Why is climate science political?

[westwall]

S0 suckassbil the tweaker c0mes over and p0sts repeatedly, at envir0nment threads, just to make s0me rant ab0ut h0w 0ther people d0n't give a shit about algae bl00ms and extincti0n events.

You sure are r0ckin,' you tweaking fucktard. At least y0u kn0w h0w t0 l0ad c0l0rs and smilies, while Wienerbitch is still trying t0 figure 0ut h0w t0 l0ad links and graphs, but he's 1 for 2 at graphs, and 0 for 1, at ph0t0-m0ntages. Eat shit and die, punks. You are less than zero, at anything you try, except for being sub-humans, ready for the sea to get up.

That piece of shit Wallyfucktard isn't even good at smilies or tweaking.

Subhumans FTMFW s0n!!!


You and all the k00ks know you're losing........thats why you and all the other k00ks on here go mental a dozen times/day. In fact, everything is good my way..........4 1/2 more months of this lefty bullshit and it gets mothballed for two generations and fracking is going to dominate the energy landscape for the next decade. Solar companies are taking a crap and closing every day all over America. Meanwhile........Cap and Trade is not even part of the English language anymore in 2012.


All the science.................and nothing to show for it asshole!!!

And what are the radical environmentalists doing these days besides losing? Out in their backyards building their emergency arks for the coming floods..................

And cheesedicks like Rolling Thunder and Bobg sit home and salivate about the prospect of every American going to work on a two wheel scooter......................and belive the whole country is about to embrace it!!!!

The fact he uses the term subhumans reveals his true NAZI self. He's a troll and no longer worth responding to.

 

[Trakar]

Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences.
So why will they all be negative?

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

 

[bripat9643]

Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences.
So why will they all be negative?

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

What "damages" are caused by mild winters? The proper pricing of carbon is the market price. None of you warmist cult members have every demonstrated any "damages" from your hocus-pocus theory that the sky is falling.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences.
So why will they all be negative?

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later.

How much damage has Solyndra diminished?

The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices.

What damages?

A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral.

How is charging me more for carbon revenue neutral?

 

[Trakar]

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

What "damages" are caused by mild winters?

Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.

The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.

The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.

 

[Trakar]

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later.

How much damage has Solyndra diminished?

Your herring are remarkably red tonight.

Even if managed properly and profittably, 100 "Solyndra"s would have, on their own, been barely noticeable in their impact upon this issue. But if you want to seriously engage and have a considered voice in the debate of public policy with regards to the issue, such as helping to design and install safegaurds that investigate and monitor companies receiving government funding to insure that they are responsibly and reasonably managed and are actually capable of meeting and fulfilling the contracts and grant conditions under which they are receiving funding you are going to have to acknowledge the science and operate in good faith within the constraints and demands of the science. I'm sure there is a politically conservative perspective that fully accepts and acknowledges the mainstream science understandings that form the foundations of AGW theories. Not being a conservative myself, I'd probably find them "inadequate and ludicrous," but, it is one thing to have ideological differences of opinion, it is a completely different thing to have ideologically driven perspectives of the underlying principles of reality.

The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices.

What damages?

There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed. Of course, this would probably yeild a highly conservative estimation.

It is almost impossible to lay any particular event solely at the feet of one factor, but when we see increasing trends for climate related factors, it is not unreasonable to tie the average annual/decadal changes to the prevelant climate trends.

A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral.

How is charging me more for carbon revenue neutral?

By design, as an individual up to a certain, extremely high, levels of personal usage, the effects of carbon taxes are neutralized by either federal tax credits or tax refunds. Lesser refund/credits are available to businesses with the exception of carbon resource recovery industries that will eat the cost and pass it along to those who purchase their recovered product. At the front end, the amounts generally being discussed as hard ball range from 50$/ton of carbon in the early stages to $100/ton when we are in the final stages of transfer away from nearly all large-scale use of carbon sourced power and fuels. But looked at realistically, while that would about double the price of a ton of coal, right now, it would be less than the price of the same coal 2 years ago (and yet the cost of electricity dependent upon coal didn't go down by much over the last 2 years).

The difference builds infrastructure, funds educational scholarships/internships, technology R&D grants and small business loans, invests in treaury bonds and issues carbon bonds.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just as an aside.............here in New York this am, I get up and am forced to put on a fleece sweatshirt...........and its almost ******* July!!!

