One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Main
So, where is all that Globally warming, I need some.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Dec 5, 2018 13:31:58   #
Capt-jack (a regular here)
 
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs.

One statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100. The 10 percent loss projection is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession.

The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization, calculates these costs on the assumption that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That temperature projection is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.

2. It assumes the most extreme (and least likely)climate scenario.

The scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. In estimating impacts on climate change, climatologists use four representative such trajectories to project different greenhouse gas concentrations.

To put it plainly, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 assumes a combination of bad factors that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes “the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.”

Despite what the National Climate Assessment says, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 is not a likely scenario. It estimates nearly impossible levels of coal consumption, fails to take into account the massive increase in natural gas production from the shale revolution and ignores technological innovations that continue to occur in nuclear and renewable technologies.

When taking a more realistic view of the future of conventional fuel use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, the doomsday scenarios vanish. Climatologist Judith Curry recently wrote, “Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and [Representative Concentration Pathway] then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic.”

3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality.

A central feature of the National Climate Assessment is that the costs of climate are here now, and they are only going to get worse. We’re going to see more hurricanes and floods. Global warming has worsened heat waves and wildfires.

But last year’s National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”

It’s hard to imagine all of that could be flipped on its head in a matter of a year.
Another sleight of hand in the National Climate Assessment is where certain graph timelines begin and end. For example, the framing of heat wave data from the 1960s to today makes it appear that there have been more heat waves in recent years. Framing wildfire data from 1985 until today makes it appear as though wildfires have been increasing in number.

But going back further tells a different story on both counts, as Pielke Jr. has explained in testimony.
Moreover, correlation is not causality. Western wildfires have been particularly bad over the past decade, but it’s hard to say to what extent these are directly owing to hotter and drier temperatures. It’s even more difficult to pin down how much man-made warming is to blame.

Yet the narrative of the National Climate Assessment is that climate change is directly responsible for the increase in economic and environmental destruction of western wildfires. Dismissing the complexity of factors that contribute to a changing climate and how they affect certain areas of the country is irresponsible.

4. Energy taxes are a costly non-solution.

The National Climate Assessment stresses that this report “was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem.” Yet the takeaway was clear: The costs pf action (10 percent of America’s GDP) dwarf the costs of any climate policy.

The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.

Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by the year 2030. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.

These policies would simply divert resources away from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or investing in new technologies that make Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 even more of an afterthought than it already should be.

The Trump administration is coming under criticism for publishing the report on Black Friday. To the extent that was a conscious strategy, it certainly isn’t a new tactic. The Obama administration had frequent Friday night document dumps in responding to congressional inquiries about Solyndra and the Department of Energy’s taxpayer-funded failures in the loan portfolio. The Environmental Protection Agency even released its Tier 3 gas regulations, which increased the price at the pump, on Good Friday.

No matter what party is in charge, the opposite party will complain about their burying the story. Regardless, the American public would be better served by enjoying the holiday season and shopping, rather than worrying about an alarmist report. So, guess what I am doing down here in Florida for the holiday's, freezing my ass off.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 14:18:13   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
This reminds me of the moron who so infamously displayed his pure ignorance for the world to see, "keep yer gubmint hands offa my medicare".

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 14:39:07   #
BigMike (a regular here)
 
woodguru wrote:
This reminds me of the moron who so infamously displayed his pure ignorance for the world to see, "keep yer gubmint hands offa my medicare".


And you remind me of someone who continually and impulsively underestimates the opposition.

I learned in prison that little flaw can be exploited.

Pride goeth before a fall.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 14:45:14   #
BigMike (a regular here)
 
Capt-jack wrote:
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs.

One statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100. The 10 percent loss projection is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession.

The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization, calculates these costs on the assumption that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That temperature projection is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.

2. It assumes the most extreme (and least likely)climate scenario.

The scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. In estimating impacts on climate change, climatologists use four representative such trajectories to project different greenhouse gas concentrations.

To put it plainly, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 assumes a combination of bad factors that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes “the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.”

Despite what the National Climate Assessment says, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 is not a likely scenario. It estimates nearly impossible levels of coal consumption, fails to take into account the massive increase in natural gas production from the shale revolution and ignores technological innovations that continue to occur in nuclear and renewable technologies.

When taking a more realistic view of the future of conventional fuel use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, the doomsday scenarios vanish. Climatologist Judith Curry recently wrote, “Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and [Representative Concentration Pathway] then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic.”

3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality.

A central feature of the National Climate Assessment is that the costs of climate are here now, and they are only going to get worse. We’re going to see more hurricanes and floods. Global warming has worsened heat waves and wildfires.

But last year’s National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”

It’s hard to imagine all of that could be flipped on its head in a matter of a year.
Another sleight of hand in the National Climate Assessment is where certain graph timelines begin and end. For example, the framing of heat wave data from the 1960s to today makes it appear that there have been more heat waves in recent years. Framing wildfire data from 1985 until today makes it appear as though wildfires have been increasing in number.

