It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
originally posted by: DexterRiley
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like some left-over alarmists are still working.
I’ll give you that, the alarmist’s messaging approach was front and center back in the day. Need better messaging — I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #.
I think there's pretty good evidence that the planet is experiencing Climate Change. I'm not going to argue the anthropogenic elements, just the effects of the warming that is already occurring.
-dex
I’d advise you not to (argue the merits of AGW). Don’t know Xen from Adam, but there’s more truth in his one-liners than hyperbole; hyperbolic alarmism is very much an egregious factor in AGW being solidly rebuked by the citizenry of the U.S.A. As I said earlier, I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #, in the meantime, I’ll do what we do pretty well: adapt. Climate change/disruption is old hat. Good, bad, or indifferent it’s time to move on. The opportunity “to do something about it” was when this could have been presented as an energy issue. The messaging would have been more effective.
originally posted by: Blue Shift
I guess it all depends on what you want to attribute to "climate change," rather than simply normal statistical variations in weather over time.
originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DexterRiley
relax the knee first, but am I to understand that all the recent disasters are due to Climate Change, yet all previous disasters were just things that happened?
originally posted by: DexterRiley
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
originally posted by: DexterRiley
originally posted by: BeefNoMeat
originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like some left-over alarmists are still working.
I’ll give you that, the alarmist’s messaging approach was front and center back in the day. Need better messaging — I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #.
I think there's pretty good evidence that the planet is experiencing Climate Change. I'm not going to argue the anthropogenic elements, just the effects of the warming that is already occurring.
-dex
I’d advise you not to (argue the merits of AGW). Don’t know Xen from Adam, but there’s more truth in his one-liners than hyperbole; hyperbolic alarmism is very much an egregious factor in AGW being solidly rebuked by the citizenry of the U.S.A. As I said earlier, I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #, in the meantime, I’ll do what we do pretty well: adapt. Climate change/disruption is old hat. Good, bad, or indifferent it’s time to move on. The opportunity “to do something about it” was when this could have been presented as an energy issue. The messaging would have been more effective.
I'm not arguing the cause of Climate Change. That's one of the biggest problems that I see with Climate Change deniers. AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are two separate issues here.
I see Earth changes that I refer to as Climate Change. The anthropogenic part is not as important to me as addressing the current and predicted future effects on our civilization.
-dex
The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.
originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: DexterRiley
Look,
Here is the deal...
Nobody is going to care or support "fighting climate change" when the only solutions provided are a big money financial scams.
Why are we going to pay through the nose and kill our economy for nothing? Just so rich people can get richer by using a feel good cause to take our money.
Provide a well thought out plan that isn't a financial scam, get rich quick off of the public and maybe someone might listen.
originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Never fear. We can use the trillions of dollars that the GAO said Obamacare was going to save us to offset the billions of dollars the GAO says Climate Change is going to cost us.
Alternatively, the US could save hundreds of billions by getting out of the Middle East. We spend 50 billion a year in Iraq for air conditioning alone.
You clearly didn’t bring this to ATS to grab stars and flags, so for that, I sincerely tip the hat to you.
Beyond that, I would assert you can’t see the forest for the trees. Remind me, if you don’t care about the functional impact of humankind’s activities on the climate, what do you care for “current and predicted future effects on civilization”?
And if you wanna brush up on your statistics with respect to climate change*, research “fat tails” and playing around with differing probability distribution functions**.
originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
There are so many factors that can go into this and I wonder how many were considered. I have no doubt the dollar figure is much higher now than years ago but there can be a lot of reasons why. There are a lot more people living along coastlines. That in turn requires more homes, buildings, roads and infrastructure. Then there's inflation. We all know statistics can be manipulated to suit a desired outcome.
I call BS on this study.
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: DexterRiley
The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.
Gi-Go
Garbage in - Garbage out
originally posted by: DexterRiley
The thing about predictions is that they are based on sets of assumptions. It's likely that the GAO's calculations of the long-term savings of the ACA did not account for extended partisan bickering and outright sabotage by those who hated it for no other reason than it was introduced by Barack Hussein Obama.
As far as the Middle East is concerned, I have read that removing ourselves from the region altogether may be the most successful option. I'm not informed enough about that to argue either way.
Does it really cost $50 billion a year for A/C?
-dex
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: DexterRiley
The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.
Gi-Go
Garbage in - Garbage out