I think it is fascinating that the warmer bomb throwers dont think day to day perception matters. But people who will never even dream of thinking about blogging about global warming are waking up today in New York and saying, "Shit......cant go to the beach today because its freezing out!!". Hard core beach goers would be there otherwise for sure. But the next time some idiot brings up global warming, at a minimum, they are scratching their head and probably laughing their balls off. And part of it is, the next heat wave, all the k00ks will come out from the woodwork, but the average Joe realizes that on days like today, they seek to be invisible.


Common sense stuff is to the warmer bomb throwers as kryptonite is to Superman. Most people have good solid common sense. SOme..........not so much.

 

[code1211]

There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed. Of course, this would probably yeild a highly conservative estimation.

It is almost impossible to lay any particular event solely at the feet of one factor, but when we see increasing trends for climate related factors, it is not unreasonable to tie the average annual/decadal changes to the prevelant climate trends.

It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.

According to the proxies, the climate warmed by more in the years between 1600 and the start of the Industrial Revolution than it has since that time.

As far as increasing trends, that is impossible to prove. The measurement of the phenomena associated with climate by instruments is a very, very recent thing. The mere fact that we can for the first time in the history of the planet know what is happening almost everywhere almost instantly is only a function of the technology of the last 70 or so years.

This incidentally is directly attributable to the use of fossil fuels.

We are about as cool right now as we ever have been as a planet.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

 

[code1211]

Taking your last point first, you say that we are ten years away from isolating a man-made cause and accurately measuring the impact of man on that cause. Without knowing the cause, the contribution by man to that cause or the scientific justification for any line of action, you are electing to act immediately.

Yes. Because at this stage I think we can say that we KNOW that human acitivity is influencing the climate.

What we don't know is the extent of that influence. I'm sure experts can put parameters on that, but I haven't seen them.

So it is essential that we act - and also because acting benefits us all in other ways. It makes sense to conserve energy for other reasons - one of which is reducing costs for households and businesses.

I'll ignore all the Al Gore games - climate change science was known a century before Al Gore, and his influence was never anything to write home about outside the US anyway. Why do Americans obsess about the guy?

So it is essential that we act -

What if global warming is beneficial?
Is it still essential to act?

Yes. And also to sing and dance.

The Arts are a very important part of our civilization.

 

[code1211]

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

What "damages" are caused by mild winters?

Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.

The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.

The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.

Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the recently starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.

 

[Big Fitz]

What "damages" are caused by mild winters?

Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.

The proper pricing of carbon is the market price.

The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.

Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the erectly starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.

Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.

 

[RollingThunder]

Drought, the failure of winter to kill off insect species that normally die-back during the extended freezes and cool periods in most winters, the spread and proliferation of disease, fungus and all manner of pests and pestilence. But of course, mild winters aren't the only impact; there are increased energy levels in storm systems as this extra energy in our system jostles about trying to equilibrate. there is the added climate change stress impacting biomes we have already pushed beyond tolerable levels for much of the diversity of wildlife across the face of the planet. But we don't even need to look to the butterflies and burrowing owls, look at people. We're projected to reach a peak of around 9 Billion within a few decades. Tell an overwhelming majority of people on the planet that it is no longer economical to produce enough food to feed them, or purify and transport enough water to quench their thirst, and we'll see how long and how expensive it becomes to maintain western civilization. And this is just the beginning.



The current "market price" is a distortion (economically, a market failure) as it is artificially divorced from the costs and consequences (externalities) of its usage. Until these costs are accurately and adequately internalized there is no valid market price.

Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the erectly starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.

Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.

Actually, Numbnuts, it is the intelligent and informed people who recognize the grave dangers to human civilization posed by AGW who want to prevent the death of billions by limiting carbon emissions and it is you deluded denier dupes of the fossil fuel industry who would, through your insane opposition to any effective actions to deal with the climate change crisis, bring about the those billions of deaths as the world food production systems collapse. The accelerating loss of mountain top glaciers alone will cut off the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supplies to billions of people.

And BTW, BigFizzle, your sorry excuse for a brain obviously has no connection to "reality".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later.

How much damage has Solyndra diminished?

Your herring are remarkably red tonight.

Even if managed properly and profittably, 100 "Solyndra"s would have, on their own, been barely noticeable in their impact upon this issue. But if you want to seriously engage and have a considered voice in the debate of public policy with regards to the issue, such as helping to design and install safegaurds that investigate and monitor companies receiving government funding to insure that they are responsibly and reasonably managed and are actually capable of meeting and fulfilling the contracts and grant conditions under which they are receiving funding you are going to have to acknowledge the science and operate in good faith within the constraints and demands of the science. I'm sure there is a politically conservative perspective that fully accepts and acknowledges the mainstream science understandings that form the foundations of AGW theories. Not being a conservative myself, I'd probably find them "inadequate and ludicrous," but, it is one thing to have ideological differences of opinion, it is a completely different thing to have ideologically driven perspectives of the underlying principles of reality.

