Slashdot Mirror
Record Number of Americans See Climate Change As a Current Threat (axios.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: More Americans are very worried about global warming and say the issue is personally important to them than ever before, according to a new poll released Tuesday. The polling may indicate that extreme weather events -- coupled with a series of grim scientific findings -- over the past year are starting to change peoples' minds about climate change, which could have significant implications for any significant climate legislation passing Congress. The key finding from the new survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication is that Americans increasingly view global warming as a present-day threat to them, rather than an issue that will affect future generations. Nearly half of Americans (46%) said they personally experienced the effects of global warming -- a 15-point spike since March 2015.
"Denialist pollution source owners' propaganda efforts failing, American idiots slowly pulling their collective heads out of their asses and realizing changes must be made quickly, or this is going to get much worse."
In other news, record numbers of Americans are susceptible to group think and mass indoctrination.
Okay, so you cannot see any evidence that global warming and climate change is affecting you, even though the evidence is there, it is overwhelming and the effective is very significant.
That's fine, so here is how it is affecting you in your daily life. Another people are concerned about the massive impact that fossil fuels are having on the world, that economics is changing and their lifespan as a viable source of energy is limited. So, everything that you do that depends on fossil fuels is already and will increasingly change. Is that going to change your life? I think it will.
Your signature is... just... perfect.
I remember back in the 80s when the warning came out with the predictions of what would happen.
We're living it.
I'm not interested in "Liberal" vs "Conservative" bickering or what is "fake" or not.
From everything I have seen, doing what I can to reduce human caused climate change means a better way of life for me. Less pollution. Less money being spent. Healthier lifestyle. A better way of life for my children and grandchildren. Less wars. Less migrations and the trouble that causes.
If we could just stop these bullshit wars that cause people to migrate. I cannot blame any Syrian who wants to leave. The same for every other country over-run with assholes who want to take over everything for whatever reason.
Outfits like Axios desperate for some climate change 'action.' The narrative is complete; if you want to save earth, socialism based on carbon redistribution/control. If you're against that, you're a denying Earth Hater. Did anyone notice the latest 'tipping point' narrative drop in the Times a few days ago? They've been tipping the point for twenty years over there lol.
In other news, Brazil told the cult to hold their Carbon Con 2019 somewhere else. Somehow, that's not in the news.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's about pollution, not lifespan of available fossil fuels, which keeps getting pushed out further and further even as use increases.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Hmm...I just can't think of an example of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to cancer.
I suppose cancer isn't a problem if it isn't affecting me directly.
Just because your life doesn't appear to be directly affected doesn't mean the lives of others aren't. Rising sea levels are affecting island nations. Significant portions of the great barrier reef around Australia have died off. Severe droughts in various regions around the world are forcing people to relocate. Huge numbers of insects populations and species are dying off which is going to have detrimental effects on the food chain in those regions.
Droughts and abnormal temperatures also affect crop yields, which affects the price of everything at the grocery store. Sure, there are other factors that affect grocery store prices, but climate change is certainly a contributing one.
Technically to tell, you'd need a world with the chemicals and one without. But that test is only half the story because the world without would be progressing more slowly technologically, causing deaths itself from this lag.
You...probably don't wanna do that analysis.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
When you have real living versions of cartoon anti-environmentalist villains as the ruling members of most big nations for as many years as we have - you start to worry more than compared to when the circumstances seemed more sane.
This isn't some "oh, I'm so concerned about the electrical wire waves on my kid's braces" style worrying - it's "yeah, we've had 20 rounds of studies showing that the base of our food chain won't function nearly as well in a couple of decades" kinds of stuff.
And why? Because we've tied everything together, made politics this absurd game where everyone plays to these massively overloaded crisis scenarios, basically recreating the worst crisises of late-era Roman conditions, and at the same time eliminated the same kinds of things placed in order to prevent non-violent elections from becoming justifications for revolution.
Well, all that largely to feed money and power to the already rich and powerful. And yes, I do significantly blame those that supported the Citizens United outcome.
So, nothing but the focused interests of the those with the plurality of power at the moment get anything now - and compromise is only punished with nigh-permanent reductions in power.
Is it any wonder that the very environment that allows us to live gets sacrificed consistently with that as the game we use to make crucial decisions?
We need a system where the best decisions on any given issue are made without being gummed up with these absurd and artificial ties to these games of retribution and greed.
Ryan Fenton
Right now? Probably not a hell of a lot unless you live in California or the southeast US. The worst is that you're likely needing to run the A/C a bit more during the summer and pay a bit more on your electricity bill.
Let's assume you don't think climate change is a problem, or at least not enough of one for the government to take action because of negative economic effects.
Consider then what happens in the future, even the near future. Climate change is linked to changing weather patterns and an increase in destructive storms ( https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/our-changing-climate/changes-hurricanes ). These storms have an economic cost - businesses destroyed, homes destroyed, cleanup, reconstruction. Right there, that's insurance companies and the government involved. If the insurance companies don't go bankrupt from the increased cost then they'll definitely be passing on the cost in the form of higher premiums to their customers. Government money only goes so far, so either programs will be cut or taxes will go up.
Let's not forget that the changing weather patterns are also going to affect agriculture, fishing... A large chunk of our food production. Farmland becomes unusable due to drought, heating oceans disrupt the ecology and trigger mass die-offs. ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/priyashukla/2018/07/26/oceans-expected-to-become-more-acidic-than-theyve-been-in-14-million-years/ )
Oh! How about another potential problem: like to go outside? You could also be at a higher risk of contracting Lyme or other tick-borne diseases because the weather is more favourable to them now in two ways. Either it's extending the amount of time ticks are active during the year (they go dormant below either 2 or 4 C, I forget which) or extending the territory they normally inhabit farther north because those latitudes are now more hospitable to them. ( http://www.vdci.net/blog/lyme-disease-3-reasons-it-is-on-the-rise-in-the-northeast )
These are just a few things off the top of my head. So unless you were being sarcastic in your post, this shit is 100% real and even if it has no impact on your daily life right now, I can guarantee it'll become your concern soon enough.
The insurance companies take global climate change seriously and they are planning for it - i.e. charging you more.
There is also the human health issue - your employees/co-workers will get sick more.
There is also the costs associated with agriculture. Those heat waves or harsh winters that will become more common makes your orange juice - like you have for breakfast - and the coffee - like you have for breakfast - more costly.
And then there is the migration issue. If you are scared of the evil hoard coming across our Southern border, climate change will make that even worse - like then, they'll take raft to our shores, dig a tunnel, fly planes or whatnot into our country. Come in via Canada - NAH! If they make it to Canada they'll stay! The Canadian people are our best defense against illegal immigration from the North!
