Global Warming Pie Chart

[Old Rocks]

The line that the scientists are getting rich writing reports on global warming is as asinine as it gets. Considering the costs of the increase in extreme weather events, one billion for research into the drivers of the climate, and the consequences of climatic changes, is peanuts.

Swiss Re Tallies Huge Costs of Climate Inaction | DeSmogBlog

The world’s largest insurers are tallying the costs of climate inaction, and the numbers are staggering.

Swiss Re announced recently that total economic losses in 2012 from “natural catastrophes and man-made disasters” -- primarily weather events -- should reach roughly $140 billion. Over 11,000 lives were lost due to the so-called “natural catastrophes” alone.

According to the Swiss Re report, “Natural and man-made catastrophes in 2012,” the top five insured loss events are all in the U.S.

“Hurricane Sandy is the largest Atlantic hurricane on record in terms of wind span. This record storm surge caused widespread flooding and damage to a densely populated area on the East Coast of the U.S. It also led to the worst power outage caused by a natural catastrophe in the history of the U.S.”

But Sandy wasn’t the only event to blame. According to the report, “extremely dry weather conditions and limited snowfall in the U.S. led to one of the worst droughts in recent decades, affecting more than half of the country. Drought-related agricultural losses are likely to reach approximately $11 billion, including pay-outs from federal assistance programs.

Compare that to 1 billion for the whole of the period we have been studying climate.

 

[ClosedCaption]

oh btw, its foolish to not believe that we do not have any impact on the planet. Animals do surely ppl would also. For example, Hurricane Katrina wasnt caused by people BUT the strength of it was increased significantly because the wetlands have been reduced around New Orleans. Anyone can tell you that the wetlands acted as a buffer to slow down previous hurricanes. Therefore our actions have consequences.

Louisiana's Vanishing Wetlands: Going, Going ...

An ambitious $14 billion plan aims to restore Louisiana's wetlands, which are disappearing at record pace. But the scientific and political hurdles are huge

At this rate, even with current conservation projects under way, another 1800 to 4500 square kilometers will vanish under the Gulf in the next 50 years—and that area could conceivably include the city of New Orleans. The loss of public resources, including fisheries, wildlife habitat, navigation, flood control, and hurricane protection, has been estimated at more than $37 billion.

Thats not including the loss of life, property etc.

Again prevention is a bargain

 

[Old Rocks]

North Carolina Bans Use of Latest Science on Rising Sea Level - ABC News

The law was drafted in response to an estimate by the state's Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) that the sea level will rise by 39 inches in the next century, prompting fears of costlier home insurance and accusations of anti-development alarmism among residents and developers in the state's coastal Outer Banks region.

Democratic Gov. Bev Perdue had until Thursday to act on the bill known as House Bill 819, but she decided to let it become law by doing nothing.

The bill's passage in June triggered nationwide scorn by those who argued that the state was deliberately blinding itself to the effects of climate change. In a segment on the "Colbert Report," comedian Stephen Colbert mocked North Carolina lawmakers' efforts as an attempt to outlaw science.

"If your science gives you a result you don't like, pass a law saying the result is illegal. Problem solved," he joked

Unfortunetly, the GOP is far more interested in the developers dollars than the result of the policy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

Your position assumes without merit that the Gov is benevolent, my position assumes the opposite.

I am also old enough to have seen all of this shit before.

Global Cooling
The Population Bomb
Acid Rain, yada, yada, yada.

In the 80's they told us the ocean's would be dead in 7 years...golly are you seeing a trend?

Yep, that your baggage doesnt allow you to objectively view new information...much like a wife who has been cheated on suspects her new hubby of doing the same without proof.

I keep talking about the pros and cons and no Republican wants to play that game. Because if you weigh it out...Preventing or Erring on the side of caution is a better bet than the "let the chips fall where they may" approach

Yes! We must spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080, to err on the side of caution.

 

[mamooth]

Are you thumping your chest as you post this?

Deflect all you want, but I'm still going to keep calling your cult out on the big lies, lack of knowledge, and cultlike behavior. That bothers denialists a lot, so clearly I'm hitting the target.

When will we expect you to be fully living up to your fears and turning off your computer?

Since that's your dishonest strawman, I'm not obligated to live up to it. You're lying about what we think. That doesn't make us hypocrites, it makes you a liar. If you want to be considered as something other than a cowardly liar, address what we actually say we believe, instead of making up sleazy lies about what you wished we believed.

What ill effect has GW wrought onto your life? The extended winter we are seeing? The 4 inches of GW I had to plow just yesterday?

