Federal report says U.S. impacts of climate change are intensifying

[LosAngelesAngel]

I let those educated on atmospheric science to debate the issue of global warming. I read the reports and form my own opinions. Those suggesting there is no reason for alarm about the weather have the best arguments.

~ I just watched the John Stossel report on global roasting and the Paris Agreement - very interesting and unbiased. Here is the synopsis :
A.) Climate change is real. Some is due to man - but how much nobody knows
B.) The impact/ threat to human life is unknown - but we will find out in time
C.) There is not much we can do to change Mother Nature & screwing around with Co2 could actually be dangerous
D.) There are groups of scientists who are paid to be alarmists and do not tell the entire story and admit to the above

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Hey...

You super informed, fully conscious folks don't have to wait on us slow poke skeptics. Just join in a worldwide kumbaya circle, sing nice peace songs, pull out your checkbooks and write a check for all your future discretionary income to an environmental group and then completely stop, cold turkey, using anything associated with fossil fuels...

Or capitalism for that matter.

Most of you folks say that you outnumber us mere good conservative folk, so your vast numbers would make quite the immediate impact.

Oh yeah, you don't really believe in your own nonsense or altruism, not that much. Has to be the state forcing us all into your dystopic ideas of utopia... or ultimately be eliminated.

Dehumanize us at the same time, herd us into those nice tranquillity camps for readjustment. Mental chiropractors that y'all are.

Do it Do it Do it...just make the jump. At least try.

Yano?

For example Sweden and Denmark that ranks very high on Forbes best country for business list and also democracy index.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/#tab:overall

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

There Sweden implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995 and is one of the world's most sustainable countries,.

https://info.esg.adec-innovations.c...worlds-most-sustainable-country-top-5-reasons

Sweden also past bipartisan legislation to be carbon neutral by 2045.

https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045

While Denmark got 43 percent of their electricity from wind power in 2017 and also plan to meet 50 percent of all their energy needs with renewable energy by 2030 is on seventh place. Denmark also have a rightwing goverment.

https://www.rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0111/932573-denmark-wind-farm/

Denmark and Sweden also have less than half the C02 pollution per capita than the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

The transition away from fossil fuel have also strong support in the US. For example that two thirds of Americans give priority to developing renewables over fossil fuel and also wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...eloping-alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

While even Republican coal states like Indiana is abandoning coal for cheaper renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/0...ith-renewables-will-save-customers-4-billion/

 

[Quaestio]

I have found a lot of reputable scientific evidence, logic and reason on the internet to avoid accepting global warming claims without question.

Sure you have. I'm sure you could find some "scientific evidence" in the Bible as well.

 

[Quaestio]

You must be reading mostly reports approved by Darwinist propagandists.

Darwinist propagandists? Seriously? :shock:

 

[Quaestio]

~ I just watched the John Stossel report on global roasting and the Paris Agreement - very interesting and unbiased. Here is the synopsis :
A.) Climate change is real. Some is due to man - but how much nobody knows
B.) The impact/ threat to human life is unknown - but we will find out in time
C.) There is not much we can do to change Mother Nature & screwing around with Co2 could actually be dangerous
D.) There are groups of scientists who are paid to be alarmists and do not tell the entire story and admit to the above

A.) Climate change is real. Some is due to man - but how much nobody knows

A: Scientists have a pretty good idea based on a very strong consilience of evidence from a lot of different lines of investigation. Read of Chapter 2 of the report. Here's a snippet:

"Over the last century, changes in solar output, volcanic emissions, and natural variability have only contributed marginally to the observed changes in climate (Figure 2.1).15 ,17 No natural cycles are found in the observational record that can explain the observed increases in the heat content of the atmosphere, the ocean, or the cryosphere since the industrial era.11 ,19 ,20 ,21 Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the only factors that can account for the observed warming over the last century; there are no credible alternative human or natural explanations supported by the observational evidence.10 ,22"

Figure 2.1: Human and Natural Influences on Global Temperature


Ref:
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

B.) The impact/ threat to human life is unknown - but we will find out in time

B: Scientists have a pretty good idea about that too. Read the whole of the report.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

C.) There is not much we can do to change Mother Nature & screwing around with Co2 could actually be dangerous

C: Yeah 'screwing around with CO2' could actually be dangerous. Yet that's exactly what humans have been doing by increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by ~40% since the Industrial Age.

D.) There are groups of scientists who are paid to be alarmists and do not tell the entire story and admit to the above

D: Conspiracy theories from Fox? No tell me it ain't so! But I'm sure they are at least 'fair and balanced' conspiracy theories, right?