Watch the news when heat waves come and see how many old people die. They don't just roll over, They go to the emergency room and rack up a hundred Gs doing so and then die. Guess who pays.
And there is much much more. Why do I know? Because that's what I do. Sucking up all the data and running models as to what happens when climate changes.
My reasons? Wall Street.
They're gonna make BILLIONS off of global climate change if we continue the way we're going.
They don't care. They'll be on their yachts basking in the Arctic mellow climate while we roast.
Me? I'm with them. I'm gonna ride their coattails and hopefully end up better than the rest of you people. I'll be able to buy that jar of strawberry jam to put on my Soylent Green.
Suck it, peasant!
Are you a farmer that will have to find new sources of water as droughts affect your crops? If additional water is not enough, can you switch to alternative crops? Not a farmer, are you or someone you know will be affected if farming has to change because of climate change? That's just on crops.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Nearly half of Americans (46%) said they personally experienced the effects of global " - the other 1/2 are republicans -who are the wealthiest in the country, control the Senate, Oval Office, have recently taken the majority of the Supreme Court, are eviscerating environmental protections and are frantically appointing Federal Judges, where the final decisions get made....
Well....yeah. If cancer isn't affecting me directly, it's not a problem for me. Why should I care if other people have cancer? Same as climate change. So far it isn't directly impacting my life in any way that matters, so I don't care about it.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Depends how old you are, I suppose.
If you're going to be around for several more decades, you'll see food shortages and growing areas that are no longer arable - Leading to riots and disruption.
Have a job?
You'll see economic disruption and collapse as millions and millions of Americans move north as large parts of the south become too hot to be habitable - You'll also see tens-of-millions of latin americans massing on the southern border as they too migrate north.
Yer basic problem is that you do not understand probabilities and statistics.
Modern nations can do more than one thing at a time, and effectively.
The right are so old that they'll die before or during a climate change problem would kill them: lack of food/water, weather being too hot/cold to handle by current buildings, power issues from the additional strain for compensating for erratic climate, species of important ecological impact on food production dying. These issues won't happen this year unless you live in a desert yet, but will slowly creep out from the deserts and into normal population centers and then shit will really hit the fan.
Must not live on the east coast I'd guess. Weather has a way of slipping you a convincer when your house washes away.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
What's the matter, summary too long for you?
Why is it then predominantly only the left t
Nearly everywhere in the world, climate change is a non-partisan issue. Climate change denial is mostly relegated to small, and usually extreme, parties. The US is the great exception.
There are several reasons, but the root of the general anti-science position of the Republican party originates from peddling to fundamentalist Christian creationist voters. To be able to maintain the more brain-damaged forms of creationism, you need to reject a large part of modern science - and also a large part of the institutions of modern science. Once this "scepticism" has set in, it's easy to extend it to other aspects of science.
Stephan
No, they should ask, give up 10% of your standard of live, are you willing to spend 10% of your income, downsize everything in your life by 10% in order to Combat Climate change starting...now. The percentage will increase over time.
Or are you to have your 1/2 of your standard of living cut for you, 1/2 of your income cut for you, and have everything about your life downsized by 1/2 for you, as a result climate change in 10-20 years....probably. If could be less, or it could be more.
You can choose to help now, or it will be done unto you because the climate will do it...sooner or later.
The Earth will detonate with a Praxis effect like the Death Star did, and every being on the entire planet will be snuffed out in temperatures hotter than those at the sun's core, quenched quickly by the unimaginable cold of interplanetary space.
Might as well just go there right now, because that's where the AGW alarmists are heading. You can only escalate the rhetoric so many times until you're past 10.
Why is it then predominantly only the left that pushes the cataclysmic effects of climate change, while those on the right tend not to see it as a dire threat (if they acknowledge it exists)?
It's a matter of temperament with each group. At the risk of over-generalizing, leftists support progress, reform, internationalism, whereas rightists support order, tradition, and nationalism. More here.
Is it the those on the left are just so wise, and those on the right are dumb?
No and no. There are lots of dumb leftists and smart rightists. As I said, it's more an issue of temperament than intelligence.
Or is it that the left has been attaching climate change to all of their favorite other ideas, making it even less of an attractive/plausible issue to those on the right?
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one. I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The new tax and political demands passed under the cover of "climate change" will be a change to daily life.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Just because your life doesn't appear to be directly affected doesn't mean the lives of others aren't. Rising sea levels are affecting island nations.
I see this all the time, but I haven't seen any actual proof? Which island nations are losing area, are ending up underwater?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, they should ask, give up 10% of your standard of live, are you willing to spend 10% of your income,
In the US the news has many stories of people who are simply devastated because they have missed one paycheck -- which would be considerably less than 10% of their income.
Or are you to have your 1/2 of your standard of living cut for you, 1/2 of your income cut for you, and have everything about your life downsized by 1/2 for you, as a result climate change in 10-20 years....probably.
The problem with doom and gloom predictions is that the emotional impact of them wears off as deadlines are missed or pushed back. Or, put another way, "Malthus was wrong."
I think the increasing numbers in the polls can be attributed in some, perhaps large, part to the tendency of people to tell pollsters the "right" answer. This should be obvious. We've had lots of stories here on /. about polls being incorrect because of this effect, so why not for this topic, too? And that ignores the push-polling issue, where the answers depend almost solely on the way the questions are asked.
If sufficient amount of people have been convinced of it being a threat, it begins to dictate how much of economic activity is conducted. Things like price of electricity, certain taxes and so on are paid by everyone, and the more people believe that climate change is a "current" threat rather than a threat "in a hundred years", it means you get to pay more for the same things that you could get for less yesterday. There's also availability of some products that will be severely impacted by this belief.
Both the DOD and insurance companies have taken climate change seriously for over 20 years now. Neither can afford to deny reality because it directly affects thier bottom line.
The Japanese are already running out of squid to harvest because of increased temperature and over fishing. The way we are headed, remind me to buy the last can of anchovies as an investment vehicle.
....of my life being effected that can be 100% linked undoubtedly to Global Warming.
How, exactly is this touching me in my daily life?
Well, obviously you are not looking at the yearly weather stats... I'm seeing fewer tornados where I live in tornado alley. Also a lot fewer sunspots than I expected to see too.. Hmmm....
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Sure, but Youtube TV is now available for all americans, aren't you excited??
This "poll" is from the "Yale Program on Climate Change Communication" - it seeks to push the entire narrative. Now, when you actually ask people what they think is the most important problem, you find environmental issues down around 2-3%. And that's right around where it's been for a LONG time. Push polls make great headlines, and when it's mrsmash as editor - you know it's pushing a defined agenda!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We now know why slashdot doesn't handle unicode - it's to save the Earth!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How about we focus on bigger, more easily solvable problems, like single-use plastic waste? There are much more important, easier problems to solve.
