Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes (cnn.com)
A new US government report delivers a dire warning about climate change and its devastating impacts on the health and economy of the country. From a report: The federally mandated study was released by the Trump administration on Friday, at a time when many Americans are on a long holiday weekend, distracted by family and shopping. Coming from the US Global Change Research Program, a team of 13 federal agencies, the Fourth National Climate Assessment was put together with the help of 1,000 people, including 300 leading scientists. It's the second of two volumes. The first, released in November 2017, concluded that there is "no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
The report's findings run counter to President Donald Trump's consistent message that climate change is a hoax. On Wednesday, Trump tweeted, "Whatever happened to Global Warming?" as some Americans faced the coldest Thanksgiving in over a century. But the science explained in these and other federal government reports is clear: Climate change is not disproved by the extreme weather of one day or a week; it's demonstrated by long-term trends. Humans are living with the warmest temperatures in modern history. Even if the best-case scenario were to happen and greenhouse gas emissions were to drop to nothing, the world is on track to warm 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit. As of now, not a single G20 country is meeting climate targets, research shows.
The costs of climate change could reach hundreds of billions of dollars annually, according to the report. The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times. The quality and quantity of their crops will decline across the country due to higher temperatures, drought and flooding. In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today, and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield. Heat stress could cause average dairy production to fall between 0.60% and 1.35% over the next 12 years -- having already cost the industry $1.2 billion from heat stress in 2010. Further reading: Climate Change Will Cost US Economy Hundreds of Billions of Dollars, Government Says in Sweeping Report (Reuters); Climate Change 'Will Inflict Substantial Damages on US Lives' (The Guardian); Climate Change Is Already Hurting U.S. Communities, Federal Report Says (NPR); Major Trump Administration Climate Report Says Damages Are 'Intensifying Across the Country' (The Washington Post); and Climate Impacts Grow, But U.S. Can Adapt, Says New Report (National Geographic).
yet property values are going sky high! It's almost like liberals don't believe their own hype since they all seem willing to pay millions for property on the coast. If people really believed global warming then property at sea level wouldn't be more expensive than ever.
— Shamans in Tasmania, about 12000 years ago.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
If humanity is just the product of random evolutionary changes, whatever we do is, by definition, "Natural." We are not disrupting the natural flow of the universe no matter WHAT we do! So, we need to get over worrying about this whole, "Climate change" thing. It's not as if we are somehow morally culpable to anyone. So... why should we really care?
(Unless, of course, we are morally culpable for our stewardship of the planet. But that would presuppose some higher being to which we are morally culpable - which is not scientific, and so, CANNOT be true. So, let's just get over ourselves a bit and live life!)
Of course the climate is changing. Has been for millions of year. The argument is over how much human activity influences it and whether restricting human activity would make any significant difference when compared to natural events like forest fires or volcanic eruptions. Climate models also need to take into account long term natural cycles of solar activity that cause warming and cooling. Many put forward as 'evidence' only look at very recent history of 20 or 40 years which is meaningless on an geo-cosmic timescale.
When it comes to climate change, both liberals and conservatives are equally clueless. Conservatives don't think it exists (or choose to ignore it). Liberals think we can wish it away by switching to curly light bulbs, holding hands and singing kumbaya. It can't be reversed now even with major changes to carbon consumption (not that that would ever happen with both sides taking tons of cash from the energy lobbyists). Time to move to higher ground and stock up on canned goods and bullets.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Point 1: newest research shows that the mass extinction of large mammals in Africa is not due to human activity, but rather the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere leading to less growth of plants needed for their survival.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6417/938.full
Point 2: much effort in fighting climate change has involved reducing atmospheric CO2.
You can choose to believe in some mythical all-destructive force that always seems just around the corner but never arrives - or you can choose to live a life not lived in fear, making choices that are truly good for the environment and not made out of fear, but love.
To me the constant Global Warming Boogeyman is the lefts version of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, supposedly pulling strings related to any bad weather phenomenon and projecting phantasms of possible horrible futures.
An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming, How much hotter is your hometown.
