Climate Change Is Harming U.S. Economy report says

[Paratus]

So what that means is that their standard of living increases so they consume more - even with less children. That seems to escalate the issue long before it has any effect on the number of humans on the planet.

Yes the unfortunate problem we have, from my perspective, is you can't just reduce the amount of power generated by the entire world without negatively impacting quality of life and life span. Significantly reduced power means more people dying earlier.

Doing nothing means reduced quality of life and more people dying later as the climate changes significantly.

To minimize both cases, the only solution I see is to reduce the number of people who require power while simultaneously increasing efficiency.

The only moral way to reduce population is if individuals choose to limit their procreation. The one moral way to do that and that works is by raising everyone's standard of living up to Western European / US / Japanese standards of living. Birth rates will fall and demand for CO2 producing power will as well.

To get there each country shouldn't try and replicate the US/UK method of burning a shit ton of coal. The US could make some bucks however selling natural gas and GE turbines to replace coal fired plants in the short term and next gen Westinghouse reactors and solar and wind products in the long term to places in China, India and Africa.

It would cause an increase in CO2 in the short term but hopefully get us somewhere sustainable with a high quality of living. Market growth could continue with a shrinking population base as long as efficiency gains outpaced population decrease.

I personally think this area is where the political debate needs to happen. Not the denial of the science that shows it's happening and we are the cause.

 

[Jaskalas]

I personally think this area is where the political debate needs to happen. Not the denial of the science that shows it's happening and we are the cause.

Deciding what to do about it requires knowing how much time we have, does it not? That depends entirely on Climate Sensitivity and arguing over the meaning of the past 100+ years of data.

There are men on your side claiming we have no time to do the things you are suggesting. That irreversible doom is imminent. How high do you think CO2 can be allowed to go? 500, 600, 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 ppm? How high do you expect it to go?

It's a safe bet that we're passing all measure of safety if the IPCC is at all competent.

 

[werepossum]

What is sadly ironic is that claims that climate change is damaging the economy will be used to justify devastating the economy.

 

[Jaskalas]

As this is the topic providing P&N with the NCA report, this is where I'll post the rebuttal.

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment

 

[fskimospy]

As this is the topic providing P&N with the NCA report, this is where I'll post the rebuttal.

Scientists Respond to the Obama Administration’s 2014 National Climate Assessment

I STRONGLY recommend everyone looks at the credentials of the scientists issuing that rebuttal. Among the 14 we have:

A mechanical engineer, a geologist, 2 economists, some meteorologists (including a community college meteorology professor and TV personality), some physicists, and a 'retired scientist'. Only about half of the people listed in the 'rebuttal' appear to have any credentials that could even remotely be applied to climatology, and not a single solitary one is a straight out climatologist. (the closest they get is 'environmental science')

Additionally, this 'rebuttal' relies on deceptive arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted. Simply put, this is not only nonsense, but it's such transparent nonsense that anyone should be able to pick up on it. When a group of people feels the need to cite a community college professor and TV meteorologist to lend heft to its argument you should realize it's because they are so full of shit they can't find anyone else.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

 

[shira]

I STRONGLY recommend everyone looks at the credentials of the scientists issuing that rebuttal. Among the 14 we have:

A mechanical engineer, a geologist, 2 economists, some meteorologists (including a community college meteorology professor and TV personality), some physicists, and a 'retired scientist'. Only about half of the people listed in the 'rebuttal' appear to have any credentials that could even remotely be applied to climatology, and not a single solitary one is a straight out climatologist. (the closest they get is 'environmental science')

Additionally, this 'rebuttal' relies on deceptive arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted. Simply put, this is not only nonsense, but it's such transparent nonsense that anyone should be able to pick up on it. When a group of people feels the need to cite a community college professor and TV meteorologist to lend heft to its argument you should realize it's because they are so full of shit they can't find anyone else.

You're being lied to. Wake up.

But all real, actively-publishing climatologists are part of the vast conspiracy to destroy civilization and take us back to the dark ages. So anyone with scientific credentials of any sort who disagrees with the climate consensus must be telling the truth. Even though most of them are being paid by Big Oil, which obviously has no effect on their objectivity.

 

[Jaskalas]

I STRONGLY recommend everyone looks at the credentials of the scientists issuing that rebuttal. Among the 14 we have:

Attack the messenger, ignore the data - check.
Is that all you've got?