The only way so many people could observe "climate change" impacting their daily life is if they think climate and weather is the same thing. The only solutions for climate change I see being put forward are massive, regressive, economy-stunting taxes on the poor. I'm not interested in living in a world where only the rich can afford heat and motorcars.
The real path to male liberation
I wish more Americans were involved in foreign politics, they would realize this is very true. Also it's why everyone complains social media sites are all left wing because they get traffic from all over the world. America's far left are centrists in the eyes of the world.
I wonder, do any slashdotters answer their phone for unknown numbers and engage in long conversations?
And if they do answer and have time to waste on such stuff, do any of them have any compunctions against telling the telemarketer/pollster the most outrageous stuff just for fun? I sure don't. They're wasting my time, and if I'm going to spend it talking to them I'm going to have fun while doing it. "Yes, I think climate change has a direct impact on my life. It's killing my pet fish Eric."
Makes sense, some of the most heavily climate-denying areas have been hit with terrible hurricanes over the last few years. You can see how someone might stop denying the reality of global warming after it knocks their house down.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Which island nations are losing area, are ending up underwater?
Miami Beach, FL
60% of republicans want Medicare for all, 90% of democrats do too. Even a poll on Fox News bore this out. Yet somehow all the right talking heads on tv say communists are the only ones that want socialized healthcare. The real reason we don't have it, or a lot of the other issues we all agree on is America is a representative democracy that only seems to represent moneyed interests and not citizens.
Tell me, do you think that Hitler did anything wrong? Or Stalin? Mao?
Because you'll have to top all of those people put together, several tens of times over for your murderous desire to succeed. You'll have to become someone who people will think of as "Hitler was pretty bad, but at least he wasn't [Anonymous Coward]" in the future.
Are you actually prepared to go that far? Are you truly that far gone?
The right are so old that they'll die before or during a climate change problem would kill them:
After dealing with a number of people, I must say there is some truth to your statement. I'd add to it that many of these people are smart enough to understand the issue.
I think they just like it warmer.
And as we enter the once coldest part of the Winter, the last week in January, first week of February, we have flood watches here in Pennsylvania. I mean, it's just weather, but after a while, just weather ends up being just climate.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Life IS chemicals, Princess. Anyone that tells you otherwise is selling something.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Well, since the oceans are the primary source of oxygen, and acidification is hard on a lot of the species that produce that oxygen. Specifically, diatoms, the single largest source of oxygen on the planet.
As I suspect that you enjoy breathing as much as I do: Yes, we should care.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
This is the ultimate discovery of the far right. Majority denial trumps science and physics.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Has your country become almost uninhabitable because humidity moved in where before it was dry heat? Can you no longer farm or produce on your land? What do you think might happen if this country was a nuclear power and surrounding countries reject the millions of refugees seeking relief? These are the biggest problems with climate change, the hundreds of millions of climate refugees and the possible destabilization of middle eastern nuclear powers. Wars are already fought over resources, reducing the amount and shuffling them around could start WW3.
Not even close to being enough. First thing that will have to go is commercial flights. Those simply cannot be tolerated. Interconnected world the way we know it today simply cannot exist. It has to end.
Next thing to go is uninterrupted electricity for everyone. That means no reliable internet either. That's the other link that makes people care to some extent about "outsiders" far away from their nations.
Finally you'll have to accept that your very culture is dysfunctional, because we're not ready to commit genocide on the level that would make Hitler, Stalin and Mao look incredibly benevolent in comparison. We will have to cull most of the population in Africa, Asia and South America, because as they will desire to increase their wealth, they will become much more polluting per capita, easily nullifying all the cuts made in the West. We'll have to be the most brutal mass murderers to have ever existed.
It's the last part that most people genuinely are afraid of addressing. It's factually true that most of the people who either deny global warming, or just don't care about it are the overwhelming majority of humanity who are living in poor countries, and who thanks to the internet now know just how wealthy of lifestyles compared to theirs we have. And they want to be like us. And their lives are being uplifted at rapid rate, as globalization has shifted wealth to developing countries at incredible rate. This will have to be severed and destroyed, alongside the masses who already got a taste of better lifestyles afforded to them by the economic growth. Because they can't afford to care about a threat that might materialize in a hundred years. They have to care about immediate threats, like medicine so their children don't die, food so their children don't end up with stunted growth, housing so they actually have a home to be at, social security of some kind so they can afford to think of more than their next meal.
It's a genuinely impossible equation. To make people care about things like global warming, you need to eliminate most of other threats in their lives - disease, food security, energy security, housing, social security, etc. And to do so worldwide, would require CO2 emissions that would make current emissions look absolutely tiny in comparison. Therefore, the only way to equalize the two would be to conduct genocide of unforeseen proportions.
Are they worried enough to change their own behaviour? Are they driving small cars (or none), travelling only when essential, and choosing to live in smaller more energy-efficient houses? Are they deliberately buying less manufactured stuff, or cutting back on beef consumption?
Or are they just worried enough to want "someone else" to pay for changes?
Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." -Joseph Stalin
COMMUNISM!
Life is not for the lazy.
There is absolutely a way to pay for it. Increase the marginal tax rate back to what it was before Reagan gutted it and there would be more than enough to cover both.
1. 'Affected', not 'Effected'
2. "Since it's not happening to me directly, it must not be happening anywhere!" idiocy
How do you even have the brainpower to figure out how to use the Internet?
Past 10? That wasn't even a 2.
They're discussing a few of the absolutely predictable, short term expected outcomes of the "best case" amount of climate change that's already realistically unavoidable. The sort of things we've see happen countless times throughout history in response to much more localized climate changes.
Where it has the potential to get interesting is if we instead keep burning fossil carbon like it's going out of style, and absolutely predictably keep the process going for a century or more, until stable climates and predictable weather are something they only talk in history books.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Sort of...
I'm on the right. My reasons for disagreeing with most of the suggestions made by the left on this subject is that they tend to always increase the size and impact of government which I see is generally bad. Also, the majority of the suggested efforts largely ignore the geo-political impact of the proposed solutions will have as we unilaterally destroy our economy and thus reduce our ability to maintain our standards of living and freedoms.
Let's face it, there is zero chance we can have ANY effect on the amounts of carbon emitted by countries outside our borders. We can ask nicely I suppose, but do you think our competitors will willingly do this? Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage over the free world and would be happy to keep burring by while we unilaterally stopped and made their fuel costs go down. In the long term, the world's CO2 load won't decrease anyway (at least while there are fossil fuels to burn), so what ever the bad effects of Global Warming turn out to be we will have to deal with them.