The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices.

What damages?

There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed. Of course, this would probably yeild a highly conservative estimation.

It is almost impossible to lay any particular event solely at the feet of one factor, but when we see increasing trends for climate related factors, it is not unreasonable to tie the average annual/decadal changes to the prevelant climate trends.

A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral.

How is charging me more for carbon revenue neutral?

By design, as an individual up to a certain, extremely high, levels of personal usage, the effects of carbon taxes are neutralized by either federal tax credits or tax refunds. Lesser refund/credits are available to businesses with the exception of carbon resource recovery industries that will eat the cost and pass it along to those who purchase their recovered product. At the front end, the amounts generally being discussed as hard ball range from 50$/ton of carbon in the early stages to $100/ton when we are in the final stages of transfer away from nearly all large-scale use of carbon sourced power and fuels. But looked at realistically, while that would about double the price of a ton of coal, right now, it would be less than the price of the same coal 2 years ago (and yet the cost of electricity dependent upon coal didn't go down by much over the last 2 years).

The difference builds infrastructure, funds educational scholarships/internships, technology R&D grants and small business loans, invests in treaury bonds and issues carbon bonds.

Even if managed properly and profittably, 100 "Solyndra"s would have, on their own, been barely noticeable in their impact upon this issue.

Exactly. And the same clowns want to spend trillions.

There are reliable records extending back over much of the last century or so, where a reliable modern trend temperature increase and correlated increases in damages can be can be assessed.

And the increase is due to AGW and not increased population? Increased building? Increased building along shorelines?

Must be some great records you have there. I look forward to your link.

 

[westwall]

Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences.
So why will they all be negative?

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.

You need to get your facts straight. Especially when you have these things whizzing by all the time. Eventually one of them is going to hit the planet. We are finally in a position to prevent that from occuring but you folks would rather waste money on crap like AGW research than do something that really can save civiliisation and possibly human life itself.





Huge Asteroid to Fly by Earth Thursday: How to Watch Online | Space.com

Asteroid 2012 Da14 - How Close Will It Get? 2012 Da14 Asteroid News

 

[westwall]

Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the erectly starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.

Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.

Actually, Numbnuts, it is the intelligent and informed people who recognize the grave dangers to human civilization posed by AGW who want to prevent the death of billions by limiting carbon emissions and it is you deluded denier dupes of the fossil fuel industry who would, through your insane opposition to any effective actions to deal with the climate change crisis, bring about the those billions of deaths as the world food production systems collapse. The accelerating loss of mountain top glaciers alone will cut off the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supplies to billions of people.

And BTW, BigFizzle, your sorry excuse for a brain obviously has no connection to "reality".

And babaganooshes alter ego pops back in.

 

[Big Fitz]

Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.

Actually, Numbnuts, it is the intelligent and informed people who recognize the grave dangers to human civilization posed by AGW who want to prevent the death of billions by limiting carbon emissions and it is you deluded denier dupes of the fossil fuel industry who would, through your insane opposition to any effective actions to deal with the climate change crisis, bring about the those billions of deaths as the world food production systems collapse. The accelerating loss of mountain top glaciers alone will cut off the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supplies to billions of people.

And BTW, BigFizzle, your sorry excuse for a brain obviously has no connection to "reality".

And babaganooshes alter ego pops back in.

Hey! I like Babaganoosh! Roasted eggplant patee is pretty darn tasty.

Booboo got tossed on the ignore pile with Trolling Blunder, Ole Crocks and Trakar for failures in sentient thought.

If it weren't for your quote I'd have never known Trolling Blunder still thinks I read his posts.

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a quick shout out from reality.

The only thing that is supporting the growth of the world's population is the use of Fossil Fuels.

Stop or curtail the use of fossil fuels and you will see the unrestrained advance of famine and the population will retreat to levels that will make all Liberals, at least those who have not starved to death and died in the street, happy beyond all dreams of post apocalyptic delirium.

There will be a huge need for the insects that don't die out in the hard freeze over the winter as the rotting flesh of the erectly starved will need to be disposed of in some manner.

By the by, the mild winter of the USA last winter was matched by a harsh winter elsewhere.