In my cases since 1960 the number of days of temperatures over 90 degrees has risen by exactly one - from six to seven. The graph shows a wildly wandering line just to get there.
Then as you scroll down you see projected temperatures, and by 2100 I'm supposed to see a total of *22* days over 90. The graph wanders along on a crazy course but basically a straight line, until magically rocketing up starting in a. year or two.
Come on. We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point. At what point does everyone take a step back and re-adjust to the very obvious fact that we will not see exponential warming occur?
I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point. But this government report is not doing that, it will be just another hammer used to bludgeon the populace until they comply.
So until then, I choose to live a happy life - not a life of fear. I choose to look at trends that are actually occurring and think how to adapt to them, not taking wildly different future predictions as gospel just because some authority claims they know the future even though the've always been wrong in the past.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
These models are tested with far longer sets of data and against multiple sources of historic information e.g. tree rings, ice cores etc.
The facts are pretty clear, the climate is changing fast. It already entered a point of no return. Those are facts. Weather cycles show we should be in a cooling period but instead we are warming, so no that's not it.
There are other things besides cars/factories etc. such as the huge amount of livestock which increases methane emissions. Methane is far worse than most greenhouse gasses. There are a lot of things that need fixing to stop this disaster which is already showing its impact in droughts, wildfires and storms that are far more powerful than they should be.
Oil, gas and coal are heavily subsidized. Especially oil for which wars were fought and blood was spilled to keep its price ridiculously low. Green energy is already competitive even without government subsidies. Imagine what a pro-active push to green energy can do to the global economy... More people work in solar than in coal in the US today. There are only benefits to green policies.
Climate change may be real but also will take decades or centuries to have substantial impact. In that time, we could see an eruption of the supervolcano at Yellowstone, which would devastate large portions of the United States directly, and throw all atmospheric and climate models out the window. In that event, we might be looking at something more akin to nuclear winter, not global warming.
Until someone starts working out a decent approach to defusing supervolcanos--perhaps through some form of pressure relief allowing magma to escape more slowly, or whatever else--don't talk to me about climate change. It's simply not the most immediate problem, and anything we do about it will be OBE if we don't solve the supervolcano problem.
If we refuse to believe in it, it will just magically fade away.
Non-science background "engineer of Java" faggot and known prevaricator Ken Doll here to pretend "science doesn't exist and doesn't matter" - AGAIN! GET A ROPE.
Been hearing about the dire future of incoming ice age -> global warming -> climate change for decades now. Yawn. Fuck off already the climate doomsayers act like a religious cult.
I don't care anymore. I trust the data NASA has been putting out, I just don't trust nearly any of the doomsday predictions that follow. A 2C rise in temperatures means nothing. Our planet will still be largely a freezing one which has far more downside than being slightly warmer.
I don't think it's a conspiracy either, just a prime example of groupthink and herd mentality even in scientist circles. Look no further than the polar bear example of how even clear evidence that doomsday predictions are wrong "aren't allowed" in the community and are shot down.
Whether or not Republican liars like Ken Doll or yourself "believe" in science, it exists. You don't matter, it does. That's a little lesson on the reality of your very, very short existence as a life form on this planet, you trolling moron.
Trump firing whoever published it in 3... 2... 1...
You CHOSE to be part of a group and act in their way, that will kill millions and already caused a geologic mass-extinction event.
Which means, you are literally actually non-hyperbolically, worse than a concentration camp Nazi under Hitler. By comparison, they would not have dreamt of global mass-extinctions and hand-making apocalyptic weather through teamwork on a gigantic scale. And they were the kings of being organized! Also, they actually knew that what they were doing was considered batshit crazy by everyone else. You don't.
And you are the dumbest fucking drone of a passive-thinking livestock of the dumbest religion ever (only competing with p.c. SJWs).
And all because you are such a massive *pussy*. Yeah, I said it. It' what all you p.c. SJW, conservative, libertarian, religious, conspiracy theorist, anticonspiracy-theorist / blackeyer, hipster, nationalist, racist, antifa and most other -ism morons have in common. You just are such massive scaredy cats, that you make up some idiotic born-out-of-ignorance scapegoat to explain all your problem away. How convenient! It's totally not you being failures!
