CDZ Climate Change effects already here, yet denial persists

[GaryDog]

But the public has been given the perception that those tree ring studies ARE entirely accurate and COULD see a 100 year variance such as ours. That's what BUILDS skeptics. When the Science is misrepresented in the media and the political realm. THAT'S when it becomes a cult following.. When scary hockey sticks are passed off as "settled science". And even the AUTHORS of those papers admit the shortcomings of their methods.

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

 

[Wyatt earp]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.

Jesus Christ, let me guess, you'll next turn to the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? That was not the consensus and never has been. Most scientists have rightly recognized what's actually happening for half a century.

They have been complaining about climate change since the late 1800s nothing new, except this time the AGW cult is sssseeeerrriiiooouuusss...

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

 

[GaryDog]

Nearly 20 years of no significant warming, and still the warmers insist that there's a problem. Indeed, the longer temps stay flat, the more strident and nutty they become.

Now, Archbishop Michel Mann says that he doesn't need scientific facts, just go look out the window!

Dude, why do you keep repeating this canard?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

 

[GaryDog]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.

Jesus Christ, let me guess, you'll next turn to the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? That was not the consensus and never has been. Most scientists have rightly recognized what's actually happening for half a century.

They have been complaining about climate change since the late 1800s nothing new, except this time the AGW cult is sssseeeerrriiiooouuusss...

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

Now you're reduced to quoting 1871 articles.

At what point do you recognize the embarrassment that is your argument?

 

[GaryDog]

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

There are going to be winners and losers with climate change, no doubt. But the degree to which the third-world will lose if we don't innovate green energy and export it overseas to assist in this economic growth is FAR greater than the degree to which they'll lose if denied a fossil-fuel economy.

 

[GaryDog]

There's folks back living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone. Birds are singing. Hiroshima is a BIG ass city today.

What is the "half-life" toxicity of the massive battery stream from electric cars? THAT stuff is toxic forever.

50 Nuclear plants and the US would be all GW crazy certified. Done..

The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.

I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).

Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

 

[Wyatt earp]

What disturbs me the most is the AGW cult can think this is the time to break out the signs the end is near, for not climate change but social economic justice

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.

Jesus Christ, let me guess, you'll next turn to the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? That was not the consensus and never has been. Most scientists have rightly recognized what's actually happening for half a century.

They have been complaining about climate change since the late 1800s nothing new, except this time the AGW cult is sssseeeerrriiiooouuusss...

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

Now you're reduced to quoting 1871 articles.

At what point do you recognize the embarrassment that is your argument?

What you can't comprehend the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and the chicken littles. like you "have been screaming the sky is fallin we must do something!!"! Ever since Lucy was born?

 

[GaryDog]

The matter isn't that "the end" is nigh; it's that it will be nigh in the foreseeable future for Miami, New York, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a host of other places that are essential to the U.S.' economy, thus to expecting to obtain any form of socioeconomic justice. Quite simply there is no economic justice of any sort - social, mental, personal, political, etc. -- when the economies of one's major port cities goes literally underwater. Billings, MT, for example and on the other hand, will be just fine in and of itself; however, to the extent it depends indirectly on any of those port cities, it too won't be just fine.

Sorry.....if you believe that you need help. You guys..........according to lefty leaders back in the 60s, we would be in the middle of food riots and Soylent Green because of overpopulation..........you guys predict doom and gloom, and of course the solution is always to give power to a small, powerful elite who will make it all better...........we just have to obey them.....or else.

Jesus Christ, let me guess, you'll next turn to the minority of scientists who predicted global cooling in the 1970s? That was not the consensus and never has been. Most scientists have rightly recognized what's actually happening for half a century.

They have been complaining about climate change since the late 1800s nothing new, except this time the AGW cult is sssseeeerrriiiooouuusss...

In 1871, the New York Times was worried about climate change, just like they are now. Nothing has changed – intellectuals are just as stupid and misinformed as they always were.


http://query.nytimes.com/

Now you're reduced to quoting 1871 articles.

At what point do you recognize the embarrassment that is your argument?

What you can't comprehend the climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and the chicken littles. like you "have been screaming the sky is fallin we must do something!!"! Ever since Lucy was born?

4.5 billion years? Do you know what earth was like even 60 million years ago?

Ummm....I'm really not sure why you keep responding. It almost seems desperate. You're posts aren't serious and you're not a serious person.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Come on, those scientists would never lie for professional gain. Or for money.
I mean just because Michael Mann won a Nobel Prize................

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters,

By nuance did you mean lack of proof? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The radiation emitted from a modern plant meltdown is a helluva lot more than that sticking around from a 1945 atomic blast. Those in the exclusion zone are taking a risk, and maybe not a properly calculated risk. Jeremy Wade from Rivermonsters was in the exclusion zone a few years ago doing an episode and he had to get out within a certain timeline to prevent unacceptable risks.