1: CO2 GHG theory

EPA’s Greenhouse Gas ‘Hot Spot’ theory is that in the tropics, the mid-troposphere must warm faster than the lower troposphere, and the lower troposphere must warm faster than the surface, all due to rising CO2 concentrations. However, this is totally at odds with multiple robust, consistent, independently-derived empirical datasets...

2: Unusual Warming in recent decades

Recent warming was very similar to the previous warming from 1900 to 1940, reaching virtually the same peak.

This refutes the government claim that recent warming (which occurred when man-made CO2 was rising) was notably different from an era when man-made CO2 was not claimed to be a factor.

3: The Climate Models

These Climate Models are simulations of reality and far from exact solutions of the fundamental physics. The models all forecast rising temperatures beyond 2000 although the GAST trend has recently been flat. See the figure below. This is not surprising because EPA never carried out any published forecast reliability tests. The government’s hugely expensive climate models are monumental failures.

4, 5: Extreme Weather / Hurricanes

According to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,) there is “high agreement” among leading experts that long-term trends in weather disasters are not attributable to our use of fossil fuels.

There's more than what I quote, plenty enough to dispute the NCA report.

 

[fskimospy]

You and your link claimed they were 'scientists'. Pointing out the fact that they are 'scientists' without any expertise in what they are critiquing is not attacking the messenger, it's exposing the fundamental dishonesty of the claim.

As for the arguments contained within, every one of them has been debunked on here previously as far as I can tell. Every one. I genuinely do not understand why you are so content to be duped by duplicitous people.

 

[mrjminer]

You and your link claimed they were 'scientists'. Pointing out the fact that they are 'scientists' without any expertise in what they are critiquing is not attacking the messenger, it's exposing the fundamental dishonesty of the claim.

As for the arguments contained within, every one of them has been debunked on here previously as far as I can tell. Every one. I genuinely do not understand why you are so content to be duped by duplicitous people.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter what a scientist or non-scientist says about the matter. There is not sufficient evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion one way or the other about whether or not we have any significant impact. The fundamental dishonesty lies with anyone professing this is anything beyond an early-stage hypothesis -- or pretty much any "scientist" taking a stance one way or the other.

 

[fskimospy]

Frankly, it doesn't really matter what a scientist or non-scientist says about the matter. There is not sufficient evidence either way to make a definitive conclusion one way or the other about whether or not we have any significant impact. The fundamental dishonesty lies with anyone professing this is anything beyond an early-stage hypothesis -- or pretty much any "scientist" taking a stance one way or the other.

The overwhelming majority of scientists who study this issue disagree with you.

 

[Attic]

At least there is a great excuse to be used why the economy is not picking up.

It's climate change.

Are you a political douchebag and got a problem?, put some climate change on it.

Anyone who disagrees with you is clearly an idiot because everybody knows the climate is indeed changing. Don't get twisted on the man made effects vs naturally occurring climate change, just stick to "climate change*"

Best, excuse, ever.


*Conviently changed from "global warming" so politically minded douchebags can tout any change in the weather as a reason to make a money grab and/or provide cover for failures in expected results. Please see Q1 GDP and keep an eye out for subsequent GDP numbers.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you. Please hand over more power and money to the same entities that have made business out of obsucring and conflating the truth on anything important to your well being and independence and freedom from an oppressive and corrupt system of government control.

But climate change >>> X, I get it.

CLIMATE CHANGE!!! OMG.

Anyone who gave two shits about this cut their consumption years ago.

For the most part, nobody really cares other than as a control mechanism. I know, i'll buy a new car that took massive amounts of energy to develop and build to help out and as long as they call the car "green" i'm covered. Now what new smartphone to buy and where to vacation next. How much shit you got vs me?

 

[mrjminer]

The overwhelming majority of scientists who study this issue disagree with you.

Then I guess they are wrong for choosing to argue against fact, now aren't they?

 

[fskimospy]

Then I guess they are wrong for choosing to argue against fact, now aren't they?

Well one of you is wrong, that's for sure. If you were a third party and you had to decide who was more likely to be wrong in a discussion about the Earth's climate, the overwhelming majority of climate experts, or a guy on the internet, which would you choose?

 

[mrjminer]

Well one of you is wrong, that's for sure. If you were a third party and you had to decide who was more likely to be wrong in a discussion about the Earth's climate, the overwhelming majority of climate experts, or a guy on the internet, which would you choose?

I'd choose the person obviously not using presumption claimed as fact in the place of data that is simply unavailable to anyone on the planet.