Unless you are a troll.
But in that case, some genius troll convinced me that he's the US president too.
Found the inbred nazi faggot Republican pretending to be civil while denying the destruction of the environment and pushing outright nazism, again. #GET ROPE, MUELLER, LOTS OF ROPE.
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat.
500 * 10^6 hours / 81 years = 6.173 * 10^6 hours/year
That's 6.173 * 10^6 / 52 = 1.187 * 10^5 hours/week.
Given 10 * 10^6 working age adults in the Southeast, that's...
0.012 hours per week per worker. Not a hell of a lot.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Many of the "experts"" = 99% of all scientists in the field, SORRY NUTBAR REPUBLICAN LIARS, you don't matter, THEY DO.
Fake News Fire them all and hire coal lobbyists to make a Real Report!
amirite
No, you are not right.
The caravan is a political stunt, nothing more. A useful tool for everyone of any "side".
SJW's are destroying only their own subset of culture really. What has truly changed as a result of them? Not much.
Antifa are the Lost Boys for the modern age, doing what they think is right with the misguided energy of youth and inexperience, sadly some greatly messing up what were otherwise promising lives.
I'm interested in how you decide which mythical all-destructive forces to believe?
I believe in things that are real. I believe in logic, in reason, in science, in not being OF a party but being above all parties.
I voted for both Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians in the last election. Can you say the same? Or are you still being led by forces you do not understand and have no say in?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Expect some firings among those who worked on the report.
Table-ized A.I.
Oh oh, the sky is falling, the SKY IS FALLING!! Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
You only have insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters, and batshit insane extreme psychopathic fascist nutters.
Look at the *actual* *actions* they both did. Not what they said. Not what anyone said. What they *did*.
In that case, Bush Sr, Clinton, W. Bush, and Obama are the same line. The same exact team.
US leaders really are the masters in their field: They don’t even need an external scapegoat. Even when dummy Bush goes, and empties the (conveniently always kept full) villain closet, they just hold their two arms ("parties") up in the puppet theater, make the hand puppets act like enemies, and you fall for it, hook, line, sinker, fishing rod, fisherman and boat.
Then they point at the cloth hand puppets, and make you blame the puppets for what they did. Seriously, the level of delusion here only compares to North Korea.
Oh an, fuck your convenient attitude of first going "it doesn't happen", and then when it does happen, go "now we can't do anything about it."! How fucking convenient for you, criminal! Nice try. You are literally* that guy in the restaurant from the South Park episode, when he violently gets eaten by ManBearPig, and it couldn’t possibly be more satisfying.
___
* Information for people with Aspergers: This is the hyperbolic use of the word.
Maybe it's not happening in your particular neighborhood
Perhaps you need to read my post again?
In my case it was also going up, which I said.
I am just saying it's not going to be going up at the rapid rise they predict, such predictions always starting in a year or two from now, then in two more years new predictions are that NOW in two years or so it's really going to climb.
Climate will indeed continue to change, and currently the trend is warmer. But warmth alone is nothing to fear, and indeed something to embrace over the alternative climate historically has had to offer - which is ice and far greater regions of lifeless existence in the world. Antartica was a tropical paradise once... in your rush to embrace fear you have forgotten how to look all all things that may be, instead of seeing only the future you have been told to see.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The leading climate scientists are all about apocalypse if we donâ(TM)t reduce carbon emissions. However, they are more than quiet on what they think is going to happen if we do.
... our pinhead politicians fail to understand the difference between climate and this afternoon's weather.
If only they have someone on staff who passed high school science instead of another hack whose specialty is oppo research.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
against climate change. I think we can all agree he makes good points.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This won't matter to half of the american population, because their party and "news" channel keeps telling them it's fake news, and that a cold winter is proof that there is no global warming. And with bots and morons posting youtube links as "proof" of the contrary, you pretty much ensure more people, ignorant on the subject or oblivious to scientific research, will bite.
