Little Support for Punishing Global Warming Foes (but 27% of Dems want to prosecute AGW skeptics)
- Thread starter YellowSnow51
- Start date
Over the next century, when sea levels rise 1m or more, those damages are likely to be measured in the trillions....the fact that the response time of the climate to significant CO2 level increases is measured in many decades does not alter the fact that there will be significant costs and consequences. It is simply another example of perverted capitalism, where short-term gains are made by one entity, and long-term costs are borne by the general public.
Only, we do not have a 'SuperFund' allocation anywhere near large enough to deal with these consequences.
Yeah, the article was pretty misleading and inflammatory. That's part of what makes me wonder how they got such a high number of people to answer "Yes" to that question. I'd love to see the whole poll and how that question fit into it. Does anybody really believe that 11% of Republicans want global warming deniers jailed?
Obama doctored scientific reports in order to help pass his moratorium on drilling. Yet, no one on the left mentions it, much rather has an issue with it.
The left conveniently chooses when to kick their principles into gear.
Physics tells us that the impact of a vehicle on a human body can very likely crush several organs and cause the person to die. A guy is crossing a street and gets hit by a truck. He dies. How do we know he wouldn't have died at that moment anyway? Well, I guess we don't...
....because there is no identifiable mechanism which would be causing them to do so.
That, however, does not seem to stop the 'denier' crowd from claiming things like "it's the sun" (it is not, as solar output has actually declined over the past 1000 years), "something else is causing CO2 levels to rise" (no, and we can in fact look at the differences in the carbon atom isotope for terrestrial sources vs. sequestered, fossil fuel sources, and can clearly identify the sequestered sources causing the buildup).
Sea level can ONLY rise by: glacial runoff from land OR thermal expansion from heating.
No scientist has been able to identify a NON-human source for the warming required for either of those. The mainstream scientists are >95% certain the warming observed is a direct result of CO2 buildup, which is a direct result of the fossil fuels industries (coal, oil, etc).
Again, all you need to do is LISTEN to what Congress's science arm, the National Academies, is telling you.
Clearly there were many more than two questions. The article referenced a lot of other questions.
My understanding is that the claim is Exxon deceived their stockholders by downplaying the possible impact global warming might have on Exxon's business.
That's a pretty stupid analogy.
Most of Florida used to be underwater. So, it wouldn't surprise me if it happened again. The current warming cycle began before the industrial revolution. It was actually responsible for the rise of human civilization in the first place.
So, how do we know how much warming we are responsible for and what would have happened anyway?
Other than questions about demographics and political affiliation, no, those were the only two questions.
Not sure why anyone is "liking" something that is clearly disputed by Rasmussen's link.
A published article from years ago pointed out that the human influences on the climate likely began around 10,000 years ago, due to deforestation and changes in land use. Ruddiman was the author if you want to look it up.
We have only accelerated the pace now, quite substantially, through the use of fossil fuels, and have moved the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to >400 ppm. And we absolutely are 'on pace' to double CO2 levels within just a couple hundred years - that is a pace of change that is not seen anywhere in the geologic or ice core records. Two or three of the biggest extinction events that have ever occurred on Earth are now attributed to certain types of volcanic activity, releasing levels of CO2 on par with what we are doing today; only THOSE releases of CO2 likely occurred over a few thousands of years, not just 150 years.
So, yes, we are 'pretty sure'; we are 'sure enough' that any reasonable level of 'risk management' would identify that we need to be carbon neutral by the end of this century, or we will risk some pretty ugly consequences.
Huh? Florida used to be underwater. It's happened before. We were in a warming trend before there were any human-caused CO2 forcings. What was the mechanism for that?
IT seems quite harsh but that's the Democrats are becoming. Rather than debate they want to shut all speech that disagrees with their illegal.
Just for 5 sec think about how dumb the average person is....
then realize that half the people in the world are dumber than that...
then realize that half the people in the world are dumber than that...
