need to stop.

Do you know how much CO2 the world can emit and still remind under 2C temp rise? At this point it is about 500 gigatons. The proven reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are about 3,000 gigatons (and we're hunting for MORE!). You think slowing the burn will matter, but it actually won't. It has to stop, completely. Or to put it more simply, it has to become carbon neutral.

It doesn't matter if we take 35 years to burn 3,000 gigatons or 70 years or 150 years... the effect from the planet's point of view is largely the same. You're thinking human lifetime, not planet scale. Yes, CO2 does slowly get burned away and absorbed, but not in our human lifetime scale, it takes thousands of years in the volumes we're talking about.

While it is true that slowing the CO2 output buys time for our OWN lifetimes, it doesn't do squat for our kids. The climate change will accelerate and while humanity won't become extinct, we may have an unpleasant ride and many people may not survive it.

By "we" I assume you mean the US. Other developed countries already tax gas far more.

The interesting thing is that I believe it is common for Americans to look at the taxes of Europe and shake their heads. When people hear what it costs to buy gas over there, they just mutter something and carry on.

I get the sense that you feel that your ideas are better than ours. Maybe, maybe not, but you won't convince anyone with such an attitude.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

WOW - just, WOW. You make the Third Reich's final solution look silly. That you even mention such a thing speaks volumes about how selfish you really are. That's psychopath talk there.

Right, because you've never heard of triage before...

Sometimes you have to pick who lives and who dies, or everyone may die.

It is quite possible that given the way humans live today, Earth simply won't support 7.4 billion people. Or 10 billion.

If that turns out to be true, then the outcome will be the same regardless of what you WANT to happen or not.

---

But I understand your response, you're thinking from a narrow point of view, rather than considering all sides. You also assume that your point of view must be the correct one.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to science it was up to 9 degrees warmer in the arctic (specifically Siberia) a few thousand years ago.

http://sibran.ru/en/journals/i...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

According to whom? Serious reply to what I consider to be a serious point you've made. You seem to think that it is a given, settled, the the Iowan owes the African something.

Well I agree some people don't realize it yet, but I think they are either wrong or misinformed. Just like if you steal my money, I consider you owe me no matter if you agree or not, I consider polluters owe the others. The more people are convinced the better, of course, but not having an universal recognition won't change the way I act.

I don't agree with you. More to the point, I doubt the Iowan agrees with you and likely doesn't care much what someone in Europe thinks about him/her.

Fortunately, even if he doesn't care, we live in a world where he can be forced to pay for it. The first of which is if his government make him pay.

No, actually it wouldn't accomplish anything. You think it would, because you're been sold the lie that there is some safe CO2 level that we can keep emitting. There might have been in the past, but now we're so far past it, we simply need to stop.

Do you know how much CO2 the world can emit and still remind under 2C temp rise? At this point it is about 500 gigatons.

Well first the Earth has a natural absorption rate for CO2. Second even if we miss the 2C rise, it's better to stay under 3C or even 5C than reach 10C.
So yes, stopping at current levels, while not perfect, is better than continuing to increase emissions at the current world rate.

The proven reserves of coal, oil, and natural gas are about 3,000 gigatons (and we're hunting for MORE!). You think slowing the burn will matter, but it actually won't. It has to stop, completely. Or to put it more simply, it has to become carbon neutral.

It doesn't matter if we take 35 years to burn 3,000 gigatons or 70 years or 150 years... the effect from the planet's point of view is largely the same. You're thinking human lifetime, not planet scale. Yes, CO2 does slowly get burned away and absorbed, but not in our human lifetime scale, it takes thousands of years in the volumes we're talking about.

While it is true that slowing the CO2 output buys time for our OWN lifetimes, it doesn't do squat for our kids. The climate change will accelerate and while humanity won't become extinct, we may have an unpleasant ride and many people may not survive it.

I think you are wrong and you underestimate the Earth absorption capacity. A quick Google search brings me this article:
http://phys.org/news/2012-08-e...
It's from 2012 but still, 50% absorption is a lot better than 0.001% you are suggesting (as in thousands of years).

The interesting thing is that I believe it is common for Americans to look at the taxes of Europe and shake their heads. When people hear what it costs to buy gas over there, they just mutter something and carry on.

I get the sense that you feel that your ideas are better than ours. Maybe, maybe not, but you won't convince anyone with such an attitude.

That's exactly the point, in order to fight climate change their ideas are definitely better than yours. Sorry if hearing the truth makes you sad, but these are facts.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Again, you are using the same fallacy. Even a reduction of 10% is better than not doing anything.

I think a 10-20% cut per PERSON will happen regardless

No thanks to that Iowan boy/girl who is likely going to remain over 15 eCO2 ton/year. Thanks to Europeans who are making efforts, and thanks to Africans who are still not polluting.

I don't agree with that premise. That is probably why we're having such a hard time with this one...

I agree that's why we disagree.

I'm simply saying it won't remotely be enough to stop run away warming and that the changes that the experts say will be required... aren't going to happen.

The experts say these changes are required to keep the planet under 2C. They don't say it's not possible to keep the planet under 5C with smaller reduction of emissions.
Also they say the earlier we reduce CO2, the more we can emit per year in the long run. So they pretty much contradict your whole theory.

Let me put this another way. If you're on the Titanic, 10 min after it hits the iceberg... you can talk all day long about small changes to try and keep the ship afloat. A bucket brigade, sailing it in reverse, counter flooding... None of it would have changed the outcome...

You know what WOULD have helped? All hands on deck, ripping up the decks and turning them into lifeboats. They had one mission, keep 1,500 people out of the freezing water for 100 minutes. They had, from the time it hit the iceberg, 2 hours and 40 min. In that time, they could have built makeshift lifeboats out of decking and other materials.

Would it have saved everyone? No, but it would almost certainly have saved someone...

What stopped them from doing it? They spent half the time the ship was sinking refusing to believe it could sink, then even after the crew told the passengers that the ship would sink, many refused to believe it anyway.

The point is, you think cutting 10-20% will help, but it won't. Even the experts say it won't. Cut big, or adapt to a new world...

---

Side note: Counter flooding actually might have bought the ship another 30-60 min, give or take. It wouldn't have saved the ship and it likely wouldn't have bought 1 hour, 40 min, but it would have kept it more level making it easier to build life rafts.

Unless you are suggesting we abandon the Earth and start making space "lifeboats", I don't think your example is remotely close to reality.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

You miss the whole point of climate change. The whole world is going to be poorer (on average, that doesn't mean Greenland won't be richer) because of it. If we want to keep our standards of living, we must reduce CO2 emissions. Not the other way around.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

You miss the whole point of climate change. The whole world is going to be poorer (on average...

I've seen no proof that AGW is that serious a problem or that immediate that the world should turn itself upside down and inside out as fast as possible over.

Reasonable and moderate actions on cleaning the environment coupled with adaptation seems the far more sensible choice.

"Consensus" is NOT science, it's politics, and there is far too much politics (and scummy politicians) and big money involved to be able to trust anything being said.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

I find the vehicle useful, so the gas price doesn't bother me. Gas could be $8/gal and it wouldn't change the vehicle I drive.

See, that's the right attitude. I'm ok with that way of thinking because after all we work to have fun and part of that may require pollution of some sort. All I'm asking is for each to pay their portion of the solution by pay for their pollution. If we do that we will fund the government to implement better power plants, replace gas and coal plants while tapping into green energies like solar and wind.

Re: Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Last year I replaced all the bulbs in my house with LED... I had some CFLs (I replaced those too), but still had many incandescent...
All are gone now, 100% LED, even the closets...

Leaving us with the question of whether or not those products would exist without government interaction.

Just today I finally noticed some 60w equivalent candelabra bulbs in LED.

Finally.

It is a nice gesture, but it won't change the outcome because I still have a huge house and 8 tons of air conditioning running and drive a 3 ton truck..

You have at least six options available to you to address that.

Personally, I'm in favor of a green housing lottery. People could buy tickets for the chance to win a home constructed with sound environmental design rather than the ones builders shit out.

I can't even get the ones around here to consider solar orientation.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

I have thought the gas tax could use an increase for some time now...

I don't think it should be $8/gal, but it should probably get a schedule of increases.

Perhaps 5 cents, per gallon, per year, for the next 33 years.

That would raise it to about $2/gal by 2050.

By planning such a long roadmap, it gives consumers, car makers, and everyone else time to plan for the change.

What would be a disaster would be to raise it to $2/gal tomorrow, which I imagine some people would like to see.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

All that would do is crush the economy, put millions out of work, destroy home values, and cause endless other problems

Why would it crush the economy? All your doing moving the money towards a problem that is costing the country lots of money. Shift the money towards updated power solution. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro... This means tones of new construction which equal jobs and continued growth.

People replace cars, on average, every 11 years. Some every 3 years, others drive them 20+ years.

This means at least 10% of vehicles get replaced every year. That's significant especially if you can get greener solution to become available like the Volt and Tesla.

But houses get replaced far less often. My home was built in 2001, it is 3,800 sqft. It likely will be standing in the year 2100. You can't say "buy a more appropriate house" when someone else just has to buy mine.

Higher gas/coal prices means you'll be inclined in investing in solar panels, better insulation and more efficient heater to bring down the cost of ownership. That's the intent of taxing non environmentally friendly resources. If you can't afford to live in a 3800 sqft house you'll sell and move to an affordable one. It's nobody else's fault you purchase a much larger house than you needed or could afford to live in. And if you purchased the house thinking 5% disposable income was enough to cover for the future growth in cost of ownership then you were ill advised or didn't care about the long term consequences.

The truth is, the changes had to happen 30 years ago... Today, it is far too late to stop, you won't cut CO2 in the time we have left to do it in to stop global temps from running way past levels that the experts say is safe.

That statement right there is the problem. People have already quit on the problem before it's over. The tax money collected by the government can be used to build better plants and help with green energy R&D. That's where the biggest impact will come from.

The US only has 12% of it's energy as renewable. Canada has 64%. You don't think there's change needed? Only the public can fund it and it must come from the tax payers pockets.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

Absolutely agree.

From the government standpoint they can still start spending the money ahead of time because they know it's coming regardless. This will allow the next generation to benefit from action taking today and paid for over 20-30 years.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Why would it crush the economy? All your doing moving the money towards a problem that is costing the country lots of money. Shift the money towards updated power solution. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro... This means tones of new construction which equal jobs and continued growth.

Your failure to understand why it would doesn't make it untrue.

Read up on the broken window fallacy.

The US only has 12% of it's energy as renewable. Canada has 64%. You don't think there's change needed? Only the public can fund it and it must come from the tax payers pockets.