You talking about the photo of a polar bear that was supposed to be 'the face of climate change"? That was taken by SeaLegacy, a definitively non-scientific PR environmental group. The photo and label were strongly shot down as being inaccurate by scientists and local residents, the same scientists that do say polar bear populations are declining in many places due to climate change (the local population was doing well at the time). Thing is, the scientists prefer hard data and long-term studies, not cheap photo shoots or one-off examples.
Scientists do not support laziness. If there was clear evidence that predictions were wrong and it was shot down due to bias or conspiracy rather than actual error, there would be a large kerfuffle and a lot of scientists would lose their jobs if clear this were ever to come out.
Each and every scientist would know that the first time they let this pass or got involved, it would mean they are complicit, and their careers would be permanently over as soon as anyone found out. Further, they know that there is enough support and money behind climate change denial that they'd get support and protection, and likely a lot of money, if they would whistle-blow.
nuMbers. The loss
This article is nothing but speculation born out of liberal tears and paranoia.
To expand on that, if the median household income in the Southeast is around $50,000, and there are typically 1.4 workers per household, that would be about $18 per hour, on average. Assuming you lose 0.012 hours per week, that would be about 0.6 hours per year of work (assuming 2 weeks vacation).
So if the cost of climate change abatement is more than ($18 * 0.6) about $11 per year per worker, it is actually an economic loser to try to address it. Better to "accept the loss" of 0.012 hours per week, than spend even more money to try to save that amount of economic activity.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You're a lying nazi faggot Ken Doll. Pretending anything beyond that is not supported by years of evidence.
Amazon gets large plot of land on Long Island.
I guess Bezos plus minions care less about sea level rising, and hurricanes etc.
I made a conversion error: it's 0.012 (aka 1.2%) of the work week = 0.48 hours per person per week per year, based on 81 years, 52 work weeks per year, and 10 million workers.
If there are more than 10 million workers in the SE, that number obviously goes way down...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Population cannot continue to grow exponentially without being able to build off of earth, which at this time doesn't seem possible. The only thing that can fix the earth at this point is dramatic population reduction. If everyone either killed another person or killed themselves, the problem would be solved. But, I doubt anyone would like that solution. That being said, that is what will end up happening by proxy through wars and disease. Exponential growth will always be limited. S-Curve baby!
The actual report says : "average annual losses of 570 million labor hours"
So back out that divide by 81 years.
Where does it say that? (I'm not challenging you, just curious.)
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The following is not science:
Whether climate change is driven (in part or in full) by human activities is a science question and will ultimately be decided by scientific criteria (exactly when such a reliable decree comes down the pike remains open to debate, though increasingly less open, year over year, year after year, on current trends).
Extrapolating the economic cost of heat stress ventures deep into the dark, unreliable heart of economics (which is referred to as "the dismal science" for a good reason) is a mug's game.
Even glib, prognosticating economists can't make these projections without taking into account future human ingenuity. Economics with a side-order of futurology—what could possibly go wrong?
I'm getting ever more grumpy about this constant bait and switch: we're really, really, really confident of our climate model this time, so let us now describe with infinite confidence the future we envision using our entirely non–Magical 8 Ball (this involving two additional academic fields, one barely respected, the other openly derided; moreover, the vast majority of the dignified-to-a-fault, hard-science authors of this publication have any specific training—or tainting—in either of these shabby fields, and that's why you should believe every word we write).
That a recent study conducted on beliefs showed that most people who believed global warming was a hoax also believed in the New World Order, ancient aliens, that vaccines caused autism, that JFK was murdered by his own government and/or that their government was trying to replace them with muslims.
I'm honestly curious why we even bother to discuss things, in that case. I have no objection to you believing whatever you like, but as people like that most certainly DO object to me holding to my views, I see no benefit in bothering to debate things. No, I don't hold those conspiracy theorists in high esteem, but why should that bother them? If they were secure in their views, it would be irrelevant.
Does it really cause that much distress to anyone if we use solar rather than coal for power plants? You get exactly the same amount of power, or maybe more with solar these days. How is that interfering with your lifestyle? Does it really cause a problem to argue that Brazil and Indonesia should stop producing cash crops and replant rainforest? Wow, a few products you weren't even buying anyway go up in price by all of five cents. The agony. Let me see if I can shed a tear... wait... wait... sorry, no.