So, can we get a cost-benefit analysis of various responses to climate change? Would our money be better spent on seawalls rather than solar panels?
And 10-13 thousand years ago part of Iowa was under a mile think sheet of ice. That's gone because of warming(without the help of mankind) The fact is this planet has undergone extreme changes in climate without the assistance of mankind. It's the natural way of things. But now it's all our fault and is gonna kill us all. What a joke. Our power to change such huge systems is non existent compared to Mother Nature.
All of which has absolutely no bearing upon what's happening now. Please take the time to actually understand an issue that you've commenting on to prevent yourself from embarrassing yourself as you continually do by displaying your ignorance on the topic.
No. Because seawalls won't work in many places, including MOST of our naval installations. And they would still require massive relocation efforts for those that live near the coasts.
Solar panels are only part of a solution; carbon neutral will require a combination of thorium nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and natural gas. We are already within a few years of an electric car (Tesla) that can match or outperform a gas vehicle for standard transit; in another decade the costs for those cars will very likely be less than combustion vehicles.
We need a comprehensive energy plan, and funding on a Manhatten Project scale to steer away from oil and coal as our energy sources. This would create LOADS of jobs in the US, as opposed to sending the money for the oil to foreign entities. Eliminating oil as a dependency also eliminates our concern for what happens in the Middle East, a place we have already invested over $1 Trillion in the past decade. We could have done quite a lot moving to a carbon-free system if we had allocated $1Trillion to it.
Denying a problem exists only serves to create a larger and more expensive problem down the road.
I'm all for innovation and developing better ways of doing things if they make economic sense, but I'm not so keen on doing things just because of carbon, and I'm definitely against efforts to tax carbon or otherwise artificially make it more costly.
Not anymore. Milankovitch cycles trip our ice ages, and we are on the downward end of one now. Instead of stable or very very slowing declining temps, we have a rapid increase in temps.
Not unlike slowly hitting the brakes on your car and having it lurch forward and accelerate instead.
The 'joke' is an education system which produces people like yourself, who have no comprehension of even the most basic science elements here....
I would have gone with the coral in Coralville. A FL man might relate better. But I think you have a rather low appreciation of mankind's powers. Any Iowan should know man has immense powers to alter mother nature. The entire state has been terraformed by man.
We've been 'artificially' subsidizing it for over a century, by ignoring the environmental impacts it is causing, and will cause for several hundred more years.
This is exactly the same thing that occurred with the mining industry in the Western US, ignoring the pollution consequences of their extraction methods. And that has cost the rest of the US public many hundreds of billions, while those who extracted the minerals walked away with their short-term ROI.
This, by the way, is the OPPOSITE of a true 'conservative' position, by ignoring the personal responsibility and accountability aspects of the pollution. So, anyone claiming they are against the controls/taxes/regulations/whatever, to prevent this type of exploitation of public money is a true RINO.
It's not pollution. It's a natural component of "air." You're exhaling it right now.
That's poor logic. Arsenic naturally occurs in our food and water, that doesn't mean it isn't a poison at higher concentrations. If there is too much carbon in the room, it will kill you too. Most things that are out of balance, cause problems. Apollo taught us that.
It's not 'pollution' until it starts altering the environment into which it is being released, resulting in negative impacts on the environment. Which is precisely what the excess CO2 is doing now.
You also 'exhale' water vapor. Could we plop you into a 10-ft deep cube you could not get out of, and fill it with water (the actual component of the 'water vapor' you exhale) and expect that you would last more than a few hours?
Except that's not even remotely what we're talking about.
A better analogy would be to ask if I could breathe when the average global humidity rises 2 percent above the 30-year-average we're calling "normal."
I'm sure I'd breathe just fine.
OK, so you are on record as predicting sea levels will rise more than three feet in the next 100 years, nyet?
As far as global climate change mankind has a pea shooter, mother nature has a nuclear weapon
Now when you say this, do you mean that you find the poll credible and hence think a number of Rs hold this belief in reality which troubles you. Or does this number make you doubt the study?