Are you perhaps a plant, trying to make denialists look stupid with the "DUH ... SNOW ON GROUND ... AGW IS HOAX!" drooling? If you don't understand how spouting something that stupid makes you look like a gibbering fuktard, I can't help you. This is fourth grade level science. If you can't grasp it, you shouldn't be interrupting the grownups.

Why are liberals so scared of EVERYTHING?

Why are you consantly trying to push politics into a non-political scientific topic? Oh, that's right. It's because, like almost all denialists, you're a political cultist, as I keep pointing out. Thanks for the multiple confirmations of my point.

My suggestion is don't buy the hype, I did in the 70s and it turned out we weren't entering a new ice age, they were wrong.

The scientists didn't predict an ice age. Even in the 70s, the scientists overwhelmingly predicted warming.

You got that completely wrong. Why? Because you're regurgitating your cult's propaganda again. More confirmation of the cult origin of denialism.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Are you thumping your chest as you post this?

Deflect all you want, but I'm still going to keep calling your cult out on the big lies, lack of knowledge, and cultlike behavior. That bothers denialists a lot, so clearly I'm hitting the target.

When will we expect you to be fully living up to your fears and turning off your computer?

Since that's your dishonest strawman, I'm not obligated to live up to it. You're lying about what we think. That doesn't make us hypocrites, it makes you a liar. If you want to be considered as something other than a cowardly liar, address what we actually say we believe, instead of making up sleazy lies about what you wished we believed.



Are you perhaps a plant, trying to make denialists look stupid with the "DUH ... SNOW ON GROUND ... AGW IS HOAX!" drooling? If you don't understand how spouting something that stupid makes you look like a gibbering fuktard, I can't help you. This is fourth grade level science. If you can't grasp it, you shouldn't be interrupting the grownups.

Why are liberals so scared of EVERYTHING?

Why are you consantly trying to push politics into a non-political scientific topic? Oh, that's right. It's because, like almost all denialists, you're a political cultist, as I keep pointing out. Thanks for the multiple confirmations of my point.

My suggestion is don't buy the hype, I did in the 70s and it turned out we weren't entering a new ice age, they were wrong.

The scientists didn't predict an ice age. Even in the 70s, the scientists overwhelmingly predicted warming.

You got that completely wrong. Why? Because you're regurgitating your cult's propaganda again. More confirmation of the cult origin of denialism.

June '74 Time article on the coming Ice Age...

 

[ClosedCaption]

Since there is no profit in Climate Models who do you think is supposed to pay for it? Govt shouldnt...ok so who should and why would they if theres no money to be made?

Your position assumes without merit that the Gov is benevolent, my position assumes the opposite.

I am also old enough to have seen all of this shit before.

Global Cooling
The Population Bomb
Acid Rain, yada, yada, yada.

In the 80's they told us the ocean's would be dead in 7 years...golly are you seeing a trend?

Yep, that your baggage doesnt allow you to objectively view new information...much like a wife who has been cheated on suspects her new hubby of doing the same without proof.

I keep talking about the pros and cons and no Republican wants to play that game. Because if you weigh it out...Preventing or Erring on the side of caution is a better bet than the "let the chips fall where they may" approach

Yes! We must spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080, to err on the side of caution.

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

 

[mamooth]

June '74 Time article on the coming Ice Age...

That's media, not science. The science in the 1970s overwhelmingly said warming.

http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classes/sio217a/sio217afall08-myth1970.pdf

Peterson examines all the climate papers from 1965 to 1979. 62% say warming, 10% cooling, 28% no stance. The cooling papers tend to be the early ones, being the warming wasn't as clear, and the sulfate aerosols from pollution were having a cooling effect. But by 1980, they pretty much all say warming.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep, that your baggage doesnt allow you to objectively view new information...much like a wife who has been cheated on suspects her new hubby of doing the same without proof.

I keep talking about the pros and cons and no Republican wants to play that game. Because if you weigh it out...Preventing or Erring on the side of caution is a better bet than the "let the chips fall where they may" approach

Yes! We must spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080, to err on the side of caution.

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

CO2 isn't pollution.
I'm willing to build a few dozen new nuke plants to reduce CO2, how about you?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Yes! We must spend trillions to reduce global temps by 0.2 degrees in 2080, to err on the side of caution.

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

CO2 isn't pollution.
I'm willing to build a few dozen new nuke plants to reduce CO2, how about you?

Changing the subject doesnt work

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

 

[Foxfyre]

In rebuttal to those who say more money is being spent to question or disclaim global warming than our tax dollars are being used for climate research:

In 2011, your federal government will spend $10.6 million a day on climate change. Annual expenditures will be about $4 billion on global warming research—now called climate change–despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, says the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a British educational think tank.

