75% of economists saying doing nothing will cost dramatically more than acting on global warming

[Oddball]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

You're demonstrating your ignorance on polling. The response rate here was higher than is typical.

And you're demonstrating complete unwillingness to acknowledge the plain, in-you-face fact that this "poll" is rigged by self-selection.

The poll itself is available for review. Would you care to actually attempt to support your charge here?

The numbers were posted....The "poll" only counts those who self-selected themselves by answering it....It's the same dishonest methodology that you dishonest warmers used to fake your "94% of scientists believe...." bullshit.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

theyve been wrong for 50 yrs,, not seeing any credibility here,,

and its ponly been a select few scientist,,

To what "select few scientists" do you refer?

the ones that claim climate change,, they are but a few that make the claim,, most of the others dont see it,,

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense. Numerous surveys, polls and studies have shown very high acceptance of AGW among published scientists. I have printed the list you can find in Wikipedia if you insist on seeing it. If you have a source that says otherwise, let's see that.

The lab is so cruel to fake science, of course you have surveys and polls

So, apparently you do NOT have a source showing wide rejection of AGW among scientists. But, if you're suggesting there is lab work that refutes the fundamentals of AGW, feel free to post a link or two.

I didn't say that, Tin Man. I said surveys and polls do not overlap real science.

You never once posted the lab work showing how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 raises temperature. That said, how do you know lowering CO2 will have any effect?

 

[ding]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

Ask them what the cost would be for a several thousand feet thick ice sheet over parts of North America, Europe and Asia?

Why? Do you think that a real possibility in the next century or two?

It's not as probable as long as we keep increasing CO2 emissions like we have been, right?

But we don't fully understand the trigger mechanisms so who is to say it isn't possible given the existing background conditions which are favorable for northern hemisphere glaciation. When it comes to climate we are dealing with probabilities and not certainties. That works both ways. A point that seems to have been lost in the insanity. The reality though is that the earth is uniquely configured for cooling and not warming. And the consequences of a drastic cooling - which is exactly what the data shows would happen - versus a gradual warming are much more severe. Which is another point that seems to have been lost in all of the insanity.

 

[jc456]

Before accepting your claim that there is NO climate concern to worry about, YOU need to present a great deal of evidence refuting that which is already on hand,

like what? what has been presented that has ever been accurate? please, share with the class.

 

[ReinyDays]

You could consider the possibility that I wasn't addressing people with your mindset, jc, and thus, wasn't addressing you at all.

Then who are you addressing? ... certainly not anyone with rudimentary knowledge of the subject material ... flaws in your logic abound, starting with the logarithmic relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide ... evidence is emerging that we've already reached saturation, AGW will be quickly diminishing and disappear within 100 years ... which the IPCC predicts in their most recent report ... why do you take a few economists word over actual climatologists? ...

I'm sorry, most the costs of climate change has already been spent ... every one of the predictions of catastrophe require violations of the Laws of Physics ... not to mention the complete absence of these events in the historical records ...

You've put your trust into statistics ... not science ... there is a difference ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Q. What's the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increases from 400 to 420PPM?

1. DENIER!
2. DEATH TO THE DENIERS!
3. WE HAVE CONSENSUS!!!!!

 

[jc456]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

ten yrs my ass,,

you fucks have been howling for almost 50 yrs about this subject,, and youve been wrong 100% of the time,,

That's not what reality tells the world's scientists. To what have you been listening?

Then why you quoting economists?

You could consider the possibility that I wasn't addressing people with your mindset, jc, and thus, wasn't addressing you at all.

so in other words, you don't have any evidence from actual scientists.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Q. What's the expected increase in temperature as CO2 increases from 400 to 420PPM?

1. DENIER!
2. DEATH TO THE DENIERS!
3. WE HAVE CONSENSUS!!!!!

4. $76 trillion!!!!

 

[ding]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?

 

[initforme]

I can agree with tightening the clean air standards and really ramping up clean water standards. I'm skeptical about gw though. It doesn't hurt or affect anyone having cleaner air and water.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?

They hate people

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?

Money. Power.