So, from my perspective, looking long term, if the left is correct, there isn't any way to avoid what's coming, no matter how hard the western world tries. So the right's approach seems the best one to me. Sure, do what we reasonably can with conservation and "green" energy, but let's not get so crazy about this as to hurt our geopolitical standing and vibrant economy. In the mean time, we should prepare for the effects of Global Warming as a higher priority than trying to avoid them so if/when they do come, we can effectively deal with them.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Riiight.. Even though such "weather" events are not happening more often (actually less) and have been obviously happening for a long time, even before we started keeping records.
The only thing that's really changed here is how many houses we have near the dangerous shores and how many folks get impacted when one of these monsters come ashore. Well, that and how they are reported on...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The magnetic pole shift? Or the Sun?
BS! The earth has gone through a lot of "climage change" for millions of years long before there were HUMANS on the earth. Don't give me that BS WE are causing it. It's a load of hogwash!
FOLLOW THE MONEY!
Where does all the money for your "carbon taxes" go huh? Hey Al Gore gets lots of it! This whole "climate change" change thing is all about MONEY and CONTROL! Not a DAMN thing to do with 'fixing out climate".
Let the sheep be lead to the SLAUGHTER on this thing!
A man once fell off a tall building. As he was falling, at each floor he thought to himself, "so far so good!"
A frog found himself in a large pot of water over a hot fire. As the minutes ticked on, he thought to himself, "this warming isn't so bad."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
First of all, on average if climates get warmer, there will be more droughts. Second of all please present your evidence that said that NY and Florida would be underwater by 2015z
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
... are these unbiased sources?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Whilst I was not aware that Miami was an island and a nation, it is sinking, more than drowning. Groundwater subsidence, and glacial rebound, are causing the land of the Eastern US to generally subside and sink. Is this also from high CO2, causing the land to sink?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
would have been 30 years ago!
Short of using force, we cannot make them change if they don't want to. Say they refuse. Are you saying we should engage our *military* to fight carbon emissions for those countries who refuse to willingly do so? How else do we get them to stop?
So what's my duty now? Allow myself to be destroyed or prepare for the inevitable?
And don't be fooled, the choice is just that simple. Disarm, unilaterally, and throw yourself at the mercy of those who won't be merciful, or prepare for what's coming, keeping your arms and survive.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
When you're so deep up the ideological rabbit hole, you call someone who builds premise on the fact that global warming is real and needs to be addressed a "denier".
Are you dumb or insane? Or both?
P.S. My country has socialized medicine. It's probably one of the reasons I'm not as mentally fucked up as you.
I hope you are correct. Unfortunately the humidity issue is real. It's a simple extension from the linked data to assume these changes will cause mass refugee crises around the world. resouces are limited now and are probably the main reason most wars are fought. Combine mass migration with resource destabilizing climate and it could easily trigger war. This is going to be the most problematic with any nuclear powers that think they have nothing to lose anymore. I'm pretty sure the UAE and the Saudis are going to get hit really hard, and become a wasteland. Hope they don't get nuclear capabilities.
It's why the DOD has been taking this seriously since forever.
More Do-Nothingism.
"Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage over the free world..."
Yeah, except for the Paris Agreement of 2015, the Cancun Agreement of 2010, the Copenhagen Agreement of 2009, the Bali Action Plan of 2007, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and the Rio Accord of 1992. All of which were systematically undermined and rejected by the political Right in the US.
China and Russia are on board. It's you who are not on board. After years of (collectively) denying that there even was a problem, now we see the endgame. "There isn't any way to avoid what's coming..."
So once again it is, "I've got mine and F-U."
BTW, that's loser talk.
The Koch brothers paid for a study to prove Medicare for all costs more. Unfortunately for them the cost we pay now is 34 trillion per decade and the cost of healthcare for all, with everyone using it and using it more often, is 32 trillion per decade. How do we afford something 2 trillion dollars cheaper?!? IDK but maybe we can do it by taking the money we spend now, but use less of it. The insurance companies have a market valuation of 940 billion per year, that's not what they pay out to hospitals and doctors, its overhead and profits. Disbanding them all would save 9.4 trillion dollars and since they are only leaches that contribute nothing, are the thing you are looking for that we cannot keep paying for. Yes it increases taxes but you don't have those massive payments to insurance taken out of your paycheck so the result is better care for less. You know, like the rest of the world does it.
Except none of those countries are going to reach their Paris agreement targets, so it doesn't really matter
Why is it then predominantly only the left t
Nearly everywhere in the world, climate change is a non-partisan issue.
Tell that to the Yellow Vests in France...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Sure, everyone wants free stuff until they are told what the costs are then then they change their mind... But push polls are great to gin up support for the free stuff!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How about we focus on bigger, more easily solvable problems, like single-use plastic waste? There are much more important, easier problems to solve.
That is an easy one - simply block the garbage outflow from 9 rivers in Asia and you're done. Next?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The pH of the ocean is around 8.2; it's slowly moving closer to 8.1. Neutral is 7.0. pH scale is logarithmic - I don't think we could emit enough CO2 if we burned all fossil fuel reserves today to move it to neutral, let alone to acidic.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Liar
https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Actually, we should get wetter as we get warmer, given the moisture content of warm air versus cold air.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yup. We've had about 4 decades of exactly that, with the rich taking more and more from the poor. Redistribution in the other direction can't come quickly enough.
"All men and women die; no amount of free healthcare will change that, it will only make the misery in the mean-time worse."
What is the implication of the qualifier "free" in that sentence? Do you think that *paid* healthcare can change the fact we all die?
Because if not, you seem to be arguing that all healthcare is futile. Which is a pretty fucking stupid argument. The purpose of healthcare is not to prevent death, but to add years to life, and life to years. Technically, compression of morbidity and a rise in QALYs for a population.
Healthcare also turns out to be not *quite* so simple as "each man is an island". Infectious disease, mental health, prevention, the requirement for risk pooling for everyone who's not a multi-millionaire...
Grow up. Engage with the issues properly. Stop living life as simple rhetoric and engage with the world as it actually is.
Most of the liberal I know survive on the government dime, while the Republicans and libertarians all have their own business, have lots of food stocked, own guns, and some even have bunkers. I'm not sure you're correct on who will win. When my government paycheck stops, I'll probably starve to death. You think the hunters and preppers will?
I will hunt them.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one.
Prior to about 1988, conservatives pretty much did agree that climate change was a problem, and the science was not at all controversial. For instance, it was well understood through the 60s-70s that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that made the surface of Venus so much hotter than Mercury, and conservatives weren't inclined to dispute it.
When it came to the point of deciding what to do, certain corporations used their lobbying arms to reset opinion amongst the conservatives, framing it along typical lines around controversy and the threat of socialism, in order to protect the profits of those corporations.