But going back further tells a different story on both counts, as Pielke Jr. has explained in testimony.
Moreover, correlation is not causality. Western wildfires have been particularly bad over the past decade, but it’s hard to say to what extent these are directly owing to hotter and drier temperatures. It’s even more difficult to pin down how much man-made warming is to blame.

Yet the narrative of the National Climate Assessment is that climate change is directly responsible for the increase in economic and environmental destruction of western wildfires. Dismissing the complexity of factors that contribute to a changing climate and how they affect certain areas of the country is irresponsible.

4. Energy taxes are a costly non-solution.

The National Climate Assessment stresses that this report “was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem.” Yet the takeaway was clear: The costs pf action (10 percent of America’s GDP) dwarf the costs of any climate policy.

The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.

Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by the year 2030. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.

These policies would simply divert resources away from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or investing in new technologies that make Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 even more of an afterthought than it already should be.

The Trump administration is coming under criticism for publishing the report on Black Friday. To the extent that was a conscious strategy, it certainly isn’t a new tactic. The Obama administration had frequent Friday night document dumps in responding to congressional inquiries about Solyndra and the Department of Energy’s taxpayer-funded failures in the loan portfolio. The Environmental Protection Agency even released its Tier 3 gas regulations, which increased the price at the pump, on Good Friday.

No matter what party is in charge, the opposite party will complain about their burying the story. Regardless, the American public would be better served by enjoying the holiday season and shopping, rather than worrying about an alarmist report. So, guess what I am doing down here in Florida for the holiday's, freezing my ass off.
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs. br br ... (show quote)


You might be interested in a book...Unstoppable Global Warming.

It uses empirical data, available to anyone who wants to learn, to illustrate the history of climate change. It speaks of climatic cycles, the results of major climatic events and much more...including the money trail of today's climate "science".

PS...tons of footnoted stuff! Very good.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 15:06:38   #
karpenter (a regular here)
 
The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization,
calculates these costs on the ASSUMPTION that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.

What Data Did They Feed In To Get That Computer Model
Currently We're Only Claiming Tenths Of One Degree



| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 15:17:04   #
byronglimish (a regular here)
 
BigMike wrote:
And you remind me of someone who continually and impulsively underestimates the opposition.

I learned in prison that little flaw can be exploited.

Pride goeth before a fall.



Yep, no way to back out!

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 15:46:42   #
BigMike (a regular here)
 
karpenter wrote:
The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization,
calculates these costs on the ASSUMPTION that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer.

What Data Did They Feed In To Get That Computer Model
Currently We're Only Claiming Tenths Of One Degree


They lie, that's how.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 15:47:56   #
BigMike (a regular here)
 
byronglimish wrote:
Yep, no way to back out!


They've bragged for too long about the hill they plan to die on to be talked out of it.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 15:50:13   #
byronglimish (a regular here)
 
BigMike wrote:
They've bragged for too long about the hill they plan to die on to be talked out of it.


It's sad, really sad.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 17:53:48   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
Capt-jack wrote:
But last year’s National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”


I'll address this one issue, I'm not sure where he's getting his information from, but we've all witnessed the increase in extreme conditions he's mentioned and backed by many recorded graphs all over the world, so no conspiracy of people colluding.


I believe we can all see the increase
I believe we can all see the increase...

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 18:08:58   #
EmilyD (a regular here)
 
Capt-jack wrote:
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs.

One statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100. The 10 percent loss projection is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession.

The study, funded in part by climate warrior Tom Steyer’s organization, calculates these costs on the assumption that the world will be 15 degrees Fahrenheit warmer. That temperature projection is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In other words, it is completely unrealistic.

2. It assumes the most extreme (and least likely)climate scenario.

The scary projections in the National Climate Assessment rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5. In estimating impacts on climate change, climatologists use four representative such trajectories to project different greenhouse gas concentrations.

To put it plainly, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 assumes a combination of bad factors that are not likely to all coincide. It assumes “the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.”

Despite what the National Climate Assessment says, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 is not a likely scenario. It estimates nearly impossible levels of coal consumption, fails to take into account the massive increase in natural gas production from the shale revolution and ignores technological innovations that continue to occur in nuclear and renewable technologies.

When taking a more realistic view of the future of conventional fuel use and increased greenhouse gas emissions, the doomsday scenarios vanish. Climatologist Judith Curry recently wrote, “Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and [Representative Concentration Pathway] then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic.”

3. It cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality.

A central feature of the National Climate Assessment is that the costs of climate are here now, and they are only going to get worse. We’re going to see more hurricanes and floods. Global warming has worsened heat waves and wildfires.

But last year’s National Climate Assessment on extreme weather tells a different story. As University of Colorado Boulder professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”

It’s hard to imagine all of that could be flipped on its head in a matter of a year.
Another sleight of hand in the National Climate Assessment is where certain graph timelines begin and end. For example, the framing of heat wave data from the 1960s to today makes it appear that there have been more heat waves in recent years. Framing wildfire data from 1985 until today makes it appear as though wildfires have been increasing in number.