 

[Crick]

I can agree with tightening the clean air standards and really ramping up clean water standards. I'm skeptical about gw though. It doesn't hurt or affect anyone having cleaner air and water.

What are you saying? That global warming doesn't affect us if we have clean air and water or that there is no downside to having clean air and water?

Obviously, clean air and water are good things for numerous reasons, but there is no reason to be skeptical about AGW. It is well founded and almost universally accepted by the world's scientists. And, as has been stated about numerous other what-ifs, there is no reason you cannot work towards cleaner air, cleaner water and less CO2. Considering the amount of air and water pollution that originates from fossil fuel combustion, the processes would be quite synergistic.

 

[Crick]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?

We need to end the use of fossil fuels to avoid having to relocate 200 hundred million coastal inhabitants worldwide, lose the infrastructure of the cities they've all been living in and do so in the midst of weather catastrophes, global famines and water shortages. We need to address global warming to SAVE the trillions of dollars it will cost to deal with the consequences.

 

[danielpalos]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

New Cities in more optimal locations!

 

[Crick]

"Thousands of economists have written about global warming" but 0nly 738 responded to the NYU survey. Were the questions so biased that they were insulting or did the other 1,300+ economists decide that the issue wasn't worthwhile? Interesting that with all the pressure from the left wing that dominates the argument, about 25% of the economists responding disagreed with the concept. That's a good sign.

You're demonstrating your ignorance on polling. The response rate here was higher than is typical.

And you're demonstrating complete unwillingness to acknowledge the plain, in-you-face fact that this "poll" is rigged by self-selection.

The poll itself is available for review. Would you care to actually attempt to support your charge here?

The numbers were posted....The "poll" only counts those who self-selected themselves by answering it....It's the same dishonest methodology that you dishonest warmers used to fake your "94% of scientists believe...." bullshit.

You'll have to tell me about the proper kind of polls that force people to answer.

 

[Indeependent]

https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Economic_Consensus_on_Climate.pdf

Just like we've been telling you deniers for the last ten years.

How much would US CO2 drop if we deported 20 million illegal aliens?

Crick doesn't want to leave!

 

[Crick]

I didn't say that, Tin Man. I said surveys and polls do not overlap real science.

You never once posted the lab work showing how increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 raises temperature. That said, how do you know lowering CO2 will have any effect?

It's almost astounding, but I see, Frank, that you don't seem to have learned anything over the last few years.

A poll or survey of scientists tells us what is and is not accepted science. There is no other way to do so. That increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will increase global temperatures is a proven fact Frank. Sputter and whine all you want, but claiming otherwise simply marks you as a liar or a fool.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to spend $78 Trillion to lower Atmospheric CO2 which will have no discernable effect on anything other than crushing the US economy. Brilliant!

Why in the world would anyone (other than abu afak and Fort Fun Indiana ) want to lower atmospheric CO2 in the middle of an ice age?

We need to end the use of fossil fuels to avoid having to relocate 200 hundred million coastal inhabitants worldwide, lose the infrastructure of the cities they've all been living in and do so in the midst of weather catastrophes, global famines and water shortages. We need to address global warming to SAVE the trillions of dollars it will cost to deal with the consequences.

So that's why all the top people in the AGW scam have oceanfront property!

 

[Crick]

Ask them what the cost would be for a several thousand feet thick ice sheet over parts of North America, Europe and Asia?

Why? Do you think that a real possibility in the next century or two?

It's not as probable as long as we keep increasing CO2 emissions like we have been, right?

But we don't fully understand the trigger mechanisms so who is to say it isn't possible given the existing background conditions which are favorable for northern hemisphere glaciation. When it comes to climate we are dealing with probabilities and not certainties. That works both ways. A point that seems to have been lost in the insanity. The reality though is that the earth is uniquely configured for cooling and not warming. And the consequences of a drastic cooling - which is exactly what the data shows would happen - versus a gradual warming are much more severe. Which is another point that seems to have been lost in all of the insanity.

In what way do you believe the Earth is "configured for cooling and not warming", particularly when it has been warming at an unprecedented rate for the last century and a half? What data indicate your cooling would be "drastic" and what do you actually mean by the term?