You fail to understand the global financial economy. Nations like Denmark and Canada can do that because they are a minor part of the overall picture. The US and China can't do it because someone has to buy all that coal, oil, and natural gas.

You might consider what the effects of a $20 trillion dollar write off would be if we decided to keep 80% of the fossil fuels in the ground, before you get in such a hurry to do it.

There is more to this than what is technically possible.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

From the government standpoint they can still start spending the money ahead of time because they know it's coming regardless.

The government has already done that... to the tune of nearly $20 trillion dollars...

This will allow the next generation to benefit from action taking today and paid for over 20-30 years.

Meh, it is a minor benefit for a huge expense. The real reason to increase the gas tax is to properly fund the transportation system. Highway and bridge repairs, etc.

The next generation won't notice a difference, it isn't enough of one.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Coren22]

Perhaps because they don't label anyone who brings up contrary points of view as deniers rather than trying to address their points.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Coren22]

But also, because the rest of the world could (and should, legitimately) tax trade with polluting countries, which could impact that selfish Iowa boy even more.

Funny, because the US pollutes less than many other countries, some of them even in Europe. So, who exactly would be taxed more?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Coren22]

https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...

It is starting to happen, and with solar, wind, and nat gas becoming cheaper than coal, it will happen quicker. Now that China is on board as well, maybe some real change will happen.

What I wonder is, who will stop those horrible polluters in Australia and Saudi Arabia?

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Coren22]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

Check your numbers, the US is already below 18 tons/yr/person as of 2011.

Who is going to tell the Saudis or the Australians though?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is a good one to loook at to, but only goes to 2009.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

What type of pollution are you talking about? If it's local pollution then it's a local problem. But CO2 is a global problem as it doesn't stay close to the emitter.
And the US emit much more CO2/capita than any European country.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

On the contrary, they do it a lot.
The problem in the US is that oil companies can buy political parties and the media, all this legally.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

You must take into account other greenhouse gases too, not only CO2. These are usually counted in "equivalent CO2 tons". I suspect the US is actually at about 20 tons/person/year when you take them into account, but I didn't find any up to date information. I'm glad if it's lower than 18.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

I found 2014 data:
https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...
US population was about 319 000 000.

6870/319 = 21.5 eCO2 tons/person/year

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

It is starting to happen, and with solar, wind, and nat gas becoming cheaper than coal, it will happen quicker.

Everyone keeps saying that, but until it shows up in the power bill, it just isn't true.

Wind is about 30% more expensive than coal, at least in Texas. Granted, it may be otherwise somewhere else, but Texas has more wind power than any other state and it STILL is expensive.

Worse, that wind power is subsidized by all of us to the tune of about 30%, so actually wind is 60% more expensive than coal.

---

You are correct that natural gas prices have dropped to the point where it indeed is cheaper than coal, at least in new power plants.

Solar on the other hand, isn't remotely close, being about twice the price of coal/natural gas and about 50% more expensive than wind.

Now that China is on board as well, maybe some real change will happen.

China approved construction of 155 coal-fired power plants in the first 9 months of 2015.

http://energydesk.greenpeace.o...

The "clean China" message is nice propaganda, but the reality doesn't seem to match that.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[david_thornley]

If you were to push her on it, she'll probably say something like, "Even if I give all that up, nothing will change and other nations will keep polluting".

The frightening thing is that she'd be absolutely correct. None of us can do anything remotely noticeable about it. It's the mother of all tragedies of the commons.

Also, there's nothing wrong with washing machines and air conditioning, depending on how the electricity for them is produced. If it's nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, or anything like that, it's fine. That's where we'll get the most economical mitigation.

I take it you weren't going to help wash the clothes, either.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[david_thornley]

We don't have the technology to produce electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources? Getting rid of coal power plants would, I'd think, make a significant impact.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[david_thornley]

If consensus isn't science, what do you do to verify that there's enough gravity to keep you on the ground? There's firm scientific beliefs that that isn't going to change, but that's consensus.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

If consensus isn't science, what do you do to verify that there's enough gravity to keep you on the ground? There's firm scientific beliefs that that isn't going to change, but that's consensus.

No, sorry, reproducible experiments prove or disprove something, not consensus. It does not matter who agrees or disagrees.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

We don't have the technology to produce electricity from non-fossil-fuel sources?

Not as a replacement for current baseline power sources, no.

Getting rid of coal power plants would, I'd think, make a significant impact.

Without a viable replacement able to supply baseline power it will collapse the US power grid during the next winter. The US power grid came dangerously close to falling over this past winter due to the coal plants and nuclear plants already taken offline. Heck, the US power grid may collapse this winter without taking any more plants offline just due to increased demand due to population growth.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[HornWumpus]

No. Anytime there is sufficient freedom to be called 'trade', it's for mutual benefit or it wouldn't happen.

Just because someone is backed into a corner doesn't mean the shitty deals don't help.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[david_thornley]

What are reproducible experiments but experiments that have been reproduced and that are generally agreed to have been properly conducted? What use is a reproducible experiment that you have not reproduced? You accept other people's words that the experiment was indeed done. If you stop believing in what others in general say, how are you to progress? If you do believe in them, is that not consensus?

The only way a scientist can function is to assume that the consensus is generally correct.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[BlueStrat]

What are reproducible experiments but experiments that have been reproduced and that are generally agreed to have been properly conducted? What use is a reproducible experiment that you have not reproduced? You accept other people's words that the experiment was indeed done. If you stop believing in what others in general say, how are you to progress? If you do believe in them, is that not consensus?

The only way a scientist can function is to assume that the consensus is generally correct.

So now it's semantic word games, eh? Independently verifiable results proven by independently conducted experiments are the only thing that count. Anything else is politics and hand-waving, but I repeat myself.

None of the predictions made by "climate scientists" has ever come to pass, none of the global cooling "crisis" of the 1970s nor of the global warming "crisis" currently in vogue.

They are both simply propaganda tools used to enable the transfer of wealth and concentration and centralization of political power.

There is more proof there were WMDs in Iraq than there is of an impending global climate crisis.

Strat

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Coren22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (sort on the 2009 year decending, and there are quite a few countries that come out as a suprise)

I was just looking at that. Now that I look at it again, I realize that one of the "European" examples wasn't actually, I misread Netherlands Antilles as Netherlands. But Luxembourg is higher than the US...Yay us? The point was, we all need to work on it, not just talk about how much the US should do, as the US isn't the only high polluter. I was even surprised at how close Canada's levels were to the US. I consider per capita CO2 emissions the best measure, but others prefer the raw numbers. It all means there is work to do everywhere.

With more modern numbers, I would expect that Germany and Japan would be much higher as they pretty much turned off their nuclear plants due to Fukushima, which was the wrong thing for the environment.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

OK right, you can thank tiny Luxembourg, which is to blame too. It has US-level of emissions per capita. All other European countries have emissions far lower.
Global EU average is less than half of the US. They are just not on the same scale, and any carbon tax would therefore affect the US much more.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[david_thornley]

It's not semantic word games, it's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

Science isn't about how much an individual scientists can accomplish starting from zero, but what they can accomplish based on what we already know. That requires some sort of agreement about what we already know; hence, consensus. If all or nearly all of the scientists in a field are convinced of something, there's very good reasons to believe it. It's not going to be politics, because that's not how science works.

There never was a scientific prediction of global cooling. There was some speculation like "increased particulates in the atmosphere might cause global cooling, we should look into it" and the media publicizing it for much more than it was worth. Currently, we're seeing some pretty significant climate change caused by global warming. Winters where I live are not the winters we had forty years ago, to give one example. We have predictions that are working out, despite very noisy data and very complicated models.

It's important to get the facts straight, and then figure out what to do. You appear to believe that scientists advancing science as best they can is a political conspiracy, which suggests that (a) you know nothing about scientists, and (b) you need to see a therapist.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes you have to pick who lives and who dies, or everyone may die.

Or you could consume less so that somebody else may live. You are expecting others to die so you can continue to consume.

You also assume that your point of view must be the correct one.

You mean the point of view that doesn't imply using the military to remove 2/3's of the world's population. That is psycho talk, then saying "you don't endorse it" because even you recognize it is psycho talk. Have the balls to say it, or don't say it, you want both. That sort of narcissistic selfish attitude you demonstrate is the sign of someone who has been abused and mentally sick.

You also assume that your point of view must be the correct one.

That is *exactly* what a psychopath would say.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[robi5]

This may explain why we don't encounter alien life. It takes billions of years for evolution to go from a dead planet to technological civilization, and once technology exists, it's bound to be a positive feedback loop that destroys itself within a century or so of the discovery of radio signals, the briefest blip on the cosmological timeline. Corollary: even those civilizations that discover this law will not be able to stop the death spiral.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[robi5]

In no country do people drastically scale back their own consumption of anything in favor of saving the planet. Some government initiatives do work, e.g. you hand out subsidies for thermal insulation or replacement of heater units, but individually, even the climate-alarmed people don't do a lot. They may bike more etc. but if everyone in the World had the carbon footprint of a Dutch treehugger, we'd still be screwed, for life in general in the 1st World has a huge footprint per person, no matter what an individual does. Sure, ride your bike... but you need extra calories, and food isn't only a more expensive fuel than gasoline, it also has a carbon footprint. So does the bike and the bike road. Few cities make the decision that 'no road should go there, except a bike trail`; mostly, bike roads are add-ons. Even if you remote work and don't use a lot of resources yourself, your kid will go to school (big carbon footprint), you'll enjoy culture, media, public utilities infrastructure.... I recycle selectively. Good thing. But instead of the former one garbage truck visit per week, now it's on average, two.

Probably all these are worth it carbon-wise but make no mistake about it, the most ecologically minded Western family still uses orders of magnitude more carbon than the Earth average.

And even if the entirety of Europe and the US went low-carbon, what difference does it make, with China, India, Russia, Brasil; with a HUGE expected population growth of Africa; with the ever shrinking Amazonian forest etc.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

And even if the entirety of Europe and the US went low-carbon, what difference does it make

A huge one?

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[robi5]

The 200 million Africans of 1950 will shoot up to 2bn in around 30 years. Asia and now Africa dwarf Europe and the US. We here have irresponsibly high per-capita carbon footprints; Asia and Africa have irresponsibly high population growth. The latter is the way bigger problem because economic growth is on course in Asia, consequently their carbon footprint per capita converges, i.e. their overall carbon growth is quadratic. In Africa, if their level of procreation, and other factors don't lead to productivity, prosperity and thus more carbon intensive living, then there's gonna be hell and Africans will swarm the rest of the Earth, especially developed parts which are characterized with high per capita carbon use.