For crying out loud, it has bugger all impact on anyone here. Not even your 401K will be affected, since the stock brokers will all transfer together, causing the stocks they switch to to skyrocket in price. Ok, you might actually make quite a lot of money on that.
That's it. That's all the affect YOU will ever notice. You becoming a little bit richer, in a few years.
I mean. The tragedy of having more money to spend.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is.
That is what science is supposed to do, but in modern times is often "goal oriented science" to be done just to back up a desired selling point.
The thought that I am confounding anything ignores the headline here: "Climate Change Will Have Dire Consequences For US, Federal Report Concludes"
How is that not obviously meant to instill fear?
Even if the worst things in the report this article talks about come to pass, I find none of them dire. Lets look at just one of them:
The Midwest alone, which is predicted to have the largest increase in extreme temperature, will see an additional 2,000 premature deaths per year by 2090.
How is that dire? Do you know how many people live in the midwest?
It also is pretty transparent just from this thingle sentence that the target of the report are the people in flyover country who do not yet embrace the global warming faith, yet another indicator the report is far more marketing than science.
I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell
How am I yelling? I am merely revealing motives to alarmism, in quite a calm way. I think you'll find my use of capital letters to be grammatically correct and not of the current fashion to impart drama.
You mention psychology in your post. Is calling people things like deniers going to convince anyone of veracity? That leads to a very obvious negative response from most people. The fact such hyperbole is used so often indicates to me the people using it are not truly serious nor concerned, as do so many actions from those proclaiming the loudest there is cause for great concern.
Science isn't an absolute
We are often told it is in the case of global warming. The very people that question it are called "deniers" as if asking questions about science is forbidden; the fact that climate science is an absolute is implied a thousand times a day. (by the way, yes of course that is hyperbole on my part, as I find it amusing, and as the old saying goes - they started it).
I think this part really underscores your feelings of climate change. A fear of being told what to do...Clearly it isn't having the impact you so fear.
I find this paragraph very interesting; as I said quite explicitly a number of times, I choose not live in fear. I find it interesting you wish to convince others into the idea they feel fear even thought they state categorically they do not. Puzzling.
You are right about one thing, people will do what they will do. What I do, is help people understand what is, when others are trying to obscure the matter, so they can make truly informed choices. How is that a philosophy based in fear? Myself, I find information is the gateway to living the least fearful life, because what you understand well you can adapt for properly. Nothing is so calming as being prepared and informed.
Currently I see the prediction of warming to be be pretty fuzzy - it will probably warm some, but that may yet be counteracted by things like deep solar minimums, or other environmental reaction we have not yet thought of or understood, or even just a few fairly large volcanos implementing the "blocking the sun" idea for us for some time. Also of course we are near a cusp of very rapid alternative energy uptake, especially solar heating and electric cars in much wider use - so CO2 use will very naturally reduce a great extent anyway without any extra effort.
What does seem pretty clear though is that the thing we were all supposed to worry about the most - runaway warming from CO2 - is simply not occurring, nor will it occur. Since that will not happen the need for immediate action is eliminated and we can adapt to whatever changes may occur on a more leisurely timescale.
If you read a lot of actual papers on climate study instead of just reading dramatic head
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The Southeast alone will probably lose over a half a billion labor hours by 2100 due to extreme heat. Farmers will face extremely tough times.
You're really going to try and sell that "labor hours" bullshit? Automation will consume all human labor hours by 2100. There will be no such thing as a human working in whatever fields. In many cases, farmers would be extinct if not for government subsidies, so they've already fallen on "tough" times.
...In parts of the Midwest, farms will be able to produce less than 75% of the corn they produce today...
So obese Americans won't be able to feed their red meat and HFCS addictions? And this is bad how again? If you disagree, ask your doctor. Or better yet, watch and see how a CAFO works to produce what they call "food".
...and the southern part of the region could lose more than 25% of its soybean yield.