The irony is, though, that the truth will probably never be known due to "scientists" presenting hypotheticals as anything other than; it is the equivalent of manipulating data while in the process of testing a hypothesis. I doubt that you would find validity in a claim that fire didn't ignite gasoline if the test of whether a match ignited a canister of gasoline involved someone blowing out the match prior to tossing it in the canister because they simply believed that it would.

Simply put, the data does not exist at this time to state this is anything other than someone's loosely connected dots on potentially irrelevant points of data that are insignificant compared to the amount of data required to draw an actual conclusion.

 

[shira]

At least there is a great excuse to be used why the economy is not picking up.

It's climate change.

Are you a political douchebag and got a problem?, put some climate change on it.

Anyone who disagrees with you is clearly an idiot because everybody knows the climate is indeed changing. Don't get twisted on the man made effects vs naturally occurring climate change, just stick to "climate change*"

Best, excuse, ever.


*Conviently changed from "global warming" so politically minded douchebags can tout any change in the weather as a reason to make a money grab and/or provide cover for failures in expected results. Please see Q1 GDP and keep an eye out for subsequent GDP numbers.

Fucking idiots, the lot of you. Please hand over more power and money to the same entities that have made business out of obsucring and conflating the truth on anything important to your well being and independence and freedom from an oppressive and corrupt system of government control.

But climate change >>> X, I get it.

CLIMATE CHANGE!!! OMG.

Anyone who gave two shits about this cut their consumption years ago.

For the most part, nobody really cares other than as a control mechanism. I know, i'll buy a new car that took massive amounts of energy to develop and build to help out and as long as they call the car "green" i'm covered. Now what new smartphone to buy and where to vacation next. How much shit you got vs me?

From the OP:

The report pins much of the increase in climate change on human behavior.

Furthermore, the term "climate change" has been used to mean man-made climate change since at least 1988 (when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created).

But keep on insisting that "climate change" is just a political word game.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd choose the person obviously not using presumption claimed as fact in the place of data that is simply unavailable to anyone on the planet.

Gotcha. You think that you've cracked the case and basically every climatologist is wrong and you're right. I hope you realize how 1.) incredibly unlikely that is and 2.) how totally unconvincing such an argument is.

The irony is, though, that the truth will probably never be known due to "scientists" presenting hypotheticals as anything other than; it is the equivalent of manipulating data while in the process of testing a hypothesis. I doubt that you would find validity in a claim that fire didn't ignite gasoline if the test of whether a match ignited a canister of gasoline involved someone blowing out the match prior to tossing it in the canister because they simply believed that it would.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible analogy. It's begging the question.

 

[mrjminer]

Gotcha. You think that you've cracked the case and basically every climatologist is wrong and you're right. I hope you realize how 1.) incredibly unlikely that is and 2.) how totally unconvincing such an argument is.



I'm sorry but this is a terrible analogy. It's begging the question.

Gotcha? I've cracked nothing other than the obvious from someone who actually respects that facts are required to prove something. I guess if that's a "gotcha," you got my ass pretty good. Also, my analogy is correct, regardless of your limited capacity to critically think: if you claim that CO2 is responsible for all of these things, while simultaneously manipulating the concentration of CO2, you are, indeed, manipulating the supposed "evidence" on which your conclusion is based. The only question begged here is why you believe that manipulating the objects being tested and then deriving your conclusion thereafter is somehow representative of legitimate conclusion.

I challenge you with the same task I challenge everyone else on "climate change:" prove your claim that climate change exists. Like others, feel free to let me know sometime in the next xx,xxx - xxx,xxx years when sufficient data even suggesting the proof of anything beyond speculation exists. I'm sure the countless number of "scientists" that have no ability to prove their claims, and by which you seem to use as the measure of comparison for how factual the claims are merely by their numbers, are just sitting on the real evidence and hiding it from the world for kicks.

 

[fskimospy]

Gotcha? I've cracked nothing other than the obvious from someone who actually respects that facts are required to prove something. I guess if that's a "gotcha," you got my ass pretty good. Also, my analogy is correct, regardless of your limited capacity to critically think: if you claim that CO2 is responsible for all of these things, while simultaneously manipulating the concentration of CO2, you are, indeed, manipulating the supposed "evidence" on which your conclusion is based. The only question begged here is why you believe that manipulating the objects being tested and then deriving your conclusion thereafter is somehow representative of legitimate conclusion.

What do you mean by 'manipulating the concentration of CO2?'