European population size is actually decreasing. I wouldn't worry about Europe and US because plain technological advance, electric cars and the ever growing popularity of eco-oriented thinking etc. ensure that these economies are decarbonized. However there's little regulation and enforcement in Asia, South America and Africa. Worry about these.

http://www.ucar.edu/communicat...

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[danbob999]

Each and every of these Asians and Africans have as much right to live as you do. Saying that they should not be allowed to pollute, or that Americans and Europeans should have a right to pollute more, is plain racism.
If world population grows, no matter where the growth comes from, that means polluters have to reduce their pollution even more.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[LWATCDR]

"Grok is actually a pretty useful term."
No you are wrong.
Grok "to understand intuitively or by empathy, to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment"
Yea it a new age hippy dippy twaddle. It is so odd that Heinlein who if you read Starship Trooper was just a little left of Attila the Hun wrote Stranger in a Strange Land.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[gsslay]

Because if things go to hell on Earth on the other side of the planet, that results in wars (essentially over scarce resources, but this can be dressed up in no end of other noble causes, religions, disputes, politics).

Wars tend to get messy and involve others. Before long your country boy (or girl) from Iowa is either expected to go "bring democracy/protect interests" on the other side of the planet, or is dealing with terrorist action at their local mall.

That's why we expect them to care. We're all on this planet together and it's only getting smaller.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

That's why we expect them to care. We're all on this planet together and it's only getting smaller.

Then you're going to be massively disappointed...

Most people don't think about such things and aren't making long range plans.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

Read up on the broken window fallacy.

Doesn't apply. You need to spend more time reading about the broken window fallacy. The concept is only applicable to scenarios where no innovation occurs. Say the boy breaks the glass window. The shop owner replaces the window with a better window which saves him energy cost and makes his business more attractive. The outcome is that his business will do better, not the other way around.

Same applies here. Moving toward renewable energies will remove existing issues while reducing cost of said energy long term. It's not a 5 year ROI, it's a 100 year ROI that must occur no matter what.

You fail to understand the global financial economy. Nations like Denmark and Canada can do that because they are a minor part of the overall picture. The US and China can't do it because someone has to buy all that coal, oil, and natural gas.

You might consider what the effects of a $20 trillion dollar write off would be if we decided to keep 80% of the fossil fuels in the ground, before you get in such a hurry to do it.

There is more to this than what is technically possible.

The size of the economy is not relevant as long as you aren't pulling the plug overnight. Nobody is asking the carpet to be pulled from under specific economies. Instead a progressive approach must be taken to shift money towards said solutions.

Doing nothing will result in your country being less competitive on a global market. Countries who will have moved towards these better technologies will eventually be rewarded with lower general cost of operation. This means cheaper manufacturing and lower cost of living which on it's own is an impact. If you tack the cost of dealing with local environmental and health issues the argument stands even more firm.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

The government has already done that... to the tune of nearly $20 trillion dollars...

Irrelevant. The spending has to occur to gain the edge. The sooner you stop relying on non-renewable energies the quicker you will become competitive in the global economy. The ROI is long term but it's there. Most here only look at the difference in cost of producing energy but if you tack on the extra cost incurred to deal with health and environmental issues you quickly find out it's much better than it looked early on.

Meh, it is a minor benefit for a huge expense

I'm sure some said the same thing about the railroad system or even the telephone infrastructure.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

The concept is only applicable to scenarios where no innovation occurs. Say the boy breaks the glass window. The shop owner replaces the window with a better window which saves him energy cost and makes his business more attractive. The outcome is that his business will do better, not the other way around.

You assume he will remain in business, what if he doesn't have the money to buy your new, better window?

It is a large up front expense that takes many years, if ever, to pay off.

At the end of the day, it should be the business owner who makes that decision, not the boy (or government) who threw the brick through the window.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

Same applies here. Moving toward renewable energies will remove existing issues while reducing cost of said energy long term. It's not a 5 year ROI, it's a 100 year ROI that must occur no matter what.

You assume that renewables will cost less long term. You don't actually know that.

The size of the economy is not relevant as long as you aren't pulling the plug overnight. Nobody is asking the carpet to be pulled from under specific economies. Instead a progressive approach must be taken to shift money towards said solutions.

The speed at which the economy can absorb the changes and the speed at which the planet needs them to happen are two different speeds.

What you fail to understand is that while it will take 100 years economically for some changes to be made, the planet needs wholesale changes in the next 35 years.

There is a disconnect that you refuse to consider, that disconnect is why you continue to get pushback, you're not living in reality.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

I'm sure some said the same thing about the railroad system or even the telephone infrastructure.

Your comment indicates you don't even understand the point I was making.

The huge expense is trying to cut CO2 by 20-30%, while the planet needs 80%.

The changes won't stop runaway global warming, but will still cost a huge sum of money.

---

In other words, you simply don't understand the scale of the problem, you're putting ducktape over holes in the dam without understanding the foundation of the dam is failing.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the end of the day, it should be the business owner who makes that decision, not the boy (or government) who threw the brick through the window.

Not if that particular window is prone to breaking and sending deadly shards of glass into the public outside.

Analogies, twist them till they break.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

You assume he will remain in business

A poorly run business will eventually fail regardless of a broken window. The broken window will just cause it to happen earlier.

But if you want to talk about the economics of climate change then we can talk about the rising sea levels and the estimated 13 trillion dollars it will cost just to move the 13 million people on the shores. Combine this with current ongoing cost of dealing with these issues and all of a sudden you've got tones of money you can shift over to better power generating solutions which will better you population, your economy WHILE fixing the issue.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

You assume that renewables will cost less long term. You don't actually know that.

Most solar panel installations (day time only) have a 5 - 10 year ROI. Ok, I get it, we won't solve the problem by only installing solar panels but the ROI is there.
Here is a graph of the cost of energy generation. http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OG-AC575_electr_OR_20140915094435.jpg

The speed at which the economy can absorb the changes and the speed at which the planet needs them to happen are two different speeds.

Which is why I suggesting we spent lots of money now to start solving the problem. The cost of doing nothing is much higher than people are willing to believe. It is estimated that it will cost 13 trillion dollars to displace the 13 million people living on the coast. There's a portion of your economics.

What you fail to understand is that while it will take 100 years economically for some changes to be made, the planet needs wholesale changes in the next 35 years.

Do you understand what ROI stands for? Spend now to get the solution quickly and pay over a long period of time.

There is a disconnect that you refuse to consider, that disconnect is why you continue to get pushback, you're not living in reality.

The disconnect is in most people's beliefs that there is no problem. It's snowing so global warming can't be true right? If any significant amount of what is predicted comes to reality there won't be a reality to talk about 200-300 years from now. Look at the ozone layer. Damage done in a short period of time still hasn't been reverted and it looks like it may never revert.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[FlyHelicopters]

A poorly run business will eventually fail regardless of a broken window. The broken window will just cause it to happen earlier.

Well now you just aren't living in reality, using slogans and black and whites to try and make the point.

No business can survive anything and everything, they all have a breaking point. This might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

And at the end of the day, you ignored the point that the business owner didn't ask to have his window broken.

Frankly, your attitude is a really crappy one, you don't care about anyone but yourself, which is ironic because you color yourself with the "but help the poor people" nonsense, but you really wish to hurt others to make yourself feel better.

I see through it and so do a lot of other people, which is why you get the pushback that you do.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

Your comment indicates you don't even understand the point I was making.
The huge expense is trying to cut CO2 by 20-30%, while the planet needs 80%.

Electricity production accounts for 37% of man made CO2 and growing. This will increase with the move towards electric vehicles and the increased demand for power.
https://www3.epa.gov/climatech...

The other issue is methane which is can occur in large quantities when fracking. Methane particle are significantly worst than CO2 in the same quantities.

The changes won't stop runaway global warming, but will still cost a huge sum of money.

You are only taking the portion of the equation that fits your arguments. In all your previous posts you never bring up the cost of doing nothing. The ongoing cost of doing nothing continues to increase and it doesn't come cheaper with time.

You tell me what cost of doing nothing is? I can tell you there are estimates in the 10s of trillions just to displace people from the coast due to rising sea levels.

Additionally, moving towards innovative technologies will promote growth in many other areas. There's a price for being pioneers but there's also a huge reward.

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're still going on about the Broken Window? For a Broken Window, you have either restitution or insurance to cover it, and you had best be sure a store will be told to fix their damaged windows and prudent ones will have the funds available for it.

But in this case, the window isn't broken, it's causing harm to others.

That's another problem. If your window has a glare, that's an issue. If your window has a glare that it's causing local heat spots (and this has happened), that's an issue for you to fix.

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/09/12/building-glare-heat

 

Re:Fuck the rest of the world.

[Ravaldy]

No business can survive anything and everything, they all have a breaking point. This might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

Good businesses are able to stand the test of time. Poor ones do not. If a glass causes you business to fail, god forbid one of your employees doesn't show up to work.

And at the end of the day, you ignored the point that the business owner didn't ask to have his window broken.

And we didn't choose to have a global crisis but we have one and in this case we have potential solutions. Very different than the broken window.

Frankly, your attitude is a really crappy one, you don't care about anyone but yourself

Really? Who do you think will survive this if we don't start paying up? The poor? You are out of your mind if you think that's how things will pan out.

which is ironic because you color yourself with the "but help the poor people" nonsense, but you really wish to hurt others to make yourself feel better.

So your suggesting that investing in our future is going to hurt people? It sounds to me like your understanding of the impact of government spending is flawed.

Looks like a new strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

We admit the climate is changing, but it's not that bad.
In fact it's better.

Is this a workable strategy to permit business as usual?
What could possibly go wrong?
I hope not.
It's kind of important to tread lightly and understand what is going on given it's the only planet we have.

Re:Looks like a new strategy

[Anonymous Coward]

More like the lyin' global warming hysterics are trying to make me feel guilty about this nice spring.

Re:Looks like a new strategy

[Z00L00K]

Good or bad weather - it's a matter of perspective.

Californian farmers would probably like to see a lot of rain spread over several months.

Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[ITRambo]

Prognostications that tell me what I'll like in the future are annoying. Now it's my turn. Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[PPH]

Don't forget Siberia.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[myowntrueself]

Prognostications that tell me what I'll like in the future are annoying. Now it's my turn. Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.

For one thing most of the land which would become agricultural is Crown Land so good luck getting to use it for commercial purposes for hundreds of years due to untangling regulations. This is Canada, the land of the Great Regulations.

For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[HornWumpus]

Just how much global warming are you expecting?

3 degrees C average temperature corresponds to how many miles of latitude?

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't thought it through.
Longer, warmer, and wetter Alaskan and Wisconsin summers means that the Alaskan Skeeters and the Wisconsin Suckers will meet somewhere in Saskatchewan, and interbreed.
This will mean the emergence of the Great Canadian Vampire Mosquito.
They will suck the life out of _anything_, including newer strains of Quadrotriticale. Spraying DDT just makes them angrier.