I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
And by not participating in the discussion about what to do about climate change conservatives have created the impression that they do not have a solution, so we instead need to look to the left to solve it. Which is ridiculous, like every problem, there is a spectrum of approaches we can take.
You can't negotiate with the physical reality of climate change, it's not a matter of opinion, You can, however, advocate for more 'right friendly' ways of resolving the issue, and if you truly believe that 'right friendly' solutions are the best and most efficient, the right should be confident in advocating for those solutions.
The right saying that climate change is a socialist conspiracy is saying that only socialism can solve a class of global problems, which is not only incorrect it also invalidates the right wing altogether.
what matters is that 60-80% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (depending on what you consider "paycheck to paycheck", $400 in the bank gets you 60%, $1000 gets you 80%).
Said it before, say it again: Until we fix the economy for working class Americans all this talk of climate change is just talk. Climate change is years from now but rent's due today.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why do leftists think that sexual insults strengthen their arguments?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
All commercial fish stocks have been declining at a rapid rate for 50 years, and you think climate change big part to do with it? Do you think the fact we are consuming 10x the amount of fish we did 100 years ago might have more to do with it? We are simply over-fishing everything. The surface fish are in low numbers so the fishing industry keeps investing new ways to fish deeper and deeper. We now literally scrape the bottom of the ocean kilometers deep to catch the fish way down there. That is the the ocean equivalent of clear-cutting forests. Giant swaths of ocean floors thousands of meters wide and dozens of kms long are are wiped clean of all living things just to catch some species we now like to eat because everything at the surface has been used up. That has nothing to do with climate change.
You do realize the human population has increased from 2 billion in 1920 to a projected 8 billion by 2025? That is the reason for most environmental issues we see today, not climate change.
It's Miami Beach, which is not Miami, and which is comprised of islands. Miami itself will end up mostly under the waves at a somewhat later date.
Your linked article does not say that it is sinking faster than sea levels are rising, just that it is sinking. They do say that sea levels on the East Coast are currently rising at 3mm/year and accelerating.
Since people in Miami Beach are already wading through the streets at high tide on calm days, their situation is going to be pretty dire within a few decades just from sea level rise even if the sinking somehow stopped.
I like how people discount the measurements and observations thousands of scientists take day in and day out as they apply their PhDs and livelihood to observe what is happening to the world. They have worked full time or more for decades on end to come to these conclusions.
You think these fucking scientists love being holed up in a shotty little observation pod in Antarctica away from their families the majority of the year? No they're doing it so that they can report to humanity their findings and give us warning and advisement if need be.
To ignore their warning on the basis of "you just feel they're wrong", or "it's political" is a display of self destructive and ignorant hubris.
Seriously you'd have to be deluded or have a mental illness to think you know better than the worldwide scientific community. The worst part is your ignorance will destroy the world for our grandchildren.
The sun is at a minimum, hence it has no influence on rising temperatures. ... completely irrelevant for temperatures on earth. ...
The difference between sun maximum and minimum is about 0.1% anyway
Sunspot activity has only effects in the higher atmosphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
China are insane not to reduce emissions. They're going to be impacted sooner and far worse than most countries as their food producing regions will suffer decline. Same with India.
This is why the US should also step up. Crises in these places might represent a competitive edge but the impact won't stay there.
I hate insurance companies for the reason you state and because using insurance is cowardice and selling insurance is pandering to cowardice. If you think sending health payments through the government is more efficient than sending them through insurance companies, you are naive and completely deluded. Worse yet, the government already is a monstrous inhibitor of medical technology progress; if all medical payments were to go through the government progress would grind to a halt as all payments for unapproved treatments would be prohibited. Furthermore, by guaranteeing payment for all approved treatments of health problems, a powerful incentive for taking care of one's own body would be removed. Overall health declines, expenses rise.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Both China and Russia would be more than willing to keep burning fossil fuels for a competitive advantage ... or are you scared they can build more tanks and more fighters than you because of CO2?
They are countries, not companies.
They have no competitive advantage what so ever
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
and glacial rebound ... how dumb are you?
That lets land rise, not sink
And then again: glacial rebound in Florida? Ah ha ....
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Wetter over the ocean.
Hardly wetter in a desert.
And most certainly not wetter in the center of a continental land mass like America, Asai, Russia, Africa. Where the f*ck should the water come from to make it wetter there?
Regardless how much water the Pacific is evaporating east of the Rockies, most of it will rain down on the rockies. If it was colder in winter much of it would be snow. And when the snow melts a portion of it goes west into continental america.
If the climate is warmer, you have less snow ... I really wonder what people in our times learn in school ...
Humid or wet, yes, in the amazonas. In south Thailand, perhaps some cherry picked areas in India. And that was it. More humid only means the autumn storms bring more water ... AFTER the summer drought. What the f*ck is that useful for?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Guess you don't have any children, and with an attitude like that it doesn't surprise me.
Well,
it is just: "click" and *click* and click!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I'm only 50 so I'm not that old and while I'm a democrat I simply don't by into man-made climate change is to blame for everything. Call me some ignorant insult all you want but the facts are that we still with all our technology simply don't fully understand how the climate cycles work on this planet let alone fully understand the impact of the sun. Furthermore when BS is claimed like 97% of climate scientists all agree when that has been proven wrong so many times it's silly. I grew up in Ohio and lived here during the all the snow fall during the 70s and 80s and then things began to taper off but now we are getting tons of snow again. My neighborhood looks like it did during the beginnings of the blizzard of 77/78 and that hasn't happened in a long time. I fully agree in climate change but man-made has very little impact and all the BS end of the world claims keep falling by the wayside. The reality is that we still don't have the computer processing power to handle all of the climate variables nor can we reproduce past weather history without some BS data manipulation. There is no need to change any of the data we get and time and again the data has to be manipulated for one reason or another, don't include this or that past weather events. Let the weather speak for it's self and stop attaching man-made climate change to every little event in the world. Then maybe more people will agree. Lastly this poll is all web based and easily faked.
well that was interesting. thanks for a new rabbit hole to get lost in.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
If the supposedly scared people are willing to sacrifice a CO2 belching luxury that humanity got along fine without until about 90 years ago, then they might actually be worried. If they are not willing to put up with even that trivial inconvenience, then they are not really all that worried.
Then minute your start insulting people is the moment people will ignore you and move on.
Medicare for all has a 2% overhead cost. It's among the lowest and most efficient in the world.
Yawn, more people will say having food to eat and a roof over their heads is more important that global warming? So what? The poll tracks the number of people who think AGW is real and that it affects them. Simple questions, no push there.
