Slashdot Mirror
Massive Government Report Says Climate Is Warming and Humans Are the Cause (npr.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: It is "extremely likely" that human activities are the "dominant cause" of global warming, according to the the most comprehensive study ever of climate science by U.S. government researchers. The climate report, obtained by NPR, notes that the past 115 years are "the warmest in the history of modern civilization." The global average temperature has increased by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit over that period. Greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture are by far the biggest contributor to warming. The findings contradict statements by President Trump and many of his Cabinet members, who have openly questioned the role humans play in changing the climate. The report states that the global climate will continue to warm. How much, it says, "will depend primarily on the amount of greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) emitted globally." Without major reductions in emissions, it says, the increase in annual average global temperature could reach 9 degrees Fahrenheit relative to pre-industrial times. Efforts to reduce emissions, it says, would slow the rate of warming.
News for 'tards; Jewish propaganda.
Jeezuz, the trolls are getting pathetic. Do you think you can sow doubt by sounding like a third grader on Ritalin? Thanks for playing though.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
We're talking about average temperature - daily temperatures that swing wildly by up to 20 degrees F or more every day. If that averages out to a half a degree higher per year on average, it's absolutely measureable.
Fortunately the report was basically completed before he took over the reigns of power. He can have it scrubbed from Federal web sites but the report is out in the wild now and he can't do much about that.
Ok. Feeding the troll here, but I have a super serial question then:
Obviously when we dump shit into the atmosphere, it creates a net positive increase in temperature. Even if it's not the primary contributor, why the fuck are you retards so hell bent on doing nothing about it?
What's the harm in reducing emissions? If we're not causing it then cutting emissions can't hurt. If we are causing it, then cutting emissions will help. Seems like a win-win to me.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
Nope. You can't legislate or decree away reality. Reality always wins.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
First of all, the problem with the treaties is that because the large polluters (US included) have such a varying level of enerfy infrastructure the treaties signed are not binding. The Paris agreement is about common emission goals that countries ought to strive to reach, there are no mechanisms in it to impose sanctions on nations that fail to meet theirs. So to speak of 'exemptions' in such a treaty is nonsense to begin with, you can't be 'exempt' from sanctions that do not exist in the treaty. Would it be good to have some kind of sanction system in place? Yes, yes it would, but if you think the US government would ever agree to internationally binding treaties that would impose sanctions on US trade should its goals not be reached, you're occupying an entirely different political reality than I am.
Second of all: why do you think it'd be realistic not to account for the fact that massive infrastructure overhaul will not happen immediately and give these countries realistic timeframes in the treaties? China at the moment gets roughly 2/3rds of all its energy from coal and has 4 times the population of the US with increasing private car ownership and you think giving them 13 years time to turn their greenhouse emisions downward (the paris agreement limit for when China's promised it will reach peak CO2 emissions is 2030 and they've also agreed to reduce their carbon intensity by 60 % by the same date, which means they have 13 years time to essentially redo the majority of their energy production) is somehow excessive? Wtf?
Thirdly, do you realize that China has very much woken up to the fact that it is within their own national interests to cut down on emissions? The level of pollution in many Chinese megacities is so bad (quivalent to smoking 1.2 packs of cigarettes just for breathing the air) its having significant adverse health effects leading to increased health care costs and declined productivity if they are not addressed. It's a major issue in domestic Chinese politics because the people don't like the status quo at all, which means if they keep making things worse they'd push the country towards increasing political instability which is certainly not something they want. The idea that China will just keep building polluting tech even though they're already struggling with massive pollution issues is not based in reality. They're building massive amounts of nuclear power plants and heavily focusing on renewables, but as is obvious to anyone with half a brain, this level of change will take a few years to accomplish. They're currently on the track to meeting their 2030 goals.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
Translation: You want me to pay for your low-cost lifestyle by externalizing your costs.
Fuck off.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not a "fuck you". It's reality. It's physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics. Do you think mother nature has a personal vendetta against you when an acorn falls from a tree and hits you in the head? Or a seagull decides to drop a deuce on you while flying overhead?
~X~
And of course the solution will be to increase the size of government in order to tackle this difficult problem.
Consider the increase in government we'll need to build massive coastal dikes, relocate 50% of the population, relocate a significant percentage of agricultural production[1], and deal with the security threats caused by big population crises elsewhere[2]. And those are just the foreseeable problems.
Tackling the climate change problem now can probably be done with relatively minimal government intervention. Institute a heavy carbon tax and phase it in over the course of a few years, and then let the market sort it out. To prevent the carbon tax from pushing emissions offshore, institute additional tariffs on goods, services and energy from any country without an equivalent scheme.
Waiting for climate change to raise sea levels, change weather patterns and destabilize marginal economies and then trying to manage the effects of those changes will require much bigger government than would striking at the root of the problem. Fans of small government should be agitating for carbon taxes and carbon tariffs now.
[1] I don't know that the amount of arable land will decrease, but it will probably move.
[2] ISIS probably couldn't have arisen without the massive population upset caused by the years'-long drought in Syria, which was at least partially-caused by climate change.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
US is around the middle of the pack, producing value of $2,291 per ton of CO2 emitted. China is one of the worst, at $435/ton
The numbers are distorted because a lot of the US/Eur manufacturing is outsourced to China.
A Chinese factory makes a widget for $5 that gets sold in the US for $35. All the CO2 produced to create the widget is counted as China's emissions towards the $5, while the US claims $30 added value for zero CO2 emissions.