However, Researchers in Saskatoon are working on breeding the Great Canadian Vampire Mosquito Bat in response. And in Quebec, they are already working on new recipes for Batatouille, simply because the Quebecois will eat it. They really are that arrogant, and stupid.

We live in interesting times.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Etherwalk]

For another thing, the people who would benefit most from this would be Inuit and good luck with that because Canadians seem to fucking hate the Inuit.

Um, no. At least not when it comes to economics. Some very conservative numbers: https://www.fraserinstitute.or...

I suppose some Canadians hate Aboriginals because it is so hard to fire them when they're doing a bad job, and of course there's some basic racism, but there's such a huge immigrant population in Canada these days that I think more of the racism is directed toward the immigrants, and or to the old favorite (French speakers if you're outside of Quebec) (English speakers if you're in Quebec). Plus of course the politics.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[FlyHelicopters]

Don't forget Siberia.

Side note... Do you think the average American could find Siberia on a map?

Or tell you what country it is in?

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[tlhIngan]

Canadians will like becoming one of the world's largest providers of agriculture. So, there.

Not likely. The growing season is lengthening only because it's warmer longer. You still have the same amount of sun, so that's the upper limit to how much you can grow. While the sunbelt states can grow almost year-round, even the longest of growing seasons would be half a year or less. The growing season has extended by a few weeks - not enough to have two full crops as you do in the US, and unlikely to extended longer because well, less sun.

The problem is, the agricultural areas of the US are drying up and becoming less productive because of the warming and new agricultural areas opening up aren't going to be as productive.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Hognoxious]

Sarah Palin could - without even leaving her kitchen.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[religionofpeas]

Probably not. Even if it's warmer, there's still not much sunlight up there.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Alomex]

Wrong, the growing regions of Canada are sufficiently far north that temperature is the limiting factor, not sun.

Quote from Agriculture Canada: The Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM 3.1) model predicts a 1 to 2 degree Celsius increase in monthly average temperatures by 2010 to 2039, resulting in slightly earlier crop seeding dates, and later fall frost dates on the prairies.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[PPH]

In Soviet Russia, Siberia finds you!

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Z00L00K]

Because she already lives there... Almost.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Anonymous Coward]

EXACTLY. It is not that there isn't enough Sun, Saskatchewan (where I'm from) gets plenty of it yearly its that it gets DAMN COLD and thus freezes crops. Thus if the minimum temperatures are increasing such that 'freezing temperatures' are delayed (later in the year) or cut off (earlier in the year) you'll have a longer growing season with sufficient sun/daylight to sustain growth.

As we say in Saskatchewan...'global warming?....bring it on baby!' :-)

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Anonymous Coward]

You've never actually been to Canada have you or know little about it...unless you mean the Yukon, NWT etc (a large land mass area but not where most people live). by 'up there' the 'Rest of Canada' gets PLENTY of sunshine...yeah even in the winter...it is not for lack of sunshine its the temperature, its kind of tough to grow wheat in January (with sunshine hours being roughly (8am to 5pm...so your basic 8 hour day) when its -40 outside.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Anonymous Coward]

The distribution of sun light is very different in the far north than it is in tropical areas. In the tropics there is 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness. In the far north there is far more hours of sun light in the summer and some areas of no sun light during the winter. Many areas in the northern US grow very high yields in fewer days because of the greater hours of light. Even if it was warm enough in the polar areas there would be months of of little sunlight followed months of a great deal of sunlight. I don't know how that would effect agriculture.

Re:Stop telling me what I'll like and not like

[Anonymous Coward]

During the shorter growing season, there's plenty of sunlight. Some crops might grow well.

so we need to go back to bad weather?

[known_coward_69]

so the crappy pre-global warming weather we had is what we need to go back to? back when i was in the army all the guys i knew from the midwest talked about their normal winters of -20 with the wind chill

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[Kohath]

You owe it to owners of beach houses.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who gets to define "good" and "bad". I love snow, love real winters, love skiing, love ice-racing (which requires frozen lakes) etc. etc. Too bad you don't enjoy that, but it's by no means "crappy", it's just weather.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[Ogive17]

I'm in Ohio. -20F wind chill still occurs. From my experience, the temperature is often warmer but the wind is stronger. We have less precipitation which is a problem because the underground aquifers are mostly replenished by the spring thaw. When it does get cold, it doesn't last long. I use to be able to play pond hockey frequently (all of Jan/Feb), now we're lucky to get 1 week of ice that is thick enough to be safe.

This past February, we had 2 Saturdays in a row that the temperature approached 70F. Both times we had 20-30mph sustained winds that made it very difficult to enjoy.

Better is a relative term.. but it is definitely warmer.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[aron1231]

Also, just so you know, the CO has always been here (on Earth). We are just releasing it from it's "grave." Bringing ourselves back to an earlier point in Earth's history.

Hooray for cycles!

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[BadgerRush]

Slashdot ate my "2"s. Apparently it doesn't support superscript or underscript characters.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[operagost]

So you know all there is to know about climate change, but don't know that carbon exists in places other than the atmosphere? Ever heard of sequestration? It's not the answer, but it's part of it.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm in Ohio. ...
This past February, we had 2 Saturdays in a row that the temperature approached 70F. ...

Yeah, and we also had snow in April. Ohio weather has never made sense regardless of ENSO cycle or polar vortex activity.

Re:so we need to go back to bad weather?

[Anonymous Coward]

so the crappy pre-global warming weather we had is what we need to go back to? back when i was in the army all the guys i knew from the midwest talked about their normal winters of -20 with the wind chill

-20 with wind chill is warm.

In Soviet Russia...

[Tablizer]

It's what Russia has been saying for years: "Warming? In Russia? How is that bad? It's usually f8cking cold here!"

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[MightyMartian]

Warming in Russia could be very bad because there are megatons of methane in the permafrost in Siberia that, if it should be released due to melting, is going to rapidly accelerate warming.

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[R3d M3rcury]

...which is bad for Russia how?

Re: In Soviet Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

lets assume thats true. so what? russia is super friggin cold. why wouldnt they want even more global warming?

fuk U nigga

[Anonymous Coward]

dat sk8r d00d iz 2 c00l 4 me. ur a gay fagit.

glaciers

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure glad those glaciers are not here anymore in my backyard it was cold with them here.

I'm not one of those

[damn_registrars]

I moved back to where I grew up in part because I missed the winter. I'm back and have very little winter in this place - snow doesn't last (too warm), lakes don't freeze early enough (same reason) - I would have moved further north if I'd have known ahead of time that I was going to run in to this. I really enjoy snow and cold myself; I know I can always make more heat or put on another layer of clothing but making cold air is a challenge - and the world doesn't need me running around naked.

Re:I'm not one of those

[William Baric]

I live in Canada. I also like winter. Still, I think -10 Celsius instead of -20 would be nice.

Re:I'm not one of those

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather have -30 instead of -20 for the winters like we used to have as a kid...kills off a lot more things like pine beetles...a mild winter is almost no use of a winter at all.

Re:I'm not one of those

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here, I moved to northern Illinois expecting real god-damn Winter, not this miserable rain, heat, rain, heat. I've gotten the flu twice in 2 months due to this crappy warm weather. The humidity was horrendous last night, the grocery store was almost sold out of ice cream as people gorge themselves on cold treats to try and get by. I don't even want to think about how bad the mosquito infestations will get this summer.

Re:I'm not one of those

[FlyHelicopters]

The humidity was horrendous last night, the grocery store was almost sold out of ice cream as people gorge themselves on cold treats to try and get by.

Air conditioning has been a thing for 100 years now. :)

Re:I'm not one of those

[operagost]

This. I used to hate when my parents said the same thing: "you can always put on more clothes, but you can't run around naked." Maybe that made sense in the 1980s when heating oil was cheap, but the most recent dive in oil prices notwithstanding, if you're not heating with geothermal or natural gas, winter absolutely destroys your budget. This is the first winter in the 7 years I've been in my house that I didn't rack up over $1,000 on heating alone-- and my house is pretty well insulated with an efficient hydronic system.

Re:I'm not one of those

[Anonymous Coward]

"you can always put on more clothes, but you can't run around naked." .

With the coming Gender-irrelevant bathrooms and locker rooms, I'm not sure that will continue to be a problem.

Buy up those Canadian Trailer Parks Now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Canada will become the new Florida.

The major problems will be man made

[burtosis]

What do you predict will happen it something like a major change in humidity affects a region that has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors? Keep in mind that's mainly just added moisture from a change in local weather patterns, something likely of typical changes in the future.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[PPH]

has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors

Texas?

Re:The major problems will be man made

[myowntrueself]

What do you predict will happen it something like a major change in humidity affects a region that has a nuclear arsenal and faces hostile neighbors? Keep in mind that's mainly just added moisture from a change in local weather patterns, something likely of typical changes in the future.

Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[__aaclcg7560]

Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity.

The Persian Gulf area will be uninhabitable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/27/science/intolerable-heat-may-hit-the-middle-east-by-the-end-of-the-century.html

Re:The major problems will be man made

[Etherwalk]

Its going to get really interesting when certain regions get temperatures over 38C and 100% humidity. And it becomes impossible to live without aircond; people outside airconditioning will just drop dead.

The United States still has Alaska, which is a little over 20% as large as the rest of the United States, and with basically no population. The entire population could fit there easily if you built it up.

Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily. The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes); France would complain but probably not do anything. If Canada was really smart it could cut the still substantial trade barriers between the two markets, welcome more successful Americans and American companies up, and gain a lot more economic and political and potentially military power through that over time.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would the US need to conquer Canada? A simple dinner and a movie would probably suffice - large swathes of Canada would leap at the chance to get away from Quebec.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[Anonymous Coward]

"threshold for survival for more than six unprotected hours is 35 degrees Celsius, or about 95 degrees Fahrenheit". Just another summer day in north florida. 98 degrees with 95% humidity is not unusual at all. And I stay outside all day no problem.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[FlyHelicopters]

Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily.

Why do either? Canada has 10 provinces and territories...

State # 51-60, there you go...

The trick would be keeping Britain neutral (it has nukes)

Even if we invaded Canada by force, Britain is not going to nuke the US, that would be suicide. More likely, they can have 2 or 3 provinces.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[Anonymous Coward]

So the area with the most-accessible oil in the world will become uninhabitable? Sounds like global warming just solved itself.

Re:The major problems will be man made

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the current balance of power, the United States could also just buy (or conquer, I suppose) one of the Canadian provinces pretty easily.

Why do either? Canada has 10 provinces and territories...

State # 51-60, there you go...