Check what happens with glacial rebound - the center of the continent rises a lot more, which forces the edges of the continent down. It's why there is glacial impact on sinking on the East coast. And when you push down on one side of the Continent (the upper side), the lower side lifts; remove the force, the upper side rises and the lower side sinks. Educate yourself - the trampoline analogy and see-saw effect they use should help you understand.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The Sahara is greening. That's because it's getting wetter. Yes, the desert is getting wetter! California is back up over normal snowpack levels, and the Midwest has a general increasing trend of precipitation. Pretty much everything you said was just proven wrong...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Well, if a person has X and Y...they could be male...
then again...they could birth a child.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
-- There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Aspirin and salt are grandfathered. Can you name one of these chemicals that you have a problem with?
Climate cycles are pretty well understood now. The climate has changed within the margin Arrhenius suggested in 1896, and more recently Hansen in 1988. Milankovitch cycles are understood.
There is some uncertainty in regional effects, but new supercomputers are improving resolution.
Areas of uncertainty include the exact role of aerosols and effects on and of plant cover, but they only change the detail, not the overall conclusion. The effect on tundra and clathrates and the Atlantic conveyor are among those areas where there is uncertainty that could make a significant difference, but possibly not in our favour.
Time was, Americans, including conservatives, understood and valued soft power and diplomacy -- which is entirely the art of getting countries to shift their position without the need for force. When did you become such a wimp as to think that just because someone says "I don't want to stop doing X", America should just give up and go home? Hearing a nation say that as an opening gambit was precisely the point at which America used to use its influence to drive change.
Your Manichean view of the toolkit and choices available to America is impoverished and weaselly. Put your big boy pants back on and go and persuade other countries the way you used to.
It's a dial, not a switch. The more each country does, the better.
Thanks! Not sure luck will be needed, though, seeing as you guys are so set on making yourselves dumber and dumber.
The social media companies are activists, set up their own rules and follow the law of the countries they run in and here in Europe even more now the ruling part of EU with Juncker, Germany and France especially (our Swedish politicians are also extreme but fewer mandates) want to enforce their values upon what's said on social media. You can't take what's shown on social media as it being the idea of the majority because it's basically run by the left and any right wing posting is more short lived, less spread and private.
I doubt most Europeans want to lose their people's countries, culture and provide for those who move in yet that's what the ruling class want to enforce. Also the left is always dishonest and uninterested in actually having a discussion. For instance if someone would bring up the Kalergi plan then whatever the ideas for what is happening now is old and has been around for a long time and are happening now isn't supposed to be relevant but rather you mentioning that by itself should discredit you because anyone bring that up or linking "racist" data or whatever is wrong for having the wrong values not for actually being wrong.
The way we used to?
I'm not one to down play the USA's role in the world, but pray tell what kind of persuasive power do you think we currently have? "Talk softly and carry a big stick" used to be effective, but everybody knows that we won't use the stick. We are left with what? Economic sanctions? Yea, we don't have the public will to do that at all.
Take the "trade war" with China of late. Half the country is for it, half is ardently not supporting it. How do you suppose such political realities play over seas? Just like OBL thought, we are wishy washy. Yea we may gripe and complain, even send troops, but we are unwilling to see it though or do what it takes to win. We may stick around for a few years, but we tire easily and leave. As a result, nobody really takes our soft words seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They also don't use the metric system. Coincidence? I think not.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Bit sad about this. We could otherwise just outvote gravity and all be flying.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It is still called acidification... I don't think anyone expects that the ocean will turn into 1M HCl, yet it is nonetheless undergoing problematic acidification.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, that's a nice theory you have there but the question is "What will China actually do?"
Seems likely to me that they will happily go on consuming fossil fuels and building their economy as fast as they can, emissions be damned. You may consider this stupid, but what you think doesn't matter, unless you happen to be in charge over there and can actually change something.
So, what's going to happen if China does what seems likely? How do we setup to deal with it?
It might be a good time to work on alternative crops and develop alternative water supplies for existing crops in places like California where lots of the world's food is grown. Build desalinization plants and use the water we have to better effect perhaps? Stay the world's leader in food production would be a good idea, we can do it, we can apply technology to this goal.
You see, that's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Forget this hopeless fascination with CO2 emission reductions and concentrate on the problems we will ultimately face, because China IS going to do the "stupid" thing in your view. Best we prepare for the worst, because to hear the left talk, it's already a given it's going to happen.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Building alliances and co-investing is how you do it. America didn't persuade the other countries to sign up to 5 Eyes by threatening sanctions, for example. You're still stuck in a mindset of all stick and no carrot, and complaining that the stick is broken and you lack the will to wield it. Well, fix the stick, grow the balls to use it, and use the carrot too -- the carrot of using the carrot might persuade more folks to support you when you use the stick, both domestically and overseas.
You're not too clear on how this whole quote thing works, are you? People with more than two brain cells to rub together understand that writers use quote marks to surround text that other people have actually written. Not text that constitutes a weird straw man that they would like someone else to have written.
This is a fairly basic part of how English works that kids normally master by age 8. Why would you write in such a way that you appear less capable than a typical 8 year old? If you're going to try to excoriate me with your rapier wit, can't you do so in a way that doesn't involve childish misrepresentations that undermine the excoriation?
I understand what you are saying.. I just don't agree that the USA wields enough influence, either by force or reward, to control other countries in this area.
India isn't going to knuckle under and we cannot pay them enough to curb their CO2 emissions. Folks would die in India if they tried some of this, lots of them, their leaders don't want to go there. China might bend to our economic threats in some ways, but again I seriously doubt they are going to care enough to reduce CO2 emissions for domestic production purposes and they are rapidly developing a military that prevents us from forcing the issue (without serious costs in blood and materials). Russia is less of a military threat, but they simply don't care. Russia figures that the USA isn't going to force anything due to the costs and they are quite content being on their own.
I don't see where carrots or sticks are possible ways to get the results you want.
Which begs the question.. WHAT do you actually want? What's going to fix this problem we are trying to address? Do you know?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
...that doesn't mean people want to PAY much to somehow fix/mitigate it. Look to France to see what happens when you try to tax people.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
It's not. Medicare (provided by the government) has a proven track record as being among the lowest overhead in the world and everyone seems to love it. It's about 2% and much lower than private insurance companies for whom greater internal expenses mean the same business but more billable expenses and thus profits. The current system of private insurance is too opaque and poorly regulated for any free market to kick in.
What is the use of getting everyone to think of Climate Change as a threat? I am sure it is useful to have an entire population scared and feeling helpless... but why should I care about of this?
Am I the person who can make laws?
Am I the person who owns infrastructure?
Why is everyone working so fucking hard to get me to be terrified and horrified about Climate Change?