Billions have been wasted so far, although periods of cooling and warming have occurred naturally throughout history. Fossil fuels—Petroleum, natural gas and coal are the assigned “villains.” Yet, “no conclusive evidence shows that fossil fuels to produce energy have had any significant effect on the earth’s temperature,” GWPF concludes. In December 2010, more than 1,000 international scientists challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

What is inexplicable and inexcusable is the amount of our nation’s money that has been spent on climate change since that UN Panel, composed mainly of research-money-seeking scientists, invented global warming. Al Gore helped dramatize it with dire warnings that terrorized school children, to his mega-million-dollar benefit. Even more confounding is that added U.S. dollars will be poured into continuing research in 2011.
The Black Hole of Global Warming Spending

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”. . . .
. . . . Then there’s the matter of those escalating climate-premised EPA regulation costs that are killing businesses and jobs under cover of the Clean Air Act. These rampant overreaches are being justified by the agency’s Endangerment Finding proclaiming CO2 to be a pollutant. The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays. . . . .
The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria - Forbes

You won't be able to trace much, if any of all that tax payer money to a single scientist who will not say that global warming is a serious problem.

But you don't hear any howls from the environmental religionists that those scientists are being paid to support the global warming motif.

Conversely the relatively small amount of oil company or other money that has found its way to scientific groups who have done their own research and concluded that there isn't any compelling evidence that global warming is a problem. . . . that money is condemned and blown out of all proportion and accused of ulterior motives, etc. etc. etc.

And it leaves those of us who are watching this travesty unfold just shaking our heads and doing what we can to encourage people to think instead of meekly handing over their freedoms, choices, and opportunities to the environmental dictators who absolutely do not have our best interests at heart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

CO2 isn't pollution.
I'm willing to build a few dozen new nuke plants to reduce CO2, how about you?

Changing the subject doesnt work

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

 

[ClosedCaption]

CO2 isn't pollution.
I'm willing to build a few dozen new nuke plants to reduce CO2, how about you?

Changing the subject doesnt work

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

you're wrong...

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Changing the subject doesnt work

You're the one who claimed CO2 was pollution.
Are you willing to build nuke plants to reduce CO2?
Why not?

you're wrong...

Annnnnnd, cleaner air, water and less pollution. Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

You're right, wasting money on global warming leaves less money for clean air and water.

Why are you afraid to tell your stance on nuclear power?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go ahead and lay out your list of Pro and Cons. Your only pro is "saving money" the rest are all cons

 

[Foxfyre]

If saving money means giving the private sector less useless regulation and more freedom to generate jobs and income for people, and less reason for the government to confiscate mega billions of your hard earned money, then yes, eliminating money wasted on useless climate change research is a huge pro. And I honestly can't come up with any cons for that.

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

 

[Dragonlady]

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

Wouldn't it be smarter to accept that science does know what it's doing here, and start doing something about carbon emissions? Why are you putting all of this on government? I want the PRIVATE SECTOR to do this work and create jobs.

You'll wait until the industries have all been built in Europe and Asia and then whine because the US missed the boat on all of the money to be made in the new economy. Reagan's protection of the US auto industry on emission standards cost the US auto sector its leadership in automobile technology and production. Do you want this to happen again?

There is far more money to be made in new technologies than will be lost to the old. Those with vision will seize the opportunity. Those who hold back, will lose and end up buying technology from those in the forefront. The USA has the opportunity to be that country.

You'd rather the jobs went elsewhere, I guess.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If saving money means giving the private sector less useless regulation and more freedom to generate jobs and income for people, and less reason for the government to confiscate mega billions of your hard earned money, then yes, eliminating money wasted on useless climate change research is a huge pro. And I honestly can't come up with any cons for that.

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

I dont want to waste money on useless climate change research either. I want to invest money in valuable climate change research. It's all in how you look at it. Once you lay it out in Pros vs Cons there is really no comparison

 

[Foxfyre]

So wouldn't it be smarter to really look at whether we are getting our money's worth instead of groveling at the feet of environmental gods and giving them all the power to dictate to us what our options, choices, preferences, and opportunities will be?

How much liberty are you willing to sacrifice to appease the great god of government?

Wouldn't it be smarter to accept that science does know what it's doing here, and start doing something about carbon emissions? Why are you putting all of this on government? I want the PRIVATE SECTOR to do this work and create jobs.

You'll wait until the industries have all been built in Europe and Asia and then whine because the US missed the boat on all of the money to be made in the new economy. Reagan's protection of the US auto industry on emission standards cost the US auto sector its leadership in automobile technology and production. Do you want this to happen again?