I play the same tiny violin for the loss of soy. I see zero benefit with more soy boys running around pretending to be men.
https://nca2018.globalchange.g...
it's just a shame that the consequences of climate change can't be confined to the countries, or better yet the people. who deny and ignore the problem. Maybe we could convince them all to move to Florida (and the Maldives for non-American denialists?)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Unless you can actually propose a realistic, engineering solution that can be implemented planet-wide, you're basically pie in the sky bullshitting.
"Whatever happened to Donald Trump?" Messages a battered US citizen, who lost their home when New York City's last-minute anti-flooding program failed disastrously.
"Well, what about this obscure species of cichlid fish, found only in a cave in Outer Mongolia, which has been found in greater numbers than ever before?" Replies a stalwart member of the Republican party, still trying desperately to change the subject with Whattaboutism.
Search AirVisual Earth to see a real-time, global view of air quality. Then tell me again how the U.S. is the one who needs to clean up our emissions. Maybe we're just shipping our dirty air to Africa, India and China. -eyeroll-
You Americans think it's all about you, you, you!
bunch of denialist cunts.
Surely we will be able to engineer new corn that will grow in slightly warmer temperatures.
You CHOSE to be part of a group and act in their way, that will kill millions
That is true of socialists of course, but also climate alarmists like yourself. You would bankrupt whole nations and cause millions to die in the epidemics of poverty to follow, all in your quest to eradicate a harmless gas that plant life uses as food.
you are the dumbest fucking drone of a passive-thinking livestock of the dumbest religion ever
Humorously that exactly describes those who follow the True Path of climate alarmism far more than I ever could. I merely believe science, what I read on studies of climate. You believe headlines and lies fed to you. You are the acolyte here, attempting to smite the non-believer!
But like all cults, eventually your faith will wane when you see the lies for what they are. Until then, I truly pity you and the miserable life you have chosen for yourself. No prison is as terrible as a prison of the mind you construct for yourself.
Okay ManBearPig is real. What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do that will make any difference now?
Even if what do something about it, what about the Chinese? They're just going to keep right on . . .
Trump doesn't deny climate change. He just sees some positive aspects to it. Example. Increased harvest in northern latitudes. Trump could be trusted to at least tackle the problem in a way that doesn't regulate industry out of existence. In my opinion, the way to tackle it is to gameify industry so that it's rewarded for using sustainable methods or that the renewable sector itself is gameified. The big money behind Hillary is the same big money that invests in China which has a terrible track record on pollution. We need to solve this problem in a way that doesn't cripple industry and thus allows an ideology that allows the development of clean energy to prosper.
Economic specifics in text above Figure 19.21 at US Southeast chapter 19
The figure is interesting as it has a heat map of annual % hours lost because of climate change over the US.
The base figure US Hours lost heatmap
Actually, the number is 570 billion hours per year (see the full chapter 19) though the slashdot wording, taken from the CNN worded, which paraphrases the executive summary of chapter 19, does not make that clear.
Grr, 570 million hours per year.
Because there is no punishment for laziness here. If countries held each other responsible for their contribution to global warming, things would improve quickly. Instead China invested massively in green technology while the planet's biggest mafia don (PotUS) spent 8 years pretending global warming didn't exist. Without the USA on-board (and it still isn't) there is no leadership for the problem. It's dismal that first-world countries can organize a ban on CFC gas, teen nudity and even prostitution but not greenhouse gases.
"HALF A BILLION MAN HOURS!" sounds like a lot. ...through 2100.
that's 500,000,000 hours over 82 years. 6,097,560 hours a year, or about 40 hours per Year per US citizen..
And yet, one side can make at least baby steps toward solving problems like pollution and climate change and human rights, and the other side is pure batshit pyschopathic fascist nutters OF NO UPSIDE TO ANYONE. So yeah.
Get a rope, hang these lying republican traitors.
Approx. Elevation: 13 feet (4 meters)
Seal level rise predicted by 2100: 1 to 10 feet.
So within the lifetime of everyone buying property, only a small part of that area is predicted to be flooded in even the worst case scenario.