I find electricity to be exceptionally useful. I don't use a lot and I definitely don't waste it, but I am not going to stop using it. I don't generate electricity. I don't have any control over how electricity is generated. Consumer electricity is not really a huge factor in all of this even if it is a factor that is messy and dirty.
Ok. So my electricity usage is not really an issue, what about the products that I buy and use? Well, again, all of those take energy and I don't generate energy nor do I have any control over those who do... but I can just not buy any products. Kind of? I don't really own anything except some clothes and a car. I think we can all agree that I should be wearing clothes, but what about the car? Well, I live across the street from where I work, so I solved the need for a car concerning getting to work. I still do need a car though. Someone smarter-than-the-rest-of-us fuckhead decided that the profits from making cars were so huge that they took some of those profits and used them to coerce municipalities into designing their cities and towns in such a way that mass transit is almost impossible to do, and is impossible to do in any sort of efficient and economical manner.
But again, I didn't have any control over how those profits were used.
The only other direct effect I can have is to stop eating meat or to stop living entirely. They are roughly equivalent to me. I will go buy guns and prevent you from forcing me to eat some protein "shake" that has all the essential amino acids that the body needs.
So explain to me why I should be all up in arms over Climate Change? What use is it for me to have lingering unresolved psychological issues related to things I can't control, change, or even influence?
Long story short, those who profited the most from this utter mess are throwing the responsibility back on the masses by saying, "you enticed me to do it! you are responsible". No mother fucker, the rapist doesn't get to say "you enticed me to rape you".
And yet some of you continue blithely along trying to get everyone all worked up over this shit. Stop it. rsilvergun and AmiMoJo, you are working directly for the people that you most despise. You are helping to remove the issue of direct accountability by helping those who profited to push the blame onto us, where we are expected to walk to work and eat protein shakes to help "save the environment" while mother fuckers Mary T. Barra assist their masters in continuing to do more damage to the environment than any random group of 7 billion people would by themselves.
Please stop posting articles about Climate Change here. There is no good coming out of it. I don't normally hate people, but god damn, it is REALLY hard not to have intense burning hatred for the useful fools like AmiMoJo and rsilvergun.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Oh I agree. I said they'd be insane to do nothing, but I fully accept insanity is the likely course. We were more insane in the west to ignore the problem and kick it down the road from the 80s when it would have been relatively easy to start dealing with it (not easy, but possible). Personal view is that it is too late, even if we stopped all emissions today, to stop effects that will impact food supply to the point of chaos. Sure things could be done to mitigate as you say, but we'll probably wait until its too late for that as well.
Too hard to build a consensus for voting to work. Instead, just try to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
Works every time.
Right now? Probably not a hell of a lot unless you live in California or the southeast US.
Actually, I live in Madison, WI, and climate change is impacting me.
As part of climate change, we are seeing increased rainfalls, including more incidents of extreme precipitation. In town, we've had 2 examples of "100-year" floods in the past 10 years.
Not by chemists or most scientists. It would be called neutralization - when you change an acid towards neutral, or a base towards neutral. It only becomes acidification or basification if you're moving from neutral towards acid or base.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The fact that you're stupid and self-centred doesn't mean you can just assume everyone else is. In fact, there's only one country that's pulled out of the Paris agreement...
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
When you grow up, you'll realise that sometimes caring for people other than yourself is not only worthwhile in itself, but can even have positive effects on you.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
Clear eyed logic, but there is more. Imagine this scenario: we just flat-ass don't do shit. Zero. Nothing. Okay... thought experiment. If we didn't do shit there is some non-zero chance that the world absolutely becomes uninhabitable. That's the extreme side of the rhetoric. Now, alternatively maybe little or nothing happens due to either overestimation of current projections or that we find a way to mitigate so that CO2 comes way down. So, I'm just trying to follow your logic a little further.... wouldn't another option would be to simply let technology take as long as it wants to solve the problem (or run out of fuel to burn Mad Max style) ? The reason being that if the only alternative is certain genocide, then damn near anything is better (or perhaps they are simply the same option with two names?) Damn fatalistic, thinking, but logical... very logical. We'll survive ... or not.
A lot. Here's some educational material for you, if you wanna know my citations:
2015-2017 are the hottest years on record on Earth. Citation: https://public.wmo.int/en/medi... and multiple countries and weather stations confirmed this
2018 is looking to be #4, but not 100% confirmed yet; but last April was the third warmest on record: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/...
The higher temperatures are affecting all crops, but their effects are most pronounced under Middle East and African Desert countries currently, but their effects should be closely examined to find ways to stop them in general. Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Also bee population heavily down https://learn.uvm.edu/foodsyst...
Most of California is WEST of the rockies.
And no, the Sahara is not greening again, it is growing since about 100 years every year. Perhaps you have a misconception where the Sahara is and how big it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, the midwest has a trend to more moisture, you probably forgot it had a drought the last 15 years ... when the drought is over obviously it is because there is more water than during the drought. That is the definition of the word "drought".
So no, if the global warming trend increases the center of the US will most likely be a desert ... good luck. I'm pretty sure you are young enough to experience it yourself. Perhaps you want to look at the picture I posted above again. Left side of the Sahara, that is WEST are mountains. So every moist air that comes from the Atlantic rains down in Morocco ... no way it reaches any spot inside of the Sahara. Well, sometimes it does, every 25 years somewhere randomly ... depending by which happy chance a cloud big enough made it around or over the Atlas mountains or got pushed by an unusual wind from the mediterranean into the desert.
So, perhaps you want to read a book about weather, and how weather influences climate?
You could start with general wind patterns and what is happening to a cloud that has to go over a mountain?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
If that was the case, the mountains in Florida would lose a few mm of hight over the course of the years ... which the don't. (* facepalm *)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There's just one problem. It most certainly isn't the only alternative, just like global warming is a fairly small reduction in world GDP over next hundred years (a tiny portion of growth that will happen with far greater certainty over the same period of time) rather than a genocide event it was supposed to be right now if you believed the best models and scientific consensus from the 90s. Most people forget, but best models back then predicted mass starvation to be occurring today. Exact opposite actually happened, we're on the very edge of beating starvation due to non-political (i.e. warfare) issues. World hunger is at all times low, beating even the most optimistic projections from a decade ago by organisations that aimed to fight it back then.
The thing to take away from this is that we are really, REALLY bad at modelling the future beyond few years. So to suggest apocalyptic scenario a hundred years in the future based on "best scientific consensus" is as just much of a folly as to try to claim that we're experiencing a mass starvation event world wide right now. Which I stress, was indeed the best scientific consensus modelled projection for ~2020 about 30 years ago.