I'm not bashing nuclear power per se. But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint...particularly with the zero day computer virus that is now loose in the world (and could sabotage a nuclear plant if in the wrong hands).

Ultimately, fusion would be the long-game. Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year. It's a matter of political will, and not forsaking a livable planet for oil profits.

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

No worries, the entire human race will soon understand just how bad shite is going to get real soon. A sixth mass extinction is already underway.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

There are going to be winners and losers with climate change, no doubt. But the degree to which the third-world will lose if we don't innovate green energy and export it overseas to assist in this economic growth is FAR greater than the degree to which they'll lose if denied a fossil-fuel economy.

4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke



The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles
he WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

 

[GaryDog]

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Right, because all that government solar/wind money is just a powerball waiting to happen.

Government subsidized solar/wind is a waste of money.

Who has greater financial incentive to lie, the oil companies, or the green energy sector and professors on campus?

Cheap reliable fossil fuels make our modern world possible, global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

The answer is green energy and leftist professors on campus.

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters,

By nuance did you mean lack of proof? LOL!

Like I said, the nuance is beyond someone who cherry-picks confirmation bias, and ignores the relevant data.

 

[GaryDog]

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

There are going to be winners and losers with climate change, no doubt. But the degree to which the third-world will lose if we don't innovate green energy and export it overseas to assist in this economic growth is FAR greater than the degree to which they'll lose if denied a fossil-fuel economy.

4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke



The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles
he WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

Another awesome, and wholly irrelevant article attached to this thread. Don't you have squirrels to shoot or something?

 

[GaryDog]

But it's not an ideal mechanism from a safety standpoint

Based on what?
A crappy, even for the Commies, I mean unbelievably crappy, Soviet design?
Or a massive tidal wave?
And even then, if the backup generators had been what, 10 or 15 feet higher, would have been a minor event.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are becoming more and more cheap with each passing year.

Do you want cheaper, reliable power?
Or more expensive, unreliable solar and wind?

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

Being done.

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

 

[Wyatt earp]

Fixed your post for you.

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Oh really? You don't want to lift people out of poverty? How progressive of you


Rising CO2 levels are re-greening Africa's deserts, bringing abundance that lifts people out of poverty

There are going to be winners and losers with climate change, no doubt. But the degree to which the third-world will lose if we don't innovate green energy and export it overseas to assist in this economic growth is FAR greater than the degree to which they'll lose if denied a fossil-fuel economy.

4 million people a year die from indoor cooking smoke



The WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles
he WHO estimates that 7 million people die prematurely each year due to inhaling unhealthy airborne particles, which makes indoor cooking fires the biggest culprit for these deaths. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

. It’s hard for many North Americans to imagine cooking over an open fire, since that’s not typically done here anymore, but it continues to be a part of daily life in many developing countries where dung, coal, wood, and crop waste are used as fuel instead of gas.

Kirk Smith, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, describes having an indoor cooking fire as being equivalent to burning 400 cigarettes an hour. According to an article in Quartz:

“The smoke from these fires pumps a harmful fug of fine particles and carbon monoxide into homes. Lousy ventilation then prevents that smoke from escaping, sending fine particle levels soaring 100 times higher than the limits that the WHO considers acceptable.”

Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a Long Time




The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not dangerous, at least not for a long time



Since 2013 aid agencies such as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without itand the four million who die each year from the effects of cooking over wood fires.

At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2 degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.

Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly overestimated, in the models.

The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.”

If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50 years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and land-hungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects of cheap electricity via fossil fuels

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The climate crisis is already here – but no one’s telling us | George Monbiot

Nothing to see here, right? Just keep commenting on Trump's gaffes, Hillary's emails, Kanye and Taylor, etc.

So , tell everyone here, what the NORMAL temperature is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sun and wind are more expensive and going nowhere.........

That left-wing commie rag Fortune magazine disagrees with you:

Wind now competes with fossil fuels. Solar almost does.

Excellent! We can stop subsidizing and start taxing it.
I'm sure it will grow even more.

We went from flying for 1 minute 60 feet off the ground to the moon inside of one human lifetime. Seems absurd to think we can't take green energy from "getting better" to "primary energy source."

We could install useful amounts of reliable nuclear power.......now.

Being done.

FACT SHEET: Obama Administration Announces Actions to Ensure that Nuclear Energy Remains a Vibrant Component of the United States’ Clean Energy Strategy

Yeah, just like he built the Keystone Pipeline.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When you find a list of those calamities, please post them.

This is full of sciency verbiage and nuance, so you'll probably ignore it, but here it is:

The Rising Cost of Natural Hazards : Feature Articles

Climate change may not be responsible for the recent skyrocketing cost of natural disasters,

By nuance did you mean lack of proof? LOL!

Like I said, the nuance is beyond someone who cherry-picks confirmation bias, and ignores the relevant data.

global warming calamities, however, grinds us to a halt.

DERP!

Another insightful response. I suppose the content-neutral moderation of this site will let that slide.

As insightful as your comment deserved.