I wish he had said something about the sea level rise. Every now and then I see in the news some people are losing their islands because the sea is rising. I also see predictions that our coastline will recede because of sea level rise and this is about the displacement of millions of people who live near the oceans.

At least one person here has denied that the Antarctic ice is reducing. Does anyone here deny that the sea is rising?

Another thing the article doesn't acknowledge is the effects of pollution. Use of petroleum-based products, such as fuels and plastics, are changing our environment for the worse. This is true even if climate change were not an issue.

I'll say it again; It is a waste of time arguing whether climate change is real and to what extent.

What I want to hear are sensible ways of mitigating the problem without sending everyone into bankruptcy or infringing on their liberty. This is something that neither side seems to address.

For instance, we just had a hurricane hit Bermuda with billions in destruction. Many of those people have no insurance. Why is that? Maybe because it is stupid to insure something that gets hammered frequently by storms. The cost of insurance is prohibitive.

Our ability to predict and warn people out of harm has improved tremendously with new computer models and weather satellites. This saves a lot of lives from the ravages. However, we still have a lot of people living in low-lying areas vulnerable to flooding. The can buy National Flood Insurance, and after the worse hits, they rebuild in the exact same spot. How idiotic is that? Houston is built on marshland which used to be able to absorb most and the water and filter contaminants. Because of overbuilding, there are miles of impermeable surfaces with no place for the water to go. How idiotic is that? New developments in Florida and the destruction of the marshland and Everglades, diversion of freshwater resources, all built barely above sea level. How idiotic is that? People living along river banks or in river valleys and on flood plains. The get flooded out, and I not talking about only once in their lifetime. Some have occurred each and every generation. Yet they rebuild in the same place. How idiotic is that?

There are so many instances of poor decisions and the resulting destruction from natural disasters such as fire, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, flooding, tornadoes, storms, volcanoes, sinkholes, etc, etc, etc. You can't guard against every instance but at the same time, we should not be encouraging people to rebuild in the exact same location after a disaster strikes when it is apparent that they shouldn't have built there in the first place. Granted, many places developed before we knew the real dangers of some locations. However, it isn't a sin to learn from history. It's a sin to ignore the history of a location at your own peril and then expect taxpayers to foot the bill for rebuilding.

I'm sure there are some on the left who overestimate how "settled" the science is. That doesn't nullify the general theory and the general observed trends. The IPCC view is generally pointing in the right direction.

Look at your phrase "the greatest con job ever by the leftist desiring world domination" and imagine a similar thought:

There is good reason to suspect that the oil industry wants to suppress and distort climate science, and good reason to suspect that capitalists desire world domination.

Remember how the tobacco industry fought for so many years against the science that tobacco is very harmful to people's health. Why? Because of money. Go back to that time, in your imagination, and imagine a lot of political conservatives saying the science against tobacco is the greatest con job ever by the left desiring world domination.

Thanks. But that one was easy. 1,000.

By the way, I'm not keeping up with all the side discussions, nor with the videos.

I've gotten to page 10 or 11 of this thread and haven't seen any direct comment about whether all the science _organizations_ except two accept the IPCC view and zero science _organizations_ reject it.

(Those are the facts from the Wikipedia article that I cited; and of course it may not have polled every science organization in the world; it focused on national and international science organizations.)

As of page 10 or 11 of this thread, no-one here has disputed the Wikipedia article factually!

There have been several replies that argue against the credibility of the people who concur with the IPCC view. But why do they not similarly doubt the credibility of the people who reject it?

They suspect corruption in the concurring camp. Why do they not suspect corruption in the rejecting camp?

Liberty's not everything.

I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said that there's a tradeoff between freedom and safety. In that tradeoff, I think there needs to be a balance, with some safety in it and some freedom in it.

Here in the ideas about climate change and pollution, the tradeoffs are a little different.

To tackle a big problem, it helps to have widespread cooperation. And, since we don't think the widespread cooperation will happen spontaneously, we make laws that help it along. "Pollution" (without the slightly more controversial idea of "climate change") is a fairly easy example: We have laws to try to limit how much pollution happens. That's a sensible idea. But of course we give up _some_ liberty for that. We don't all have the liberty to go polluting everywhere as much as we might like to do.

Now, consider the "Green New Deal" that Congresswoman AOC (among others) is associated with. I don't see that (if enacted) as infringing on my liberty. I want to have the liberty to breathe fresh air _and_ live in a city (both at the same time). And I want that option in _many_ cities.

And I don't just want liberty for myself. I want a clean and reliable world for my children and their children. Yes I want liberty for myself and for them; but that's not _all_ I want. There has to be a balance.

Actually "Climate Science" is not a cut and dried science. Its fluid, and that's the part the human factor can't accept. In the early days of climate change science (this goes back at least 3 decades) and Al Gore was king, even the so called 'climate scientists' couldn't agree and admitted their data was flawed. Flawed data in, flawed data out. Simple as that. And so it all began. The biggest threat to our "CLIMATE" is the HAARP project in Alaska spewing out billions of volts in a "Test" that should have never happened. Then it comes out that the US government was experimenting with using 'weather' as a weapon. Most poor saps don't even compute on this one. Read that again. The US Governemnt was EXPERIMENTING with using WEATHER as a WEAPON...…

Try this link for a rehash on the same old argument.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-163780-1.html

The Bahamas get hit every year, by one extent or another. And building out of 2x4's and tinfoil aint gonna cut it. Humans seem to have a real problem with the fact, we are the ant here, the weather is the boot. You want to live IN A HURRICANE ZONE, you might want to build houses out of prestress concrete panels and 1" thick plexiglass for windows. Myself, I don't understand what part of the equation these people don't get.