We as species are extremely good at adapting to slowly changing environment. That is literally why we are the alpha predator on the planet. We have a brain capable of abstraction on levels no other species on the planet can come even close, which allows us as species to adapt in ways no other species has. So the current trend of finding ways to generate energy with lower CO2 emissions at low cost is critical at slowing the speed of global warming. We don't need to halt it. We just need to make sure it stays slow enough that we can adapt to changes it brings at cost that is less than benefits we derive from cheap energy. Human extinction because of global warming is simply not on the cards. There would need to be something far more catastrophic than that to overcome our adaptability.
So things like switch from coal to natgas where possible is an excellent option. About half of the CO2 emitted per energy generated. Nuclear is great if we can ensure political stability and sufficient lack of corruption wind and solar should be used whenever they are viable. Coal should be avoided if possible. Keep emissions low enough so that global warming stays within "easily adaptable" range it is in right now, rather than it would go into "averagely adaptable", or even "adaptable to with some difficulty" levels. That should be the priority. Doomsaying so common today appears to be mainly a PR effort to get democratic majority behind efforts to this end rather than anything based in actual observable reality. Like any such efforts, they tend to overshoot their targets and cause some problems, but they're likely necessary for the purpose.
Problem is that coal is too cheap, too reliable, and just too accessible compared to everything else when it comes to corrupt, low tech societies that exist in developing countries. It's simply the best option for them. That's why Paris agreement was essentially developing countries attempting to pay off developing countries' aristocracy to not build up coal. It didn't actually work out which is very clear now, but it was a good first attempt at adapting to that particular problem. More refined efforts toward this goal should be the next phase.
California snowpack at 111% of normal, and the reservoirs are all around historical averages. No more drought in California (contrary to what you stated), the Midwest is still gaining in moisture (contrary to what you stated), and the Sahara is getting more moisture (contrary to what you stated). And yet somehow you're still correct? When the facts don't go your way - you really should change your position.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Yes, yes, Woods Hole Institute is full of idiots, if only they were as educated as you! if only glacial rebound didn't exist, if only see-saw effects as continents rebound didn't happen why you'd be a smart man! Unfortunately, those effects do happen, and you're not.
PS: talking about mountains in Florida shows your ignorance to start with; the State only reaches an altitude of 345 feet naturally; there are thousands of buildings in Florida higher than its highest, natural peak.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Modded down for telling the truth. Effective Federal income tax rates in the 1950s (with those high marginal rates) were lower than today, and the Federal Government under Eisenhower had about half the income it does today, per capita and adjusted for inflation. The problem isn't not enough taxation - the problem is way too much spending. Over $13,000 annually by the Federal Government alone for every man, woman, and child in These United States.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It is not contrary to what I stated.
Are you somehow stupid?
The drought is over, or nearly over. Obviously you have more water now since during the drought. But you have not more water than before the drought, and you never will have east of the rockies.
You want to tell us that in 20 or 30 years when the climate is warmer, you have more water in the mid west. And that is simply wrong. To think that you must have a really strange idea about weather, clouds, mountains.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes,
but a 95m high mountain, is still a mountain. Good luck with your nitpicking.
Perhaps you want to call them hills?
So which hill that was 96m high 100 years ago is now 95.90m high? (You know 1m is 1000mm ... so if we have a sea level rise of 1mm per year, that would be 10cm or 0.1m over 100 years. I guess you only need to look on an old map and a current one ...)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
WHOI says Florida is sinking from glacial rebound. I'll trust them over your lack of, well, zero citations and claims of a 96m tall hill being mountains...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Fact: we are at or above normal, in California, in snowpack and reservoir levels. I linked above the proof.
Fact: precipitation in the Midwest (that is EAST of the Rockies) is increasing. I linked above the proof.
Fact: the Sahara is turning more green, due to increased precipitation. I linked above the proof.
Fact: you've made claims of all to the contrary, showed zero facts, and are now trying to backpedal. You're clearly ignorant of the FACTS about precipitation in the US and its trends. And it's clear you're ignorant of our geography when you do not realize the Midwest is EAST of the Rockies...
Conclusion: you're stupid, and you continue to prove your own stupidity with your own unreferenced proclamations and nonsensical statements about the Midwest not being East of the Rockies and Florida having mountains.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
And as we enter the once coldest part of the Winter, the last week in January, first week of February, we have flood watches here in Pennsylvania. I mean, it's just weather, but after a while, just weather ends up being just climate.
O yea? Well here in ole Minny it's literally -20 for the next coupla weeks... also hey wait I thought weather != climate, which is it? Are you just re-labeling everything as needed in order to suit your current point?
Better go back and re read my post there, Einstein. You even quoted it.
Individual days are weather. A collection of trends end up being climate. Your - 20 degrees is weather. The Northeast's rainy year is weather, and so far we are warmer than usual. If several years are warmer than usual it starts to be climate.
Hopefully you knew that and are just trolling.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Oh, I have no problem with negative glacial rebound in Florida. It just does not sound plausible. ... however it would make me more concerned if I lived there. :D So call them how ever you want.
And it does not change the fact of riding sea levels
Anyway, there is no clear distinction between a hill and a mountain
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Fact: precipitation in the Midwest (that is EAST of the Rockies) is increasing. I linked above the proof. ...
Faceplam, yes. After a drought when everything goes back to "normal" rain is increasing
So, the idiot is obviously you.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There was no drought in the Midwest, at least not since the 1930s. Please show otherwise. The data I linked is quite explicit, total precipitation in the Midwest has been increasing since the 1940s.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There actually is a distinction between a mountain and a hill, the there is nothing in Florida that qualifies as a mountain. You're not from the US, are you? You're pretty ignorant of our geography...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We simply can't afford Medicare for all, and if you knew anything about Medicare, you wouldn't wish it upon your worst enemy.
Probably none of you are on Medicare, but I am. I've been on it for a year now. It's NOT good healthcare insurance. It's nowhere near as good as the great Blue Cross/Blue Shield policy I had for decades. Oh, and you pay for Medicare, just not much. It costs me $135 per month, and nearly all Medicare recipients have to have a supplemental policy through a private insurance company to cover the many, many things that Medicare doesn't cover. My supplemental policy is through BC/BS.
In short, if you do go for "Medicare for all" thinking you'll eliminate private insurance companies, think again. Medicare is close to worthless without a supplemental plan. Or make Medicare a REAL healthcare insurance policy. That would really make it impossible for the taxpayers to afford!
Eh that's getting colloquial. Sure, if I'm neutralizing something so I can put it down the drain I say "I'm neutralizing this" but if you're adding acid to something without the goal of putting it down the drain you're going to say you're acidifying it. Come to think of it, though, you don't see many people in my line of work take anything neutral and make it more alkaline so I suppose I can't say what idiom is most common there.