We are not taking Quebec!

start thinking about effects on non-humans

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans can make conscious decisions about the environment in which they want to live. Most other species can not however. Insects can not just move to a more comfortable region if their ecosystem has become hostile. Plants can not just apply sun screen if UV levels are so high that they can no longer live.

And you will only notice the importance of birds and insects for our world when most of them are gone forever.

Re: start thinking about effects on non-humans

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us will be dead by then, so who cares.

Re:start thinking about effects on non-humans

[HornWumpus]

What? Just wrong. Ecosystems move north and south with changes of environment. No Issue from an idiot. Please shoot yourself now.

Re:start thinking about effects on non-humans

[Anonymous Coward]

Insects and other creatures will do what they've done for the last 400 million years of climate change. Today's climate isn't the `correct' climate.

Re:start thinking about effects on non-humans

[MightyMartian]

But many humans can't. Look what happens when a bunch of humans from the Middle East decide they want to pick up and move to Europe.

Re:start thinking about effects on non-humans

[MightyMartian]

It is for agrarian and urbanized civilization.

Re:start thinking about effects on non-humans

[Anonymous Coward]

And why is that the best civilization, other than the obvious thing of me being a part of that?

That's a crock.

[Anonymous Coward]

Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste. The third world countries are struggling to compete in the global market, and can't afford environmentally-friendly production technologies. So, rather than starve to death, they pollute. A lot.

I could link sources, but I don't have any on hand and am too lazy to search for them. If you are actually interested, you can google it yourself.

So anyway, there really is no reason why someone living in Iowa should care...they aren't the problem.

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

Man's influence on global warming comes from pollution. The lion's share of pollution does not come from first-world consumer waste. It overwhelmingly comes from third-world industrial waste.

Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.

Re:That's a crock.

[FlyHelicopters]

Well 85% of the population of the world is in the third world. Still, the other 15% must emit 35% of the greenhouse gases. And much more historically.

China is emitting about twice as much CO2 right now as the US is, they are now nearly 1/3 of the whole planet's CO2.

Even holding at current levels, it won't take long for them to emit more CO2 than all Western nations have done in our entire histories...

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.

Re:That's a crock.

[religionofpeas]

So anyway, there really is no reason why someone living in Iowa should care...they aren't the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:That's a crock.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the rest of the world were altruistic, they would stop having children.

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

you should praise China, the only country which implemented a massive birth limitation policy

Re:That's a crock.

[FlyHelicopters]

Well, given that their population is 4x the US, it seems more than fair that they only emit twice as much CO2.

And yet you want the US to cut further, without having China cut?

I think you missed the forest for the trees...

The whole planet has to cut 80%, and that sadly isn't going to happen in our lifetimes...

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

Any cut is better than no cut.
The US could cut from 20 to 5 while China cut from 7 to 5, that would be a great start. I do think China should cut, I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.

Re:That's a crock.

[FlyHelicopters]

Any cut is better than no cut.

Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?

What I'd like to see is a conversation about how to get to where we want to go in a responsible fashion. I don't hear much of it over the screaming by both sides (neither of whom are very reasonable about it all)

The US could cut from 20 to 5

In what timeframe? 100 years? 50 years?

A cut from 20 to 15 is a more reasonable first step and might be accomplished over the next 35 years, with 2050 as a target. We could then aim for a cut to 10 by 2075 and perhaps then to 5 by 2100.

China cut from 7 to 5

I suspect China will do that much on their own, regardless of anything else. It only makes sense for them.

I just don't think the US should be allowed to emit more per capita.

The problem with that sort of wording is that it just shuts down all conversation and puts people on the defensive.

"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"

It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit. You'll never get anywhere using a stick against America, since we have the biggest one.

Pretend you're a hostage negotiator and you have someone who has a gun to someone's head. Telling them, "sorry, you're not allowed to shoot them, put the gun down or else..." isn't going to save the hostage... You have to use much nicer words and play to the guy's ego...

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

Probably so... the question becomes... How much can we cut, how quickly, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives?

We must also asks ourselves how much can we afford NOT to cut, without causing undue stress to the economy and people's lives? Global warming isn't a threat to the human specie. It is an economic problem. Not doing anything means a future production loss, forever.

"allowed"... the average American would say, "by whom?" Or, "you and what Army?"

Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions. I still think American voters have a brain and can elect a government that will do so.
But on failure, the rest of the world could (and should) shame and yes, penalize, the US.

It isn't anyone else's right to tell us how much we can, or cannot emit

It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do. That's the problem of global warming. Polluting the others is a form of aggression.

Re:That's a crock.

[Anonymous Coward]

So the US just needs more people. What's that chart per country or per land area?

Re:That's a crock.

[FlyHelicopters]

Look, I used the word "allowed" while it may not be the best choice. Think of it as "deserve" if you prefer. The US should by itself limit its own emissions.

Fair enough...

You may not be aware how offensive the first way you put it is to many Americans. You might as well be insulting our mothers. :)

There is a mind set, right or wrong, that we're on top of the pile and no one can tell us what to do. Of course no one stays there forever, but most people don't have a long view.

It isn't anyone else's duty to suffer from your pollution either, but they do.

Well then, they should have developed an industrial revolution and built up cities and industry then, shouldn't they? :)

Re:That's a crock.

[danbob999]

Well then, they should have developed an industrial revolution and built up cities and industry then, shouldn't they? :)

They'd still suffer from your pollution, so I don't see your point.

Re:That's a crock.

[FlyHelicopters]

They'd still suffer from your pollution, so I don't see your point.

It was snark, you were supposed to laugh. :)

Sometimes humor doesn't translate on the Interwebs... I was just trying to be funny...

A chance of raining meatballs...

[__aaclcg7560]

I read something a while back that 20th century weather was a "statistical fluke" and humanity will never experience another period of stable weather. Oh, well. I'm moving to the hills in the next 20 years to avoid raising sea levels in California.

Re:A chance of raining meatballs...

[R3d M3rcury]

Fuck that. I'm staying put. According to most models, I'll have beachfront property in 100 years!

If only I could think of a way to live that long...

I like to ski

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck global warming

It also used to get cold enough to snow here and doesn't any more. It also appears to have substantially impacted plant growth/bloom times locally.

There's lots of other implications which may be more important ultimately than 88% of people's improved comfort in general weather. Predicted rising sea levels will hugely effect large population centers. These changes will affect agricultural lands and crop yields, not necessarily for the better. Severe weather events appear to be occurring more often, etc..

All of the deniers will just take this as proof that everything's going to be OK. Jesus wants global warming and is making the US nicer for us

Re:I like to ski

[Anonymous Coward]

yet you fail to mention where you live

Re:I like to ski

[colin_faber]

Right. Burn the heretics, in other news, Colorado, where I live, has had one of the best ski seasons in years.

Re:I like to ski

[Dahamma]

And so has Tahoe in CA. But that's because the last few years of "best in years" were so bad it almost bankrupted the Tahoe ski resorts.

Finally the truth

[BlueCoder]

For the most part weather is the western world has been getting better for residential living...

Without humans it would actually had been much colder albeit there would be more species still in existence.

Weather is not static, nor is the earths atmosphere which bleeds off into outer space.

Lets stop talking about anthropomorphic climate change and actually make it fact by actively managing it and taking responsibility.

Come the next ice age we will need to burn all that oil and coal currently in the ground.

Re:Finally the truth

[avandesande]

I think there is a good chance that global warming and the resulting atmospheric moisture will bring water back to the Sahara. This should also be true for the southwest usa where monsoonal rains depend on ocean surface temperature in the gulf of california.

Re:Finally the truth

[religionofpeas]

Come the next ice age we will need to burn all that oil and coal currently in the ground.

We've already burned more than enough oil and coal to stop the next ice age.

Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

When you take in the Heat Waves of the 30's we're no where near that bad in the US, and from the 60's to 1991 had a significant effect of global cooling due to a fairly large amount of SO2 in the Stratosphere due to a series of volcanic eruptions. Is this an improvement due to Global Warming CO2 or an improvement due to a lack of SO2 eruptions into the Stratosphere. I can go into why the rain has spontaneously increased since about 2010 due to an enhanced evaporation effect caused by the last solar cycle that was made possible by the Suns Northern field going wonky. This was in part predicted by NASA when they started detecting Northern polarity CME's ripping though the Magnetic field as if they were Southern CME's back in 2008. But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

Re:Still Not Buying

[Anonymous Coward]

People tend to ignore things like historical facts, like the fact that Silicon Valley got 3 inches of snow in 1976, or that a tornado touched down there in 1998 (personally, I always enjoyed spotting the funnels forming and was sad that they touched down so rarely.)

Re:Still Not Buying

[RabidReindeer]

It's because you cherry-pick your facts and you don't permit the possibility that facts are additive, not exclusive.

Re:Still Not Buying

[idji]

then look at this data please http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c... . That's clearly not volcanic.
and this data https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Something IS happening over the scale of decades.
I don't care about AN extreme heat event in the 1930's. I do care if there are extreme heat events in 2035-38, 2045-46, 2048-50, 2053-57....

Re:Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

So you don't care about a decade long series of heat waves that caused the dust bowl. Which resulted is massive repeated crop failures that then resulted in the Great Depression. If your "models" conveniently ignore all data prior to 1960 so that they don't have to explain an actual disaster what credit should be given to predicting worse events in the future? As for your referenced "data". I didn't say there wasn't more CO2, and the chart from the Mauna Loa Observatory is cute. How about the Optical Depth data that shows the SO2 light reflection that is relevant to what I claimed, and to what the article claims to have found. Or how about the GHCN dataset which if you dive in and pull out the Precipitation, and Evaporation you have some interesting problem with Global Warming. One 'Claim' from Global Warming is the increase in heat increases evaporation, increasing humidity, thus increasing rain and Precipitation. The problem is you get this nice little graph that I'm sure you're going to ignore because all these lovely scientists cant possibly be wrong. It doesn't even matter to you that NASA predicted that cycle 24 would be particularly bad. If my analysis is correct, which it is, and nasa's prediction was correct, which it was, then there is a serious problem. It means that the Pan Evaporation mesurments were sensitive enough to pick up a nasty level of solar activity, but not sensitive enough to pick up your phantom global warming since 1950 when the US Geologic Survey fine tuned the measurement process because they needed to know how much evaporated off of lake mead that the prior data was so variant it was unusable. If I'm right, which I am, then that means Global warming from 1950 to 2010 is nothing compared to what the CME's have been doing to us. And this all brought to you by the Sun's northern field deciding to take some time off. So yea your 25% increase in overall CO2 since 1960 is pretty meaningless in the scope of the overall data because if it was It should have moved the evaporation long before 2010.