There is far more money to be made in new technologies than will be lost to the old. Those with vision will seize the opportunity. Those who hold back, will lose and end up buying technology from those in the forefront. The USA has the opportunity to be that country.

You'd rather the jobs went elsewhere, I guess.

I have read what I believe to be credible evidence that we have already lost millions of jobs in this country due to regulation and oppressive business-unfriendly environmental policies. Were those regulations and that policy necessary? Wouldn't it be wise to set aside the political correct dogma and take a hard, honest look at that?

If I lived in the second century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that the liver instead of the heart circulated the blood in the body.

If I lived in the fifteenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that the sun rotated around the Earth.

If I lived in the seventeenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that the Earth is a little over 6000 years old.

If I lived in the seventeenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that an element existed called Phlogistan that made some things flammable and the lack of which was what made some things inflammable. Also we removed it from our bodies through breathing or humans would be highly flammable.

If I lived in the seventeenth and much of the eighteenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that farming the land makes it more fertile.

If I lived at the time of Aristotle all the way to the late seventeenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would believe that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones.

If I lived in the eighteenth century or even much of the nineteenth century and trusted science to always get it right, I would have no knowledge of bacteria or viruses as the cause of disease.

If I trusted science to always get it right up to the early twentieth century, I would believe that atoms were the tiniest particles in the universe.

If I trusted science to always get it right, up to mid twentieth century, I would believe that DNA didn't have much to do with directing human development and wasn't useful for much of anything.

And at the same time, I have the greatest admiration for scientists who have advanced human knowledge through stubbornly challenging the status quo of scientific opinion, often at great risk to their reputations, livelihood, and personal well being. To wit: Galileo for instance.

Look at how scientists who challenge the politically correct and prevailing scientific dogma re global warming are routinely demonized. And look at how skeptics like me are dismissed as ignorant or anti-science because we see so much evidence that the current hysteria re global warming is driven far more by politics than by science.

If global warming, most especially anthropological global warming, is a reality, it has nothing to fear from scientists who challenge the conventional wisdom and offer a different perspective.

We all have everything to lose if we are too late learning and accepting that the prevailing pro-global warming religion is wrong and/or inevitable regardless of what we humans do.

 

[healthmyths]

oh btw, its foolish to not believe that we do not have any impact on the planet. Animals do surely ppl would also. For example, Hurricane Katrina wasnt caused by people BUT the strength of it was increased significantly because the wetlands have been reduced around New Orleans. Anyone can tell you that the wetlands acted as a buffer to slow down previous hurricanes. Therefore our actions have consequences.

Louisiana's Vanishing Wetlands: Going, Going ...

An ambitious $14 billion plan aims to restore Louisiana's wetlands, which are disappearing at record pace. But the scientific and political hurdles are huge

At this rate, even with current conservation projects under way, another 1800 to 4500 square kilometers will vanish under the Gulf in the next 50 years—and that area could conceivably include the city of New Orleans. The loss of public resources, including fisheries, wildlife habitat, navigation, flood control, and hurricane protection, has been estimated at more than $37 billion.

Thats not including the loss of life, property etc.

Again prevention is a bargain

Interesting point about Katrina affected by fewer wetlands. I guess that supports your global warming argument AND renewable energy vs fossil fuel?

How about this then.. wind farms altering weather...

The team from the University of Illinois found that daytime temperatures around wind farms can fall by as much as 4C, while at night temperatures can increase.
He suggested that the turbines' blades scoop warm from the ground and push the cooler air downwards. This is then reversed at night.

Research: Somnath Roy of the University of Illinois conducted the study into climate around wind farms
Roy, whose findings were published in the Sunday Times, added that he believes the turbines causing turbulence and reducing winds speed are the cause.
He also added that the churning of air from low to high can create vortices that could extend the phenomenon for large distances downwind.
Roy's research is supported by a study undertaken by the Iowa State University, who looked at how a 100-turbine farm would affect conditions on farmland.
They found that temperatures on the ground were warmer at night, which in turn allowed plants to breathe more.

Wind farms can actually INCREASE climate change by raising temperatures, warn academics | Mail Online

"Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature," published online April 29 in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study, conducted by scientists from the University of Albany and other institutions, looked at four wind farms in west-central Texas between 2003 and 2011. Using satellite data, the researchers found that the surface temperature around these wind farms rose "up to 0.72°C per decade, particularly at night-time."

Wind turbines contribute to global warming? Media outlets say they do | MNN - Mother Nature Network

So if you favor renewable energy sources because of "global warming" caused by CO2 from fossil fuels.. what is your response?