And what was that other viewpoint? From what I read he only disagreed with the media overhype, not the report itself.I’m not a denier.....just wanted to post another viewpoint re: climate change.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
And what was that other viewpoint? From what I read he only disagreed with the media overhype, not the report itself.I’m not a denier.....just wanted to post another viewpoint re: climate change.
And what was that other viewpoint? From what I read he only disagreed with the media overhype, not the report itself.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why do I care what an economist/political scientist thinks about climate science? Especially one who has been accused of misrepresenting scientific findings multiple times in the past?Exactly right...Some of the hyperbole associated with climate change.....end of times.....unprecedented flooding/weather events etc that are mentioned.
Why do I care what an economist/political scientist thinks about climate science? Especially one who has been accused of misrepresenting scientific findings multiple times in the past?
Stepping back, the issue with global warming hasn't been a scientific one for decades: it's a political problem, pure and simple. You're asking people to make sacrifices now to prevent catastrophe in the future. That's a hard sell, politically. Some economists have argued that the cost of relocating large coastal populations, irrigating areas that will experience drought, rebuilding after more frequent storms etc. will be lower than the cost of enacting preventative policies like carbon taxation and funding renewable research now. That's an argument economists can make (and have made). I happen to disagree, since anyone who's ever done any project knows that failing to anticipate problems is almost always worse and more costly than accounting for them in advance. Further, it will remain a difficult political problem once the question changes to: do we make economic sacrifices now to relocate millions of Indonesians, or do we just let them die?
But when an economist argues that the climate science consensus is exaggerated? Nah. He's speaking outside his field, has a history of misrepresentation, and I don't find his to be a credible opinion. There's not always two sides to an issue. Sometimes there's five, and sometimes there's only one.
The carbon tax revolt is world-wide. Voters in Washington state last month rejected a carbon tax that would have started at $15 per ton of emissions and climbed $2 a year indefinitely. Washington ranks 25th among American states in carbon emissions and when we tried to estimate its contribution to global emissions our calculator couldn’t handle a number that small. Gov. Jay Inslee and green activists nonetheless wanted voters to pay $2.3 billion in taxes over five years.
This is the problem with the whole global warming issue. Like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, just give the government more money to "solve" our problems. Maybe we are heading for cataclysmic global disaster, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, there will be politicians who think taking more of our money will solve our problems.A carbon tax is in theory a more efficient way than regulation to reduce carbon emissions. But after decades of global conferences, forests of reports, dire television documentaries, celebrity appeals, school-curriculum overhauls and media bludgeoning, voters don’t believe that climate change justifies policies that would raise their cost of living and hurt the economy.
over the years, i have developed a few filters that do a pretty good job of letting me know if i should take someone seriously or not.When I'm thinking about trying to reason with someone, I like to ask a few general questions to get an idea whether trying to is something worth the effort.
Do you believe in evolution?
Do you believe in man induced climate change?
If I'm still looking for a yes, my third question is
Do you believe in gravity?
If I get less that two answered yes, I realize there's no use trying. Two out of three, maybe you can reach them but it's an uphill climb.
More than e few...over the years, i have developed a few filters that do a pretty good job of letting me know if i should take someone seriously or not.
not to worry, our new super duper white house council of scientists will tell us this is all bunk.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/t...n-years-study-says/ar-BBVCFVQ?ocid=spartanntpCarbon dioxide – the gas scientists say is most responsible for global warming – has reached levels in our atmosphere not seen in 3 million years, scientists announced this week in a new study.
At that time, sea levels were as much as 65 feet higher than they are now, Greenland was mostly green and Antarctica had trees.
“It seems we’re now pushing our home planet beyond any climatic conditions experienced during the entire current geological period, the Quaternary,” said study lead author Matteo Willeit of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. “A period that started almost 3 million years ago and saw human civilization beginning only 11,000 years ago. So, the modern climate change we see is big, really big; even by standards of Earth history.”
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/05/world/hottest-july-on-record-climate-sci-intl/index.htmlJuly confirmed as hottest month recorded
(CNN)July 2019 has replaced July 2016 as the hottest month on record, with meteorologists saying that global temperatures marginally exceeded the previous record.
The European Union's Copernicus Climate Change Programme, which analyzes temperature data from around the planet, said that July was around 0.56 °C warmer than the global average temperature between 1981-2010.
That's slightly hotter than July 2016, when the world was in the throes of one of the strongest El Niño events on record.
This is, of course, in addition to rolling back a bunch of other environmental regs.President Donald Trump announced Wednesday he was revoking California's authority to set its own vehicle emission standards, the latest move in the Trump administration's ongoing fight with the Golden State and attempts to chip away at former President Barack Obama's environmental legacy.
"The Trump Administration is revoking California's Federal Waiver on emissions in order to produce far less expensive cars for the consumer, while at the same time making the cars substantially SAFER," Trump tweeted.
The President made the announcement while visiting California for fundraisers. He was in his hotel in Los Angeles when he sent the tweets.
California's waiver under the Clean Air Act allowed it to set standards tighter than the federal standards, which have been adopted by more than a dozen states and became the de-facto nationwide standard, because automakers do not design different sets of vehicles to meet different standards in different states.