Gosh that John Stossel must be an amazing scientist to be so expert in so many different fields of science. What? He's not a scientist at all? No, tell me it ain't so!

 

[holbritter]

Federal report says U.S. impacts of climate change are intensifying




https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...omy-impacted-federal-report-finds/2093291002/


Goes along with Volume I, released in 2017, which has zero refutations or rebuttals.
https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

The evidence is overwhelming.

They should send the report to China.

 

[marke]

Sure you have. I'm sure you could find some "scientific evidence" in the Bible as well.

The Flood does offer an explanation for the worldwide fossil record and the many evidences of a mysterious mass extinction event in the record.

 

[marke]

Darwinist propagandists? Seriously? :shock:

Yes, seriously.

 

[Quaestio]

Yes, seriously.

I'm sure you've found "a lot of reputable scientific evidence, logic and reason on the internet" to avoid accepting evolution too. Creation.org etc.

 

[Quaestio]

The Flood does offer an explanation for the worldwide fossil record and the many evidences of a mysterious mass extinction event in the record.

The Biblical flood is a mythical story. The writers of Genesis believed the earth was as a flat disc with a dome over it and the 'great deep' and Sheol below it.




By the way, how old do you believe the earth is?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I let those educated on atmospheric science to debate the issue of global warming. I read the reports and form my own opinions. Those suggesting there is no reason for alarm about the weather have the best arguments.

"best arguments" - read as "the arguments that I want to hear and which I have been told to believe".

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Flood does offer an explanation for the worldwide fossil record and the many evidences of a mysterious mass extinction event in the record.

Indeed it does.

However, "The Flood" is supposed to have covered ALL of the land and that means that it would have had to be around 36,000 feet deep.

Possibly you would like to tell me where the (roughly) 7,459 cubic MILES of water came from. Or would that be "inconvenient"?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The Biblical flood is a mythical story. The writers of Genesis believed the earth was as a flat disc with a dome over it and the 'great deep' and Sheol below it.

View attachment 67244995


By the way, how old do you believe the earth is?

Since, according to the best available "biblical science" calculations, the universe was created in 4004 BC, the earth cannot be any more than 6022 years old.

What you have to remember is that, when He created the universe, God also created all of that so-called "archaeological evidence" that purports to show that the Earth is more than 6,022 years old.

Why did God do what He did?

We will never know, but the **F*A*C*T** remains that that is the only logical explanation for the existence of so-called "evidence" that purports to show anything different.

I know that this is true because I am a long-time member of Billy Bob’s Only True Original Fundamentalist Four-Square Evangelical Revived Reformed Revealed Biblical Church of Jesus Christ The Perfect Arisen Son Of The Living God World Awakening (Just Send Us Your Folding Money Because Worship Should Be Silent) All Aryan White Soul's Salvation, Redemption, and Witnessing Storefront Mission, B-B-Q, Gun Store, and Body Shop. (INC) - the "TOTFF-SERRRBCOJCTPASOTLGWA(JSUYFMBWSBS)AAWSSRAMMB-B-QABS" for short and that is what the High Right Reverend Doctor Billy-Bob says.

 

[JustHanging]

~ I just watched the John Stossel report on global roasting and the Paris Agreement - very interesting and unbiased. Here is the synopsis

I looked up John Stossel. He appears to have no formal education related to climatology. He appears to have no informal education related to climatology.

Why are you accepting the uniformed opinion of a talking head over that of tens of thousands of people who have devoted their entire lives to being experts on climatology, from all religious and cultural backgrounds, from all over the world? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[marke]

The Biblical flood is a mythical story. The writers of Genesis believed the earth was as a flat disc with a dome over it and the 'great deep' and Sheol below it.

View attachment 67244995


By the way, how old do you believe the earth is?

Almost all fossils were deposited by deep catastrophic flooding and yet biased secularists refuse to admit the possibility the Genesis flood was real.

 

[marke]

Indeed it does.

However, "The Flood" is supposed to have covered ALL of the land and that means that it would have had to be around 36,000 feet deep.

Possibly you would like to tell me where the (roughly) 7,459 cubic MILES of water came from. Or would that be "inconvenient"?

It's a mystery where all that water came from during the flood. It is also a mystery where all the land came from after the period in time in the early days of creation during which the Bible says water covered the entire face of the earth.

 

[Quaestio]

Almost all fossils were deposited by deep catastrophic flooding and yet biased secularists refuse to admit the possibility the Genesis flood was real.