We need to hold feat mongers responsible when their predictions don't come true.
When one looks at a 50 year window and extrapolates the rest, the conclusions can be nothing more than "probably"
One side virtue signals to impressionable morons like you for votes, while the other points out that it's national suicide to piss away trillions on a fear mongering.
Remember when NYC was going to be under water by 2022? I remember.
Stop being a fucking fool. Stop lapping their bullshit up.
Over 10 million in Florida alone.
No you don't remember because it never happened. Nobody with any scientific credibility said NYC would be underwater by 2022. The might have said that they will be washed over by a storm surge like that which Sandy gave them but not that it would remain underwater. Mostly where you get that is some hyperbolic statement by someone trying to whip up fools like you who buy it lock. stock and barrel.
You're going to get cold long before you get warm.
It ain't insult, kid.
-- Tony Benn ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqxnmKTmjkQ&t=2h36m47s )
Not all of them are workers though.
And there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Also a study conducted by the scientific community stated that most sources of CO2 are not human but instead earth based releases. If it is changing then there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Ever had a "worker movement" that wasn't headed by a guy whose name starts with "Lord"?
Slashdot used to be about tech matters. Now it's becoming just another mouthpiece for far-left nonsense. As we sit shivering in 25F below normal temperatures here in New England, and as virtually EVERY aspect of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked - I get the nonsense here at Slashdot.
Slashdot is NOT the place for this politicized nonsense.
Western politics only worries about the next 5 years unfortunately and is therefore unable to formulate any meaningful response to impending disaster.
You're demonstrably wrong.
"New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.
The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
On June 12, 2008, correspondent Bob Woodruff revealed that the program "puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015."
As one expert warns that in 2015 the sea level will rise quickly, a visual shows New York City being engulfed by water. The video montage includes another unidentified person predicting that "flames cover hundreds of miles."
JAMES HANSEN (NASA/AL GORE SCIENCE ADVISOR): We can see what the prospects are and we can see that we could solve the problem but we're not doing it.
[Graphic: Welcome to 2015]
PETER GLEICK (SCIENTIST/PACIFIC INSTITUTE): In 2015, we've still failed to address the climate problem.
JOHN HOLDREN (PROFESSOR/HARVARD UNIVERSITY): We're going to see more floods, more droughts, more wildfires.
UNIDENTIFIED "REPORTER:" Flames cover hundreds of square miles.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE: We expect more intense hurricanes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE #5: Well, how warm is it going to get? How much will sea level rise? We don't know really know where the end is.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #2: Temperatures have hit dangerous levels.
UNIDENTIFIED VOICE #3: Agriculture production is dropping because temperatures are
rising.
HEIDI CULLEN (WEATHER CHANNEL/CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERT): There's about one billion people who are malnourished. That number just continually grows. ...
CUOMO: I think we're familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That's seven years from now. Could it really be that bad?
Climate change is real.
Horrible horrible things will happen we are told here (and elsewhere).
Which gives rise to schemes like this.
Most climate change deniers aren't denying climate change, they are reacting to the fear-mongering with extreme distrust. They know opportunists will use that fear fuel it with misinformation and use it for political manipulation to profit. And the collateral damage will be just as bad or worse than the climate change itself.
That is the problem with the climate change 'debate'.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
I do think climate change is happening and that humans are a direct reason why. But, I also think all of this is overhyped and quite frankly pointless to try and "fix". The basic problem is us. We cannot just limit what we do - our population continues to increase, and no matter what we limit, it will only get worse. No one will ever take this seriously unless the effects are right in front of them. History proves time and time again that this is what spurs people to start caring.
One could also argue that the climate is going to continue to get worse regardless of what we do or do not do, simply because the sun will begin expanding, and likely already is, very slowly. Even a 10% increase in luminosity will make Earth uninhabitable for most non-microscopic life. Life has, at best, 600 million years left, not the billions that are left for when the Earth is eventually engulfed by the sun.
Naturally, no one is going to care, simply because humanity will probably be extinct by then. Why do we care about this climate change crap when we are doomed regardless?