Re:Still Not Buying

[KeensMustard]

Sure - just publish your paper and we'll look at it. Don't cite yourself as an authority though, because that is the equivalent of just making a baseless assertion. Show us your research, show us the data, and we'll take a look.

But no just because I have facts on my side I get labeled the Equivalent of a Holocaust denier.

You are exhibiting signs of a persecution complex for no apparent reason. This makes people suspicious, as it is one of the behaviors noted in connection with Conspiracist Ideation. That's okay - if this suspicion is unwarranted, it will be assuaged when you publish.

Re:Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

No Apparent Reason? Here

All that is true, but there’s a further point worth making: climate change denial is actually much worse than Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial deals with the deaths of millions in the past, which it did nothing to cause, however morally odious it surely is. Global warming denial deals with the deaths of millions in the future, which it helps to cause, by crippling efforts to prevent them. And that’s something much worse, as is reflected in law: It’s not a crime to lie about murders in the past, except to hinder a police investigation, or prosecution; but it is a crime to tell enabling lies about future murders—it’s called conspiracy to commit murder.

Or

I make my “climate change denier” claim for one reason. It’s easy today to teach students to condemn the Holocaust, but it’s much more difficult to teach them how to try to prevent future genocides. There are different kinds of genocides and they don’t repeat themselves; they come to us in different ways. I am not suggesting that the Holocaust is just like climate change. But what I am suggesting is that even though it’s hard to see a genocide – any genocide – coming. The future is hard to predict, but we can see this one coming. This genocide is of our own making, and it will effect everyone, not just one group or country.

This behavior has only encouraged people to use it for just asking about why this evaporation data didn't change prior to 2010.
And publish where? No reputable journal would risk the fight given the climate in science because it's "settled". I've sited far more than just myself, but I suppose actually reading the thread you're responding rather than the first post would be a bit much.

Re:Still Not Buying

[KeensMustard]

That's just 2, out of the billions of people who accept the science and are concerned about the implications.

It is certainly true that as a general rule, people are starting to lose patience with the lies and recalcitrance of the denialists. I would not be surprised if litigation begins soon. But whose fault is that? Is it our fault that you have been consistently wrong for 20 years? It is our fault that your lies are lies?

This doesn't make you persecuted. It makes you part of a movement that is delusion OR engaged in an attempt to defraud.

Re:Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

Your comment proves the point entirely. Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread. Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters. It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.

Re:Still Not Buying

[KeensMustard]

Rather than argue with facts and data of which I've presented plenty had you read the thread.

Stop lying. To quote myself: Don't cite yourself as an authority though, because that is the equivalent of just making a baseless assertion. Show us your research, show us the data, and we'll take a look.

Rather, you'd resort to jailing of dissenters.

You aren't a dissenter. Liars aren't dissenters: you can't "dissent" from truth. You can't dissent from facts: screaming "death, you're persecuting meeeee" as you plunge over a cliff, having decided to "dissent" from the fact that humans can't fly. Fraudsters aren't dissenters - people who commit fraud should pay back the people they defrauded. I think you and your pals are deliberately lying about the causes of climate change, in an attempt to avoid mitigation. Thus, you push the burden of mitigation onto others.

It's no surprise when that's your position that people with the data showing the problem remain silent rather than place their live, careers, and family in the wake of your wrath over reason.

First you claim to have already posted the citation to your paper, and now you say you HAVEN'T, and we shouldn't be surprised that you DIDN'T.

I'm not surprised, not at all.

Re:Still Not Buying

[medv4380]

I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves, NASA's 2008 report on Solar Activity along with their Prediction that Cycle 24 would be unusually strong. The US Geological Survey from 1949 to note for anyone bold enough to pull the evaporation data prior to 1950 would see an anomaly cause by a bad collection practice that the report addressed. Stanford for their dataset dealing with the Suns Magnetic Strength. And finally Myself once for a graph of the evaporation effect that you could render yourself with the GHCN dataset, but that since you're too lazy to even read you couldn't even figure that out.

Re:Still Not Buying

[KeensMustard]

I'm being an Honest Dissenter. As for "Citing Myself" I take it you're incapable of reading the post. I cited NASA for the Stratospheric Optical Depth, NOAA for the Global Historical Climatology Network Dataset so that Anyone could pull the data for themselves

You cited an organization that quite explicitly claims that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - to prove that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Explain to me me how that works.

Do you understand NASAs data better than they do?

1. If NASA's data says the sun is causing the warming, why does NASA say otherwise? Show working

2. If volcanic SO2 is causing the warming, why did it get progressively warmer and not just drop off? Show working

New research proposal to feed the grants machine!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to back to pre global warming days, that is to the last ice age. I mean, look at all that life and pristine environment when ice covered most of Europe!

CO2 and warm weather is bad for life. CO2 gave you dinosaurs, which ate a lot of living creatures,plants and animals due to CO2, so CO2 must be generate suffering and be bad for life.

We can research some special nutritious substance to feed to plants. We can call it brown doo.. bron dew... browndew... hhmmm...

An ALMOST scientific prediction

[mi]

However, if greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, 88% of the current population will live in areas where the weather is less pleasant than it was before.

That's almost scientific. It has a measurable number and it does not use the evasive "may" or "could", using a solid "will" instead.

What's missing is the when. 2021? 2026?

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[Dixie_Flatline]

Hedging terms like 'could', 'might', 'potentially' are MORE scientific, not less. Science deals in probabilities, not absolutes. Even after you've done your experiment and 'proven' your hypothesis, there's always a chance that you're wrong.

Good science hedges its bets and is skeptical of its own results--this is no less true of climate science. They've made predictions that have largely been borne out. They've modified their models and updated their hypotheses based on new data. If you've got actual counter-proofs that bear up under more than a nanosecond under scrutiny, I'm sure they'd love to hear them.

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[delt0r]

the science is settled. this is absolute!

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[KeensMustard]

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true

That's weird - because just the other day you said almost exactly the same thing - but when pressed, you couldn't actually provide any evidence.

Do you have evidence now?

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[mi]

you couldn't actually provide any evidence.

You can't demand, I prove a negative.

Do you have evidence now?

The burden of proof is on you — we aren't living in your totalitarian dream land. Not yet, anyway.

You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me. You wish to appeal to authority of "scientific experts" — fine, but you have to establish their credentials first. Pointing out successful scientific predictions made by that bunch earlier is necessary (though not sufficient), if you wish to go that route.

You once mentioned someone named "Arrhenius", who, according to you, successfully predicted something about CO2 in the 19th century. How is that relevant to today's "climate scientists" and their peculiar inability to make a successful prediction remains unclear.

But we already know, you'd rather use police than scientific arguments, so kindly drop the pretense and simply denounce me as a "denialist fraud" to the Democrat Attorney General near you. When I'm sent to Gulag for it, you may expect my house as a reward. That's the best way to "save the planet", is not it?

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[david_thornley]

kindly drop the pretense and simply denounce me as a "denialist fraud" to the Democrat Attorney General near you.

Fraud is, essentially, lying for material gain. I don't think you're making anything off denying the facts, so no material gain, and you're dumb enough to believe the crap you write, so you aren't lying. Hence, you're not a denialist fraud. You're thinking of companies like Exxon, who have known about global warming for a long time, but denied it to sell more fossil fuels.

So, relax.

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[KeensMustard]

You can't demand, I prove a negative.

Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.

You want me to change my way of life — you still have to convince me.

Nobody needs to convince you of anything. You said:

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.

Now, it seems you can't prove it. Or, in other words, you lied. Nobody cares about your feelings, your opinions, or your beliefs, these are totally irrelevant to us.

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[mi]

All that matters is what you can prove.

Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.

Now, it seems you can't prove it. Or, in other words, you lied.

Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[KeensMustard]

Read up on this concept of "burden of proof", dimwit.

Here's what I found:

You (that's you!) said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim(that's you!) , but with someone else (that's me!) to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!), and is not upon anyone else (like me!) to disprove.

I repeat: Hate to break to ya, but you can shout "the sky is not blue" to your heart's content, nobody is obliged to listen to you. You feelings don't matter. All that matters is what you can prove.

Wow, asshole, you really are running ahead of everyone here. "Unable to prove" is equal to "lying" in your opinion?..

Can you prove your claim?

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[mi]

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim (that's you!)

The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.

That is the claim you and other alarmists are making — and the burden of proving it is on you.

You and yours accept this burden and attempt to prove the claim by pointing at "science" and "experts", who make scary projections for the short- and medium-term future of the climate. You have no proof, other than this appeal to authority of yours...

I say, Ok, appeal to authority is not necessarily wrong, if the authority in question really is an expert. But if it really is a reliable science and the experts making the dire predictions today are trustworthy, where are their past predictions? The idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming is at least 30 years old — surely there must've been some predictions made earlier, that were due on or before 2016.

I've been asking this question for a while, but no one was able to offer a good example of such a prediction. Which is why the claim I actually made, which I quote here with the part you chose to cut off emphasized for clarity, said:

Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today.

Now you demand, I prove this inability of the adherents to cite successful predictions. But your demand is invalid — I'm not making a "claim" of my own, I'm merely pointing out, you haven't done your duty to prove your original claim. And if you wish to be formal about it, I didn't say you can not prove it. Only that you haven't been able to so far.

Meanwhile, you are so sure of yourself, you wish to end the debate by criminalizing opposition — and that's why I'm not just arguing with you, but also calling you an asshole. I'm tired of the former, though, and will now simply limit myself to the latter.

Re:An ALMOST scientific prediction

[KeensMustard]

The claim being discussed is that humans are largely responsible for Global Warming and must take immediate action to stop it.

If this is the case this would contradict, rather than demonstrate your earlier assertion: Meanwhile, I'm sorry to say, none of the similar predictions of the past have come true — at least, none that the adherents of the Climate Science are able to cite today..

If, as you are now claiming no evidence has been presented then the earlier claim: one of the similar predictions of the past have come true can't be true, because no predictions would have been made.

better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when are even colder winters (which were already cold e-f*cking-nough) and hotter than hotter-than-f*ck summers better?

Utah here. We have only two seasons:
- too damn cold
- too damn hot
with just mud in between.

Extending the extremes is not an improvement.

So none of the poor

[Anonymous Coward]

Who, if they spent 20% of their money, would not have enough to pay the rent and go out on their arse?

Tell me, do you?

Or are you a selfish asshole and don't want to change that? Because wanting to remain a selfish asshole isn't really a good thing.

Re:So none of the poor

[jedidiah]

Moral authority is best achieved through leadership by example.

Americans in particular are better paid, get to keep more of what they make, and have more effective disposable income. They also have choices that citizens of other industrialized nations simply don't have.

If you spent 20% of your income on charity, you would still be ahead of Europeans.

