Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming
- Thread starter Crick
- Start date
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 73,961
- 5,055
Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.New Cities in more optimal locations!
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?
And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,112
Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.
If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:
View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #205
Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.New Cities in more optimal locations!
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?
And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.
1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #206
Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.
If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:
View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
These data say you are completely incorrect:
And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 73,961
- 5,055
Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.New Cities in more optimal locations!
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?
And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.
1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.
ding
Confront reality
- Oct 25, 2016
- 119,358
- 21,123
The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.www.ncdc.noaa.gov
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #209
Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.New Cities in more optimal locations!
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?
And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.
1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.
I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.
PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.
9thIDdoc
Gold Member
- Aug 8, 2011
- 7,956
- 3,112
These data say you are completely incorrect:Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.
If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:
View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247
And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.
No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #211
The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 138,920
- 28,999
Nope. and again for the umpteenth time, you have nothing to support your phony consensus conspiracy. why did the ice sheets disappear in North America and give us the Great Lakes? come on dude, spew some facts once.Time has proven the scientists correct.
ding
Confront reality
- Oct 25, 2016
- 119,358
- 21,123
Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 138,920
- 28,999
Indeed.These data say you are completely incorrect:Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.
If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:
View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247
And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.
No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #215
These data say you are completely incorrect:Hard facts? Man made global warming remains as much of a non-issue as it did decades ago. The polar icecap is still there and polar bears are as happy as ever. "Global warming" is-and always has been- a massive con job designed to instill fear in the population and enrich the unscrupulous. Send Al Gore a hefty check and he will bless you and remove your carbon sins.Oh please. Time has proven the alleged "scientists" wrong so now we are presented with alleged accountants. Idiots willing to say whatever they are paid to say. Present some honest hard facts and figures or STFU.
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
Time has proven the scientists correct. This survey of economists addressed the argument claiming that dealing with AGW itself vice dealing with its consequences is a waste of money. This was NOT an attempt to provide more evidence of the validity of AGW. Sorry you failed to understand that but I believe post #1 is clear.
If you have an interest in some hard facts and figures, here are a few:
View attachment 477193
View attachment 477194
View attachment 477195
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
These data say you are completely incorrect:
View attachment 477245
View attachment 477246
View attachment 477247
And, hey, I could be wrong, but I don't think Al Gore had anything to do with the measurement of any of those data. Generally, people who attack Al Gore in a AGW discussion are exactly analogous to those who bring up Hitler in politics. It indicates they don't actually have anything of merit to say.
No, the data simply indicates that you are unable to correctly interpret it's meaning and application.
I use for my interpretation of that data the interpretation of several thousand published, PhD-holding scientists who conclude it means AGW is valid and the consequences will be severe. What's your source?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 138,920
- 28,999
how did the great lakes form then?The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #217
Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
ding
Confront reality
- Oct 25, 2016
- 119,358
- 21,123
But your claim was that abrupt warming has never occurred before.Right. And a cooling that took thousands of years afterward. However, NONE of those events was caused by the combustion of fossil fuels or even by vulcanism. They were all caused by Milankovitch cycles reducing solar irradiation to the planet; something that is NOT happening at the present.Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
Each of the 25 observed D-O events consisted of an abrupt warming to near-interglacial conditions that occurred in a matter of decades.
Crick
Gold Member
- May 10, 2014
- 28,793
- 5,567
- Thread starter
- #219
Ask Dr Google and let us know what it says.how did the great lakes form then?The point, dummy, is that each event had a drastic change in temperature up and down from glacial to interglacial temperatures and from interglacial to glacial temperatures over the course of a few decades. These were 8C swings. So the claim you are making is false. And that doesn’t even address the reality that no one from the IPCC believes there will be an 8C increase in temperature over a period of a few decades.D-O events leave you in an interglacial period, not a glacial period. You might want to look up the difference.Twenty five Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events during the last glacial cycle and the oxygen isotope curve say otherwise.As I have said here repeatedly, it is the rate of change in the current situation that is going to tear us a new asshole. A ten degree change is nothing to sweat about if it takes place over 100,000 years. But that's not what's happening right now, is it.
Heinrich and Dansgaard–Oeschger Events | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Repeated global climate fluctuations during the last glacial period were possibly related to freshwater releases from land-based ice sheets.
Read your source material again. They did NOT change from interglacial to glacial in a matter of a few decades.
danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 73,961
- 5,055
Because there are. Yes, the process would be not much different than the public works projects undertaken by FDR and his brand of socialism.Not at all. There are plenty of more optimal locations. And, building new Cities in more optimal locations would require upgrading infrastructure in the process. That could involve including mass (energy) storage built-in, along with mass transit.New Cities in more optimal locations!
Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.
What makes you think you 'll be able to rebuild in optimal locations? Don't you think humanity has already found and used most of those? And what do you think it will cost?
And, under Capitalism, somebody needs to make a profit, so cost really doesn't matter from that perspective.
1) What makes you think there are plenty of more optimal locations?
2) The process would not involve upgrading infrastructure. It would involve recreating it from scratch: roads, homes, buildings, power, communication, etc, all where it currently does not exist.
3) The problem is that the people who would NEED this massive expense would NOT have the capital to pay for it.
I'm sorry, but just saying it doesn't make it so. Humans have had 5,000 years to find good locations for people to live and work. I am certain the possibilities aren't exhausted, but the ease with which you seem to believe 200 million people could be permanently relocated is pure fantasy.
PS: I never suggested anyone thought there'd be an 8C rise. Try responding to what I actually write.
You ignored the result for a lack of evidence?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 160
- Replies
- 72
- Views
- 519
- Replies
- 113
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 120
- Views
- 728
- Replies
- 66
- Views
- 463
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 48
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8399
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-