Congrats, you've exposed once again the Chicken Little Cargo Cult Climate Change Chorus' Malthusian roots. They want to bring about death to billions.

Actually, Numbnuts, it is the intelligent and informed people who recognize the grave dangers to human civilization posed by AGW who want to prevent the death of billions by limiting carbon emissions and it is you deluded denier dupes of the fossil fuel industry who would, through your insane opposition to any effective actions to deal with the climate change crisis, bring about the those billions of deaths as the world food production systems collapse. The accelerating loss of mountain top glaciers alone will cut off the drinking and agricultural irrigation water supplies to billions of people.

And BTW, BigFizzle, your sorry excuse for a brain obviously has no connection to "reality".

Billions and billions................


Please that this dolt never becomes a parent...........kids walking around like the wicked witch of the west watching the sky all the time for a house to come falling out of it!!


Guys like this are a result of the feminization of America, compliments of the efforts of the feminist bulldogs..........hysterical over everything.

 

[Trakar]

Western civilization is worth a lot, that's why I'd prefer we not waste trillions on this stupidity.

"Unlikely enough lower to avoid a lot of expensive consequences"

So we'd be better off saving our trillions to pay for the consequences.
So why will they all be negative?

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.

You need to get your facts straight....

Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.

 

[westwall]

Well, as in most things, it is pennies invested now to diminish or eliminate dollars required to deal with the damages later. The damages already outweigh the expenses of changing our practices. A proper pricing of carbon can go a long way toward making a lot of the early transition relatively revenue neutral. There are a lot of ways to address the public policy issues, but that isn't going to happen until enough people decide to make addressing the issues a priority.

"Pennies"? 76 TRILLION dollars spent over a period of decades to possibly prevent the global temp increase of one degree in 100 years is far from pennies. And that according to the IPCC.

You need to get your facts straight....

Please provide a cite and reference for this assertion.

Here's the whole report. Knock yourself out. Below is an excerpt from the UN's press release. with link for it as well. I thought you were current on this, what have you been doing instead of keeping up with the plan?



UN report calls for major investments in new technologies in
developing countries to build green economies
Need for immediate gains in energy efficiency, agricultural
production and disaster reduction
Geneva, 5 July 2011 – Over the next three to four decades, humankind must bring about a fundamental
technological overhaul of production processes worldwide to end poverty and avert the likely
catastrophic impacts of climate change and environmental degradation, the United Nations said in a
report issued today.
Major investments will be needed worldwide in the development and scaling up of clean energy
technologies, sustainable farming and forestry techniques, climate-proofing of infrastructure, and in
technologies reducing non-biodegradable waste production, according to The World Economic and
Social Survey 2011: The Great Green Technological Transformation, published by the UN Department of
Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA).
The report says the technological overhaul will need to be on the scale of the first industrial revolution.
Over the next 40 years, $1.9 trillion per year will be needed for incremental investments in green
technologies. At least one-half, or $1.1 trillion per year, of the required investments will need to be made in
developing countries to meet their rapidly increasing food and energy demands through the application
of green technologies.
Since the first industrial revolution, world income and population have grown exponentially, but so
have energy demand and the production of waste and pollutants (see figures). As a result, the global
environment’s capacity to cope with human activity has reached its limits, according to the report.
About half of the earth’s forests are gone, groundwater resources are being depleted and contaminated,
enormous losses in biodiversity have already occurred, and climate change threatens the stability of all
ecosystems.
At the same time, about 40 per cent of humanity, or 2.7 billion people, rely on traditional biomass, such
as wood, dung and charcoal, for their energy needs. And 20 per cent have no access to electricity,
mainly in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
To achieve a decent living standard for people in developing countries, especially the 1.4 billion still
living in extreme poverty, and the additional 2 billion people expected worldwide by 2050, much greater
economic progress is needed, the report says.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wesspr_en.pdf

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf

 

[Trakar]

It is especially hard to lay all of "solely this at the feet of one factor" when the effect that you cite, warming, started about 250 years before the "factor" you cite, industrialization.

According to the proxies, the climate warmed by more in the years between 1600 and the start of the Industrial Revolution than it has since that time.

This is simply incorrect.

Even the chart you are using indicates a mean temp average warming from 1600 to 1850 of less than 0.2º C, temps have risen (excluding that last 8 years as per your graph) nearly 5x as much, or approximately 1.0º C.

We are about as cool right now as we ever have been as a planet.

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Global Warming Art

Again, simply incorrect, the coolest our planet has been is estimated at around minus 50 C in some of the possible snowball events.