Re:So none of the poor

[operagost]

Europeans don't contribute 20% of their incomes to charity because they believe they have ceded that responsibility to their "democratic socialist" governments. There, social programs run by unelected bureaucrats are considered "charity".

How is being dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

better? The republicans have killed hundreds of millions with their global warming, the UN said that total may reach into the billions by 2200.

Re: How is being dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

They want us to die.

Re: How is being dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are truly the party of death.

Re: How is being dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Republican's refusal to arrest those wealthy people that sell coal has killed more people than Hitler.

Re: How is being dead...

[Anonymous Coward]

And when we hit the hockey stick, the number of dead will go up exponentially.

Tell that to the 1/2 of the US at risk of Zika

[WillAffleckUW]

"Better weather".

Um, no.

It has extended the range the mosquito which carries the Zika virus can infect people.

Like half of California and almost all of the South.

Better?

I don't think so.

Re:Tell that to the 1/2 of the US at risk of Zika

[butchersong]

That mosquito's range may be slightly extended but we have always had that species here. It has often been discussed how with the same transmission mechanisms in place in the US so few occurrences of dengue fever and other such things are observed in the US.

Re:Tell that to the 1/2 of the US at risk of Zika

[WillAffleckUW]

In the past. Already impacting two states.

Keep up, the past is not the present.

Why are we bitching?

[Anonymous Coward]

We are reaping the good side of climate change

Now tell me, why are we constantly bitching about climate change?

Re:Why are we bitching?

[MightyMartian]

Because the "good side" isn't permanent, and once the more severe effects, like rain belts shifting, you're going to see the "bad side".

Beyond that, in many areas, mild winters are really fucking bad. Where I live, that means much lower snow pack, which means major water restrictions and wildfire season coming earlier and earlier every year.

Re:Why are we bitching?

[danbob999]

maybe because there is more to the world than just the US?

You want to know why we should pay?

[whitroth]

First, saying that you live in Iowa (as one poster puts it), and don't know or will ever meet someone from the other side of the world is a) massively ignorant and downright nasty (where does some of your food come from? how 'bout your clothes, or cars, or computers or computer parts come from?), and b) did I mention "ignorant"?

I've lived in Texas and Florida. I'm in the DC metro area now, and the weather's starting to remind me of Texas. Which I find horrifying.

Why, you ask?

Let me give you two reasons that *will* affect you in Iowa.

1. Fire ants will move north. If you've never run into them, I suggest you take a trip south and walk over a nest. That, alone, should convince you that you *don't* want winters with hard freezes.

2. Kudzu, aka "the vine that ate the South". As someone I used to know put it, "it was imported in the 20's, thinking it would be good cattle food. Instead, kudzu liked the South a *lot* better than cattle liked kudzu." Growing a yard a week doesn't mean 3 feet, it means your whole damn yard.... I would *not* want to see it getting to large food croplands.

And, of course, all the climate-change deniers, who claim to be Free Markets Forever!!! can't seem to see any business opportunities in the changeover to producing renewables, and the equipment for creating renewable energy generation.

                mark

Re:You want to know why we should pay?

[FlyHelicopters]

First, saying that you live in Iowa (as one poster puts it), and don't know or will ever meet someone from the other side of the world is a) massively ignorant and downright nasty (where does some of your food come from? how 'bout your clothes, or cars, or computers or computer parts come from?), and b) did I mention "ignorant"?

That poster was me... and I was simply making a point that you reinforced..

Calling the Iowa person "ignorant" doesn't improve your chances of getting him to care about your cause, it makes it worse. Make he *IS* ignorant, but so what?

And, of course, all the climate-change deniers, who claim to be Free Markets Forever!!! can't seem to see any business opportunities in the changeover to producing renewables, and the equipment for creating renewable energy generation.

The problem is that people with your snotty attitude have turned off a whole lot of people, which is why you haven't gotten the changes that needed to be done, done.

I'm on board with CO2 being a problem, but having done the math, I can see the time to change was 30 years ago. We're past the point of no return when it comes to climate change. Oh sure, we'll slow our CO2 production over the next 50 years, but we will still pump way too much of it into the air. We'll see 2C come and go without a fuss, I don't think we'll stop it at 4C. 6C will be interesting to watch, at least if I was here for it, which I won't be.

The political and economic factors will not allow the changes that need to be made in the time they need to be made. We really needed to change course back in the 80s, and we didn't. It is too late now.

There is no proof CO2 affects climate

[Anonymous Coward]

There has been no conclusive proof offered by anyone that CO2 has a measurable effect on climate. There has only been speculation based on statistical models and the over-simplification of the "problem."

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come to the East coast, it hasn't been "pleasant" at all! Who is writing these articles?

I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

I predict that, at some point in the future, all life will be wiped off the Earth because the temperature will begin an unstoppable increase to about 3000 degrees Kelvin.

This is settled science, and there is no argument. It is going to happen, and one might argue that there is nothing we can do to stop it. I still think we should try, though, because that is just common sense, and anyone who disagrees with me should be arrested and tried for treason.

Re:I predict...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what is your plan to stop it? I mean it is settled science that will happen in about seven and a half billion years, but there is really plan forward to stop it. We just need to leave the planet, and we should totally start working on that in the next few million years.

Cherry Picking Hippocracy

[medv4380]

I haven't cherry picked a single thing. I've seen global warming advocated cherry pick around the evaporation data. It's not convenient because the results are in stark contradiction with several global warming claims. Oh it's flat from 1950 to 2010 so it can't show any global warming, all while totally ignoring that it did go up and follow the last solar cycle along with the Rain following the same solar cycle pattern. But no I must be cherry picking by Including data and you can't be cherry picking by excluding data.

Re:Cherry Picking Hippocracy

[medv4380]

No, I've actually downloaded and Processed the entire GHCN dataset from NOAA. My view has Zero to do with anyone elses published opinion. It's convenient for you to claim that I'm just parroting someone else, but I'm not.

For sufficiently small values of better

[Anonymous Coward]

While winters have been milder, summers have been more brutal.

Unfortunately, milder winters and harsher summers have led to another wonderful phenomenon, drought. Large areas of the United States have been in drought conditions for over two decades now. With these kinds of conditions, rarely has a summer gone by where there isn't some mega-fire torching large swaths of the Western United States.

So you may want to re-evaluate your definition of 'better.'

Re:For sufficiently small values of better

[FlyHelicopters]

Large areas of the United States have been in drought conditions for over two decades now.

Some of that has to do with population growth and migration.

We're suffering from water issues here in North Texas because the people who issue permits to build new homes are not the same people who manage our water supply.

20 years ago, the government wanted to build a huge new reservoir north of DFW, but the NIMBY people up north stopped it.

So now we have 2 million more people than we did 20 years ago, and no new water supply. And the permit people keep issuing permits to build new homes.

Not sure anything is going to change...

[chemish]

...so I need to figure out where that 12% is that is going to be nicer then before and start buying property.

Terraforming

[iONiUM]

I live in Canada, and the weather has indeed been getting better for me. As far as I'm concerned, we've terraformed the earth to make it more habitable here and I'm not really upset by it at all.

Re:Terraforming

[MightyMartian]

Until the major bread baskets suddenly start suffering prolonged droughts.

Re:Terraforming

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but NO, just NO. Perhaps this is 1 of the points conveniently missed in this debate about Global Warming...there are actually places in the world where it will be NICER to live.

Here check this link out in respect to 'average temperature & precipitation increase in Sasktchewan' (a major agricultural province)...http://www.parc.ca/saskadapt/sk-climate/sk-climate-future.

In human speak the summarize is 'it will get nicer & there will be more water' e.g. exactly the conditions needed to promote crop growth/agriculture. In fact if the more detailed predictions at that link are true, Winter will see a greater increase in temperatures than Summer...YIPPEE! AND there will be more precipitation (snow) in the Winter, some in the Spring (rain) exactly again as what is needed to promote greater crop growth.

Again, from Saskatchewan's point of view its 'global warming? Bring it on baby!'

For what values of "for now"?

[whitroth]

Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.

Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.

Second... let me give you two reasons that will hit you, personally, says the guy who lived in Texas and Florida for some years.

1. Fire ants will move north. If you've never met them, I suggest you take a trip south, and walk over a nest.

2. Kudzu, aka "the vine that ate the South". As someone I knew put it, "it was imported from Japan in the 20's as cattle food. Turned out that kudzu liked the South a lot better than cattle liked kudzu." When they say it grows a yard a week, they don't mean 3 feet, they mean your whole damn yard. It kills trees. Now consider it getting to cropland, and not dying back over a winter with long, hard freezes....

Meanwhile, the climate change deniers, who all seem to be Free Markets Forever!!! can't seem to see *any* opportunities to make money in the switchover to renewables.

                        mark

Re:For what values of "for now"?

[FlyHelicopters]

Askng, as one poster does, why someone in Iowa should pay to fight climate change to help someone they've never met, or will never meet, on the other side of the world is both amazingly ignorant and stupid.

Where do some of your food, or a lot of your clothes, car parts, computers and computer parts come from? So yes, it *directly* affects you.

The Iowa person will just shrug their shoulders and say, "good, that means jobs will come back to the US again."

You calling them ignorant isn't going to win them to your side, it will just cause them to dig their heals in further.

You should also consider that there is more than one way to skin a cat. What if that Iowa person say, "you know, if we have too many people on the planet, perhaps we should get rid of half of them, that'll solve the problem. lets start with the half on the other side of the planet".

You'd call that horrible, he/she may simply not care that much. He/she also lives in a state and a country that has politicians who want to be reelected, and also has half the world's nuclear weapons. Remind me again how much you want to "solve" this problem? I imagine removing 2/3 of the world's population would go a long way towards that.

Be careful what you wish for...

Yes!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woohoo! Loving these milder winters! Keep the global warming coming :)

hundreds of millions???

[Anonymous Coward]

citation needed.

Re:hundreds of millions???

[Anonymous Coward]

A citation is never needed to prove Republicans are doing something evil or that Democrats aren't, even (or maybe especially) when they are doing the exact same thing at the same time. Welcome to the internet.

Try again?

[wkwilley2]

Global Warming Has Made the Weather Better For Most In US -- For Now

You mean AGW or climate change or whatever they're calling it this week?

The earth's procession around the center of the Milky Way, blah blah blah.

Re:New research proposal to feed the grants machin

[thinkwaitfast]

The earth is still in the last ice age, in an inter-glaciation period, that started 2.5 million yeas ago.

Re:New research proposal to feed the grants machin

[MightyMartian]

An interglacial period doesn't mean the glaciers are going to reappear tomorrow, and it certainly doesn't give us license to vomit CO2 into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities under the false impression that we're helping.

