24 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo it it definitely IS cheaper to prevent rather than to adapt to it just exactly like I very strongly suspected!
Preventing catastrophic climate change is [much] cheaper than not preventing it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/22/preventing-global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting
Metal Brain
This makes my point. Look at what this scientific study shows (posted by googlefudge ) and come back to us:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/22/preventing-global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyMoving is part of life. We have all done it, but you make it seem like is a be all, end all event. Dude, life goes on and those that adapt survive and those that do not go extinct. Man is very adaptable and will survive even a waterworld like future.People will adapt and do fine. People will have decades to prepare and move to higher altitudes if needed.
So, rather than take cost-effective action ( and there is now such technologically available cost-effective action that we can choose ) of preventing that sea level rise, are you saying here it would be better to let that sea level r ...[text shortened]... e has absolutely nothing to do with why I think what I do - science is the actual reason.
I would like to know your proposed solution to global worming. Is it a tax? I would like to know.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Moving is part of life. We have all done it, but you make it seem like is a be all, end all event. Dude, life goes on and those that adapt survive and those that do not go extinct. Man is very adaptable and will survive even a waterworld like future.
I would like to know your proposed solution to global worming. Is it a tax? I would like to know.
Moving is part of life. We have all done it,
right, but, so far, not forced to due to preventable sea level rise which is the fault of previous generations -big difference.
Man is very adaptable and will survive even a waterworld like future.
is that a reason to CAUSE a waterworld like future when we know we can prevent it?
Why would it be less bad to prevent it so we don't ever NEED to adapt to it?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyWaterworld will never happen. I'm just pointing out that man is adaptable.Moving is part of life. We have all done it,
right, but, so far, not forced to due to preventable sea level rise which is the fault of previous generations -big difference.Man is very adaptable and will survive even a waterworld like future.
is that a reason to CAUSE a waterworld like future when we know we can prevent it?
Why would it be less bad to prevent it so we don't ever NEED to adapt to it?
What is your proposed solution? Is it a tax?
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeHere is an excerpt from the link you posted:
Preventing catastrophic climate change is [much] cheaper than not preventing it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/22/preventing-global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting
"The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming."
In other words nobody knows. That undercuts the whole premise of the article. Inconclusive and therefore meaningless. Just another opinion piece without merit.
25 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainSea level will rise significantly if we do nothing. The solution is, extremely obviously, go all renewable energy -this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology. The only real current barrier is politics.
Waterworld will never happen. I'm just pointing out that man is adaptable.
What is your proposed solution? Is it a tax?
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by Metal Brain"nobody knows" the correct estimate, NOT that serious damage will be done because it is OBVIOUS that serious damage will be done if we do nothing.
Here is an excerpt from the link you posted:
"The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming."
In other words nobody knows. That undercuts the whole premise of the article. Inconclusive and therefore meaningless. Just another opinion piece without merit.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by humy"this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology. The only real current barrier is politics."
Sea level will rise significantly if we do nothing. The solution is, extremely obviously, go all renewable energy -this would be cost effective thanks to advances in renewable technology. The only real current barrier is politics.
What is your source of information?
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhich piece of information? that there would be serious damage if the sea level rises significantly? more hurricanes, floods and droughts ( and the inevitable famines in some places that would result ) isn't serious damage? That basic physics tells us that these things will happen if we do nothing?
What is your source of information?
OK, try:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/folger-text
does that help?
How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
the scientists that have done the research know a lot more about it than you do so why do you arrogantly think you know all about it and better? What research have you done on it that the scientists haven't? Where do YOU get your information from that there is NO man made warming (is that what you actually believe? ) other than none science sources?
Not even I pretend to know about it as well as they do ( outside my area of expertise ) and yet I seem to know a lot more about it than you do so why cannot you believe them let alone me?
here is some of the basic evidence:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused
"...How do we know humans cause global warming?
Many are still asking is current global warming natural or human caused? The idea that global warming is natural is not an absurd question. In the natural cycle, global warming is natural. The better question is, 'is current global warming natural'? There are multiple lines of evidence that point us to the origin of our current warming:
Greenhouse gases trap infrared heat energy.
The isotopic signature clearly shows that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from fossil fuels.
We are no longer in the natural cycle. We have largely departed from the natural course of climate and there is no natural mechanism that explains it.
The models and the observations match.
There is simply no other mechanism that can explain the significantly altered climate path and the changes in the radiative forcing other than human causes.
To understand why 'this current' global warming is human caused and not natural cycle, one needs to get an idea of what the natural cycle is and what are the basic mechanisms that cause climate change in the natural cycle. The absolute essentials that you need to understand are the drivers:
Greenhouse Gases
Milankovitch Cycles
To get a more detailed understanding of the mechanisms, you need to learn a little about:
Radiative Forcing
Natural Variability
Climate Feedbacks
Climate Models
Weather vs. Climate
..."
Do you deny any of the facts that I have highlighted above? if so, exactly which ones and why? -where is YOUR evidence?
it then explains each of the above. Read it all then come back to us.
25 Apr 14
Originally posted by humyYou should read the views of scientists with a different opinion than yourself so you have a better understanding of climate change. I like Fred Singer and how he explains the facts, but read the other scientist's opinions before dismissing them. I suspect you avoid the views of anybody that disagrees with you and that gives you a false sense of certainty.
Which piece of information? that there would be serious damage if the sea level rises significantly? more hurricanes, floods and droughts ( and the inevitable famines in some places that would result ) isn't serious damage? That basic physics tells us that these things will happen if we do nothing?
OK, try:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/risin ...[text shortened]... where is YOUR evidence?
it then explains each of the above. Read it all then come back to us.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
I'm still waiting for your source of info on the renewables if you have one.
25 Apr 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You should read the views of scientists with a different opinion than yourself so you have a better understanding of climate change. I like Fred Singer and how he explains the facts, but read the other scientist's opinions before dismissing them. I suspect you avoid the views of anybody that disagrees with you and that gives you a false sense of certaint ...[text shortened]... f_global_warming
I'm still waiting for your source of info on the renewables if you have one.
You should read the views of scientists with a different opinion than yourself
You mean the very tiny minority of cranks that happen to have some science qualifications rather than the overwhelming majority of scientists that accept scientific fact as fact and state the science facts of climate change? -err, no. I should not. No point. I have seen their nonsense and I and others have debunked their nonsense on countless occasion. I will not waste any more of my time on them.
Actually, I don't form my opinion from the mere word of the scientists (not even the good ones ) but rather my opinion forms from the science.
I'm still waiting for your source of info on the renewables if you have one
why “info on the renewables”? What KIND of “info” on renewables? What? Are you suddenly now a “renewable” denier as well i.e. you deny renewables exist?