No, they're not. That's the sort of nonsense claim you find on Creation.org

 

[Quaestio]

It's a mystery where all that water came from during the flood. It is also a mystery where all the land came from after the period in time in the early days of creation during which the Bible says water covered the entire face of the earth.

No mystery where all that water came from in the flood myth. The water came from above the 'firmament' (dome) and through the 'windows' to heaven.
It all makes sense when you know the biblical authors believed the earth looked like this:

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

It's a mystery where all that water came from during the flood. It is also a mystery where all the land came from after the period in time in the early days of creation during which the Bible says water covered the entire face of the earth.

So your answer is, "I don't know, but this is what I have been told to believe so this is what I am going to believe.".

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Some of the beneifts of limiting greenhouse gases from the report.

"Limiting greenhouse gases would substantially benefit the US economy and stop thousands of deaths each year, compared with allowing climate pollution to continue to rise through the 21st century.

Reaching a peak for climate pollution mid-century and then beginning a decline would prevent in 2090:

48% of the $155bn per year in damages to labor
58% of the $141bn per year in lives lost on extremely hot or cold days
22% of the $118bn per year in damages to coastal property
31% of the $26bn per year in the health consequences from poor air quality
59% of the $20bn per year in damages to roads
47% of the $8bn per year in inland flooding"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...global-warming?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

 

[KLATTU]

Some of the beneifts of limiting greenhouse gases from the report.

"Limiting greenhouse gases would substantially benefit the US economy and stop thousands of deaths each year, compared with allowing climate pollution to continue to rise through the 21st century.

Reaching a peak for climate pollution mid-century and then beginning a decline would prevent in 2090:

48% of the $155bn per year in damages to labor
58% of the $141bn per year in lives lost on extremely hot or cold days
22% of the $118bn per year in damages to coastal property
31% of the $26bn per year in the health consequences from poor air quality
59% of the $20bn per year in damages to roads
47% of the $8bn per year in inland flooding"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...global-warming?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

All wild ass guess.

 

[marke]

No mystery where all that water came from in the flood myth. The water came from above the 'firmament' (dome) and through the 'windows' to heaven.
It all makes sense when you know the biblical authors believed the earth looked like this:

View attachment 67245041

Did early earth have deep oceans from the beginning? Was that 4.5 billion years ago assumption?

 

[LosAngelesAngel]

I looked up John Stossel. He appears to have no formal education related to climatology. He appears to have no informal education related to climatology.

Why are you accepting the uniformed opinion of a talking head over that of tens of thousands of people who have devoted their entire lives to being experts on climatology, from all religious and cultural backgrounds, from all over the world? That makes no sense whatsoever.

~ Stossel in an investigative reporter - not an expert. He lets the experts he interviews give their point of view. Those are who we listen to. Most news is done that way. A reporter/interviewer is usually merely a conduit of information . Hopefully they are impartial.

~> Jeez, did you do really say something that stupid? You're as Dumb As Donald!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Some of the beneifts of limiting greenhouse gases from the report.

"Limiting greenhouse gases would substantially benefit the US economy and stop thousands of deaths each year, compared with allowing climate pollution to continue to rise through the 21st century.

Reaching a peak for climate pollution mid-century and then beginning a decline would prevent in 2090:

48% of the $155bn per year in damages to labor
58% of the $141bn per year in lives lost on extremely hot or cold days
22% of the $118bn per year in damages to coastal property
31% of the $26bn per year in the health consequences from poor air quality
59% of the $20bn per year in damages to roads
47% of the $8bn per year in inland flooding"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...global-warming?CMP=twt_a-environment_b-gdneco

Another has already posted "All wild ass guess. " so I'll translate it for you

"I haven't the foggiest idea if those numbers are even close to being correct or even what they are based on, the they come from a bunch of lying, left-wing, wacko, loony, liberal, progressive, socialist, pinko, commie, fag lovers so that means that they are false."
​

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Another has already posted "All wild ass guess. " so I'll translate it for you

"I haven't the foggiest idea if those numbers are even close to being correct or even what they are based on, the they come from a bunch of lying, left-wing, wacko, loony, liberal, progressive, socialist, pinko, commie, fag lovers so that means that they are false."
​

Republican politicians and other influential Republicans have failed to listen to the scientists. So climate change have sadly turned into a partisan issue in the US.

Another reason is the last couple of decades of neoliberal policies and dogmatic free market beliefs.

It has also been very profitable for the fossil fuel companies to keep the debate about climate change alive and delay the transition away from fossil fuels, by funding massive disinformation campaigns for many decades. While at the same time the fossil fuel companies have known that global warming from C02 was real and would have devastating effects.

https://www.smokeandfumes.org/fumes