Oceans will feel the brunt of it

[Khashishi]

We are experiencing a huge change in the ocean biomes due to ocean warming, acidification, melting ice, and fishing. Most of our oxygen comes from the oceans. You might welcome a few degrees warmer temperature, but would you welcome a change in oxygen content in either direction?

'Cause invasive species

[cellocgw]

You've probably heard it before, but...

A chunk of thousands of years ago, a particularly nasty invasive species escaped from its natural habitat in Africa. Everywhere it went, it took over, causing the extinction of many animal species. To date, no workable approach to containing this species, either via mechanical methods or via evolution of a predator species, has come into being. However, as with every known population explosion known to anthropologists, biologists, and paleontologists, sooner or later there will be some sort of mass societal collapse and the species will either go extinct or withdraw into a few small, isolated colonies.

And yeah, I do mean us.

Re:'Cause invasive species

[Anonymous Coward]

Recommended reading:
Living within limits, Garrett Hardin

Hardin cites a thought experiment: at the current rate of population increase, how long will it take until there are enough people standing shoulder to shoulder to cover the land mass of the earth?
Yes, people actually did the math and looked up the land mass of the earth. At the time he wrote the book in 1993, we would reach that state in a little over 600 years. Population increase has slowed, so now it's something in the 700 year range.
Of course that's absurd. But it points out that it is not thousands or millions of years in the future as one could easily think. But what will stop that impossible situation from ever occurring? What keeps populations in check? Famine, plague, war, pestilence, etc. In other words,unless humanity as a whole at some point starts acting on a one-person-one-offspring basis, then a whole lot of people will not die of something other than "old age."

Endgame, Derek Jensen
Premise Seven: The longer we wait for civilization to crash—or the longer we wait before we ourselves bring it down—the messier will be the crash, and the worse things will be for those humans and nonhumans who live during it, and for those who come after.

Premise Eight: The needs of the natural world are more important than the needs of the economic system.

==
End of rant, I now return control of you thoughts to you

The UN apparently has the design specs

[Anonymous Coward]

The people at the IPCC apparently have been given access to the blueprints and specifications for planet Earth. Having opened the (golden?) scrolls they got from (where, exactly?) they have the special knowledge of the importance of a measurement called "the global temperature", how to measure it, and what it is supposed to be. Nobody outside the priesthood is allowed to see these scrolls - we must all accept that they are the custodians of this special divine knowledge. They also have been given access to millions of years of high-accuracy, high-precision, global temperature data that can be plotted along with modern satellite data and generate plots with frighteningly steep spikes of several hundredths of a degree.

Above all, do not think and do not ever question the high priests.

Of course, if you believe as most do that everything started for no reason with a Big Bang, then there is no design spec the Earth is just a piece of debris flung out from an explosion and it therefore HAS no proper temperature. The very idea of a global temperature is then only a human construct with no actual legitimacy. It's further true that human beings are just evolved animals like frogs, giraffes, and lions and therefore everything we do, including pollution and warming or cooling the Earth is just as natural as a Lion pooping on the plains. If mankind pollutes the planet and drives warming to the point of making Earth like Venus, then this is perfectly natural and may even be the job of our evolutionary dead-end; we may be required to prepare the planet for its future giant cockroach inhabitants...... not that the giant cockroaches will matter any more than we do......

Re:The UN apparently has the design specs

[Anonymous Coward]

The people at the IPCC apparently have been given access to the blueprints and specifications for planet Earth. Having opened the (golden?) scrolls they got from (where, exactly?) they have the special knowledge of the importance of a measurement called "the global temperature", how to measure it, and what it is supposed to be.

You mean because they worked their ass off for a university degree so that they could study science. You fucking morons are the dead weight of humanity, to stupid to learn and just smart enough to breed.

Better?

[rochrist]

Better is pretty subjective. Here in MA, our incredibly early spring followed by a couple of cold snaps has completely obliterated the peach crop for the entire state.

Why the anti-American hate speech?

[Anonymous Coward]

There always seems to be a presumption that if something is good for places other than the US then it must be done, no matter its effects upon the American people. This presumption carries the implications that Americans deserve to suffer and that everybody else is more-deserving, even though many regions of the planet are a mess by their own hands, having selected political/tribal/religious systems and ideologies that have centuries-long records of proven failure.

The planet is currently in an interglacial warm period. This warming period will likely continue to get warmer until it hits a peak and then a cooling trend will begin and take the planet all the way down into a new ice age. This is what the geological record tells us always happens. The fact that all of human history has occurred within this current warm period makes us humans like the conditions we are familiar with, but it has nothing to do with what is "good" or "right", if there is such a thing. The idea that people in the US should naturally be expected to endure the residual cold spells of the dying gasps of the last ice age so that people elsewhere can be happy is not rational, even if one assumes that the human race has any ability to intentionally alter the climate. The idea that any people from any particular region are to be automatically preferred is also not rational. The idea that the people in, for example Africa, are being harmed by the American workers in the steel business Pennsylvania is similarly unproven and irrational as is the idea that if these workers lose their jobs it will have ANY impact on Africa, particularly when all the proposed climate deals involve allowing India and China to INCREASE their pollution (a policy that REWARDS backward thinking, politics, and economics)

It's like the Wizard of Oz

[Tighe_L]

except they are saying that behind the curtain (not the USA) it's horrible. Don't believe it. Just like the Great Pacific garbage patch, which the media always shows photos of trash in water, but it doesn't exist. They then say it is tiny undetectable particles of plastic. Great Invisible Pacific garbage patch, yeah don't believe it. It is all a play for power over us.

Translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

"We admit we were wrong about how bad global warming would be for everyone up until now - but it's going to get worse! Worse, I tell you! The sea will rise and wash away all of human civilization, it will destroy habitats, it will destroy government bureaucracies...I mean, countries, yeah, countries! Little bitty countries that need billions and billions of tax dollars from the US, even though it hasn't balanced a budget in decades and owes more money than has ever been printed, IT'S A TERRIBLE THING AND WE ARE JUSTIFIED IN DOING ANYTHING WE THINK IS JUSTIFIED TO YOU IN ORDER TO COMBAT IT!!!"

I'm PRO-Global Warming.

[mr_java66]

Hey guys. I SERIOUSLY have been saying for a long time that I am PRO global warming. 80 inches of snow in the winter is a pain. I would much rather have lake-effect rain than snow. This is terrible. The standard predictions are that the climate will move north at a rate of 2-5 miles per year. I would be ok with Indianapolis's weather. I would prefer Evansville. If I could get that without moving, better still. Looks like need to find a new V8! :)

So sick and tired

[Anonymous Coward]

of all this bullshit.

Nobody cares. It was a big scam to grab votes and grant money.

Now it's over. Move on to water quality and fresh water shortages.

That should be good for a few decades.

"better" is kind of subjective...

[david_bonn]

If "better" means warmer, sunnier days, then you won't get enough rainfall and that will make it difficult to grow food. Unless your "better" weather is perfectly balanced in the 20 percent of counties where there would presumably be more rainfall and you could grow all of your groceries there.

And also, warmer, sunnier weather means drier weather, and drier weather means wildfires. While "fires" aren't weather, they certainly are not pleasant and do not contribute positively to ones quality of life in the short term.

The Warming Arctic

[Tenebrousedge]

That may be true, but the same cannot be said for the northern regions underlain by permafrost. Which is quite a bit of territory. Those places will melt, subside, fill with water, and turn into rather unpleasant bogs. They will also release quite a bit of CO2 and CH4 in the process. We may get more use out of existing farmland, and be able to grow a wider variety of crops, but heating up thin, rocky soils or permafrost will not create more usable farmland. Most people seem to neglect this idea when talking about being able to farm the Arctic.

Out of curiosity, is the phenomenon of permafrost a normal part of educational curriculae in the US? I grew up in Alaska, you see...

Define better

[Anonymous Coward]

Better for who or what, better for fat cunts sitting in the SUV with the air conditioning on better for fat cunts sitting in their houses watching TV with the air conditioning on. Better for farmers and crops - for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction - there is no good side to Pollution.

"Falsifiable" a must for "scientific"

[mi]

Hedging terms like 'could', 'might', 'potentially' are MORE scientific, not less.

A statement like "It may rain tomorrow" is not falsifiable and therefor non scientific...

Good science hedges its bets

"15 minutes could save you 15 percent or more on car insurance."

Your excellent intellectual argument

[Anonymous Coward]

has convinced me! Yes! Expletives in place of a cogent argument always do the trick.

Plenty of complete morons have worked their posteriors off for degrees and are completely dishonest and worthless human beings. A degree is not evidence of anything, and I include my own engineering degrees in that. I learned more in my first several years of actual engineering work than in my entire time at the university. On the flip-side, I once had a colleague with a masters degree in math who could rarely compute something as simple as a percent without screwing up (he once did this on the fly in an engineering review meeting with managers and embarrassed his entire team).

I would point out that you addressed NOT ONE SINGLE POINT that I sarcastically made.

(1) There IS no design document for the planet, and thus there IS not a specified ideal temperature or a specified manner for measuring such a quantity. If the planet had a designer, there might be a designed temp, and a spec for how the measurement should be taken. Should it be measured at 10 locations? 1000 locations? which locations? should some locations be weighted differently because they are more important? etc. You brain-dead AGW fanatics are so fixated on the totally arbitrary "global temperature" your heroes came up with that you cannot bear to have anybody ask the standard basic questions any competent engineer would normally ask about such a thing.

(2) You also fail to face the fact that, lacking such documents, and presuming a non-theistic world view, there is no significance to the preferred conditions of any species over those preferred by any other species on the planet, or of any population of a species over any other population. If the planet warms and this has a disparate impact on some creatures in one location, but is better for another creatures elsewhere, then who is right to say which group should be preferred? If the poles melt and polar bears all drown, then so what? If people cause it, then what's the problem? People are evolved mammals, and so are bears. Anything people do is just as natural as anything bears do, and that could well include destroying the planet.

Post again from mommy's basement when you learn to think rationally./p.

PLEASANT!?

[Dahamma]

Could they come up with a *less* scientific desciption than "pleasant"? It's not only scientifically vague, it's pretty much inherently subjective as the definition is "giving a sense of happy satisfaction or enjoyment."

Personally I prefer the house at about 67 degrees in the evening, while my wife wants to turn up the thermostat past 70. Though ironically she is always mentioning in the winter how she misses the snowy winter weather in the Midwest vs the warm, rainy winters in California.

Of course I would also imagine based on their precise metrics we have had 3-4 extremely "pleasant" winters here in CA lately, weather-wise! As long as you don't take into account the severe drought, water rationing, dead plants, or near-empty reservoirs and creeks.