Pretty simple to me, you don't want to get your place destroyed by a hurricane, don't live in a hurricane zone.

I was editing even while you were replying.

I don't know details about the Green New Deal. The right has scorned her and it in such a way that the battle lines were simply drawn before we ever got to the details. I know the overall idea that we should reduce pollution fast. I don't have a problem with that. I think it's a great idea, and just what we need. The arguments against it look silly. I see the ad hominem attacks against her and some other new progressive Congresswomen. Those arguments or pseudoarguments look petty and vicious. Those people attacking her are wasting my, or our, time and energy. The arguments from the right about redistribution of wealth and taking over the world and so on just look foolish to me. As if they themselves weren't already redistributing wealth and taking over the world in worse ways than whatever somebody else might do. They just don't want anyone else getting in on what they perceive as their turf.

Economics drives the decisions people make. Everything involves tradeoffs. Giving up internal combustion if a better alternative comes along is reasonable. People gave up their gas guzzlers in the 1970s during the Arab oil embargo. Economics forced people to change attitudes, not government mandates. Carmakers had to respond to increased competition from abroad and start building better cars to compete. We will see great technological change in the next decade. Many of the targeted dates to eliminate internal combustion engine cars will be met and exceeded because people will demand the changes to more efficient transport.

https://freedomwire.com/sanders-supports-abortions-to-fight-climate-change/?utm_source=FRW-Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Daily-Article-Traffic

Ban all plastic straws? If this is the best idea Harris has to fight Climate Change then she should immediately resign her seat and go back to Californiastan to peddle her craziness.
Warren is typical of environmentalists who want to eliminate all nuclear and impose carbon taxes.
Let's all go back to chopping down trees for firewood in order to have cooking and heating fuel.



Bernie Sanders Supports Abortion To Fight Climate Change
Posted by Ryan James | Sep 5, 2019 | Politics

Bernie Sanders Supports Abortion To Fight Climate Change
Last night, CNN hosted a seven-hour town hall on climate change.

Now, I had a hard enough time sitting through two hours of the last Democratic debate, so I wasn’t about to put myself through the torture of watching seven straight hours of liberal propaganda.

(Thankfully, there were transcripts and outside reporting that I could draw from for this article.)

Personally, I think Trump should order the guards at Guantanamo Bay to play the seven-hour town hall on a loop to punish the terrorist prisoners there.

Some CRAZY Ideas
Throughout the night, the Democratic presidential candidates tried to out-crazy each other with one leftist policy proposal after another.

Senator Kamala Harris said she would order that all plastic straws be banned in the United States. Many of the candidates expressed support for an offshore drilling ban, ending of all fracking, and ideas on how to prevent people from eating meat (No, I’m not kidding)

All the candidates want to phase out fossil fuels, even though they provide 65% of our energy and 80% during the winter months. Basically, they are ok with people freezing to death to save the planet.

That might sound like hyperbole—and it is—but I am just using the zero-sum logic that the Left likes to employ.

Fracking and natural gas have made America energy-independent and a net exporter of energy, something that seemed impossible fifteen years ago, but the Democrats want to undo this industrial miracle.

Some of the candidates, like Elizabeth Warren, support a carbon tax and want to eliminate nuclear energy completely.

If Warren and her fellow candidates want to get to zero carbon emissions, then they should support building MORE nuclear power plants, not destroying the ones we already have. Nuclear power releases no carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

But all of the above policy proposals weren’t the craziest of the night.

No, that was honor was reserved for Bernie Sanders.


Abortions To Combat Climate Change
During Sanders’ portion of the town hall, a member of the audience asked him if he would support ways of controlling population growth, including increasing abortions.

He answered in the affirmative.

This is nothing short of environmental eugenics, reminiscent of Nazi scientists and should disqualify him from running for the Democrat nomination. But we all know it won’t. This is the Democratic Party we are talking about.

The Daily Caller highlighted the exchange:

“The audience member added that the ‘the planet cannot sustain growth’ and ‘empowering women and educating everyone’ on curbing population seems ‘reasonable.’ Sanders said he supports women being able to ‘control their own bodies’ and have abortions when answering the climate change question.

‘The answer is yes and the answer has everything to do with the fact that women, in the United States of America, by the way, have a right to control their own bodies and make reproductive decisions.’”

That’s a new low, even for Sanders.

The fear of overpopulation has been around for centuries, most notably by English Political Scientist Thomas Malthus. Malthus predicted that, at some point, the human population would become so high that the planet’s resources would be devoured and our whole species would be put at risk.

However, he has been proven wrong.

It turns out that the laws of economics have encouraged advances in production that have sustained life on Earth, even while the population increased dramatically.

Bernie calling for abortion isn’t just immoral, but it also wouldn’t work.


The doomsday scenarios may be overblown as well.

According to environmentalist Dr.Bjorn Lomborg, since the 1920s, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about 30% to more than 400 ppm, and global average temps increased by 1 degree Celsius. Yet during this time, climate-related deaths have declined by 99%!

Why?

Because people in the wealthier nations are more immune to climate-related deaths than people in poorer nations, and the 20th Century saw an unprecedented increase in economic growth, with billions being lifted out of extreme poverty because of the opening of markets.

We need more economic growth to help the economy, not less.

Bernie Sander’s agreeing that abortion is necessary to save the climate is morally reprehensible.