I challenge you with the same task I challenge everyone else on "climate change:" prove your claim that climate change exists. Like others, feel free to let me know sometime in the next xx,xxx - xxx,xxx years when sufficient data even suggesting the proof of anything beyond speculation exists. I'm sure the countless number of "scientists" that have no ability to prove their claims, and by which you seem to use as the measure of comparison for how factual the claims are merely by their numbers, are just sitting on the real evidence and hiding it from the world for kicks.

What do you mean by 'prove your claim that climate change exists'? I feel like we might be running into some fundamental definition problems here.

 

[Paul98]

Gotcha? I've cracked nothing other than the obvious from someone who actually respects that facts are required to prove something. I guess if that's a "gotcha," you got my ass pretty good. Also, my analogy is correct, regardless of your limited capacity to critically think: if you claim that CO2 is responsible for all of these things, while simultaneously manipulating the concentration of CO2, you are, indeed, manipulating the supposed "evidence" on which your conclusion is based. The only question begged here is why you believe that manipulating the objects being tested and then deriving your conclusion thereafter is somehow representative of legitimate conclusion.

I challenge you with the same task I challenge everyone else on "climate change:" prove your claim that climate change exists. Like others, feel free to let me know sometime in the next xx,xxx - xxx,xxx years when sufficient data even suggesting the proof of anything beyond speculation exists. I'm sure the countless number of "scientists" that have no ability to prove their claims, and by which you seem to use as the measure of comparison for how factual the claims are merely by their numbers, are just sitting on the real evidence and hiding it from the world for kicks.

What specifically about the basic science do you disagree with?

 

[mrjminer]

What do you mean by 'manipulating the concentration of CO2?'

I mean, claiming that man-made climate change is somehow significant, while simultaneously lobbying for businesses / governments to alter their treatment of CO2.

What do you mean by 'prove your claim that climate change exists'? I feel like we might be running into some fundamental definition problems here.

Perhaps. I am under the impression that you are adhering the belief that that man-made climate change is responsible for a significant amount of the temperature fluxes of the planet and that this is somehow a more legitimate claim than it not being. Correct me here if I am wrong, though, because I didn't read through the other 5 pages of the thread

 

[mrjminer]

What specifically about the basic science do you disagree with?

That the "basic science," as you put it, is being treated as fact, rather than purely as the speculation that it is by a significant portion of supposed scientists. Not because I disagree with "basic science" (when referring to it as a non-loaded term), but because the evidence derived from the basic science is being used to justify insane and unsupportable final conclusions.

 

[Paul98]

That the basic science is being treated as fact, rather than purely as the speculation that it is by a significant portion of supposed scientists.

What part of the basic science are you talking about?

 

[fskimospy]

I mean, claiming that man-made climate change is somehow significant, while simultaneously lobbying for businesses / governments to alter their treatment of CO2.

Genuinely I have no idea what that means. Man made climate change IS significant, which is why businesses and governments are being lobbied to alter their treatment of CO2. That seems to make perfect sense. Can you be more clear?

Perhaps. I am under the impression that you are adhering the belief that that man-made climate change is responsible for a significant amount of the temperature fluxes of the planet and that this is somehow a more legitimate claim than it not being. Correct me here if I am wrong, though, because I didn't read through the other 5 pages of the thread

I accept the scientific argument that it is overwhelmingly likely that mankind is responsible for a significant amount of the overall increase in temperature that has taken place over the last 70+ years. This does not mean that it is certain, and in complex systems (or in science in general) you never "prove" things, you just look at how likely they are to be true.

The probability in this case is very, very high. What do you mean by prove?

 

[mrjminer]

Genuinely I have no idea what that means. Man made climate change IS significant, which is why businesses and governments are being lobbied to alter their treatment of CO2. That seems to make perfect sense. Can you be more clear?

See below.

I accept the scientific argument that it is overwhelmingly likely that mankind is responsible for a significant amount of the overall increase in temperature that has taken place over the last 70+ years. This does not mean that it is certain, and in complex systems (or in science in general) you never "prove" things, you just look at how likely they are to be true.

The probability in this case is very, very high. What do you mean by prove?

Prove as in advance it beyond a theory or early hypothesis into law.

 

[fskimospy]

See below.

Prove as in advance it beyond a theory or early hypothesis into law.

This is a misunderstanding of science. For example, gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Etc. Laws do not describe why or how things occur, they simply describe repeatedly observed phenomena. In fact, theories are generally considered to be a higher form of understanding than a law as they describe not only a mechanism but the principles behind that mechanism.

Almost everything you use on a daily basis and the science behind almost everything we do today is based in a large part on theories. You are asking that we apply a different standard to climate change science than we apply to literally every other scientific field that exists.