But going back further tells a different story on both counts, as Pielke Jr. has explained in testimony.
Moreover, correlation is not causality. Western wildfires have been particularly bad over the past decade, but it’s hard to say to what extent these are directly owing to hotter and drier temperatures. It’s even more difficult to pin down how much man-made warming is to blame.

Yet the narrative of the National Climate Assessment is that climate change is directly responsible for the increase in economic and environmental destruction of western wildfires. Dismissing the complexity of factors that contribute to a changing climate and how they affect certain areas of the country is irresponsible.

4. Energy taxes are a costly non-solution.

The National Climate Assessment stresses that this report “was created to inform policy-makers and makes no specific recommendations on how to remedy the problem.” Yet the takeaway was clear: The costs pf action (10 percent of America’s GDP) dwarf the costs of any climate policy.

The reality, however, is that policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.

Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between $135 and $5,500 by the year 2030. An energy tax of that magnitude would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapult the world into economic despair.

These policies would simply divert resources away from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or investing in new technologies that make Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 even more of an afterthought than it already should be.

The Trump administration is coming under criticism for publishing the report on Black Friday. To the extent that was a conscious strategy, it certainly isn’t a new tactic. The Obama administration had frequent Friday night document dumps in responding to congressional inquiries about Solyndra and the Department of Energy’s taxpayer-funded failures in the loan portfolio. The Environmental Protection Agency even released its Tier 3 gas regulations, which increased the price at the pump, on Good Friday.

No matter what party is in charge, the opposite party will complain about their burying the story. Regardless, the American public would be better served by enjoying the holiday season and shopping, rather than worrying about an alarmist report. So, guess what I am doing down here in Florida for the holiday's, freezing my ass off.
1. It wildly exaggerates economic costs. br br ... (show quote)

One thing that people forget is that communication of information has increased by huge exponents with the birth of the internet and social media. Communication used to be TV and radio and newspapers. And not too long ago, in fact during my own lifetime, communication occurred via radio only. Since information - both correct and incorrect - can be communicated on a much wider level now, it therefore can be politicized on a much wider level. That is what has occurred with the global warming (or is it global cooling....or climate change?...which is it?) hoax. It's a big world-wide money maker, and that is the crux of the whole thing....just follow the money: https://www.apnews.com/864ea775b37f4b218ec4f02f85c3f0e2

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 18:42:20   #
Morgan (a regular here)
 
EmilyD wrote:
One thing that people forget is that communication of information has increased by huge exponents with the birth of the internet and social media. Communication used to be TV and radio and newspapers. And not too long ago, in fact during my own lifetime, communication occurred via radio only. Since information - both correct and incorrect - can be communicated on a much wider level now, it therefore can be politicized on a much wider level. That is what has occurred with the global warming (or is it global cooling....or climate change?...which is it?) hoax. It's a big world-wide money maker, and that is the crux of the whole thing....just follow the money: https://www.apnews.com/864ea775b37f4b218ec4f02f85c3f0e2
One thing that people forget is that communication... (show quote)


You must not have read what I read, not a hoax at all, these countries and people are taking action into their own hands, some other companies have begun to switch to more environmentally friendly operations and have found they are making more money. The consciousness of the people is what is spurring on this change, and it's a wonderful thing. To bad the US is behaving like a die-hard dinosaur, except of course for the private entrepreneurs.

Thanks for the post

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 18:53:31   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
BigMike wrote:
And you remind me of someone who continually and impulsively underestimates the opposition.

I learned in prison that little flaw can be exploited.

Pride goeth before a fall.


I'm going by numbers, registered voters, and trends. It is clear to see that as elections are made more and more fair in GOP states where they are using every trick in the book, that republicans are soon to be extinct.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 18:55:41   #
woodguru (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:
You must not have read what I read, not a hoax at all, these countries and people are taking action into their own hands, some other companies have begun to switch to more environmentally friendly operations and have found they are making more money. The consciousness of the people is what is spurring on this change, and it's a wonderful thing. To bad the US is behaving like a die-hard dinosaur, except of course for the private entrepreneurs.

Thanks for the post
You must not have read what I read, not a hoax at ... (show quote)


The US GOP would rather continue paying money to the oil industry than switch to backing alternative renewable energy sources.

| Reply
Dec 5, 2018 18:57:13   #
BigMike (a regular here)
 
Morgan wrote:
I'll address this one issue, I'm not sure where he's getting his information from, but we've all witnessed the increase in extreme conditions he's mentioned and backed by many recorded graphs all over the world, so no conspiracy of people colluding.


Since our recorded data goes only so far back why don't we admit this: In geological terms the entire Industrial Revolution to the present is a blink of an eye. And very shortly fossil fuel emissions will be a moot point because solar and wind will become more economically feasible because of demand without any help from Uncle Sam AND hydrogen and fusion are on the cusp of capability...hydrogen first, of course.

Or do the myopic, flat-earther liberals think we've been stuck in what they've observed (which ain't much) over their short lifetimes (which is much less)?

| Reply
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2018 IDF International Technologies, Inc.