Sally Vix wrote:
Smarter than ewe wrote:
Sure it will cool again. But like Fat Hurts said, we'll be extinct due to our impact on climate change by then.
So, you are saying that when the Earth cools in maybe 30 years or 300 years, the human population will have been wiped out? Is that what you are saying?
If you think the Earth will cool in the next 30 to 300 years then you are saying you know more than the climate scientists.
You don't.
Fat hurts wrote:
On the Fence wrote:
Can you point me to it. I assumed that since you stated it, you could attach the billions of lives lost and trillions of dollars lost to each one.
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
Where will those billions of people that will be killed live? How will they die?
Fat hurts wrote:
On the Fence wrote:
Can you point me to it. I assumed that since you stated it, you could attach the billions of lives lost and trillions of dollars lost to each one.
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
No thanks on the David Wallace Book! Al Gore's An inconvenient Truth was full of mistatements, propaganda and lies. No, no need to read another garbage book on the subject. If you had an objective book on the subject, I could be persuaded to read but Gore, Wallace and any other propoganda crap- no thanks!
On the Fence wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
Does it have the dollar figures attached and lives lost to each of those things you mentioned?
Yes.
Fat hurts wrote:
On the Fence wrote:
Does it have the dollar figures attached and lives lost to each of those things you mentioned?
Yes.
Can you post those figures?
Askin' for a Friend wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
Where will those billions of people that will be killed live? How will they die?
This has me intrigued too.
How many years will it take climate change to kill 1 billion people.
I believe it's real, but would love to find out how these #s are derived.
Askin' for a Friend wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
Where will those billions of people that will be killed live? How will they die?
Oh my! Such cute rhetoric!
You are so very clever. No really, I mean that. You are so very, very clever!
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
So, you are saying that when the Earth cools in maybe 30 years or 300 years, the human population will have been wiped out? Is that what you are saying?
If you think the Earth will cool in the next 30 to 300 years then you are saying you know more than the climate scientists.
You don't.
My track record on Global Warming over the last 30 years versus the climate "scientists" is fair superior to theirs. Take a weekend and read the IPCC reports - just a joke. My record on Global Warming far surpasses theirs.
Hardloper wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are dead wrong. And that attitude will kill billions of people. My projections are based on scientific studies. Your projections are stuff you just made up.
I am right. I have read your projections (I assume your talking about the National Climate Assessment). They said they projected the impact will be 10% of GDP over the next 100 years.
First of all, 10% of GDP over 100 years equals less than 0.1% per year compounded. If the GDP grows by 2.9% instead of 3%, that's 10% less after 100 years. That means unless the the fix costs less than 0.1% of GDP per year (whether by taxes and spending or suppressed growth by regulation), then it's not economically practical.
Second of all, 100-year economic projections are literally NEVER accurate, because as I've shown above, tiny 0.1% changes have a huge impact on the final result. It doesn't matter how "scientific" they are. No one accurately forecasted where we are today even 10 years ago, and no one will accurately project where we will be in 10 years let alone 100.
You are wrong. And I think your math is probably messed up. But since I don't know where you got your figures I can't see what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you can point me to where in the report you got that from.
But just go to the summary of the assessment:
With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.
That's losses of hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.
You also fail to consider that green energy leads to zero-cost electricity, which grows the economy.
You are arguing that if we do something to combat climate change then it might not work and it will turn out bad.
The problem with that argument is that if we do nothing we KNOW it will turn out bad.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
If you think the Earth will cool in the next 30 to 300 years then you are saying you know more than the climate scientists.
You don't.
My track record on Global Warming over the last 30 years versus the climate "scientists" is fair superior to theirs. Take a weekend and read the IPCC reports - just a joke. My record on Global Warming far surpasses theirs.
You have no track record.
You do not know more than the climate scientists.
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I am right. I have read your projections (I assume your talking about the National Climate Assessment). They said they projected the impact will be 10% of GDP over the next 100 years.
First of all, 10% of GDP over 100 years equals less than 0.1% per year compounded. If the GDP grows by 2.9% instead of 3%, that's 10% less after 100 years. That means unless the the fix costs less than 0.1% of GDP per year (whether by taxes and spending or suppressed growth by regulation), then it's not economically practical.
Second of all, 100-year economic projections are literally NEVER accurate, because as I've shown above, tiny 0.1% changes have a huge impact on the final result. It doesn't matter how "scientific" they are. No one accurately forecasted where we are today even 10 years ago, and no one will accurately project where we will be in 10 years let alone 100.
You are wrong. And I think your math is probably messed up. But since I don't know where you got your figures I can't see what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you can point me to where in the report you got that from.
But just go to the summary of the assessment:
With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.
That's losses of hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.
You also fail to consider that green energy leads to zero-cost electricity, which grows the economy.
You are arguing that if we do something to combat climate change then it might not work and it will turn out bad.
The problem with that argument is that if we do nothing we KNOW it will turn out bad.
zero-cost electricity?
i want some of what you're smokin'
Fat hurts wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
My track record on Global Warming over the last 30 years versus the climate "scientists" is fair superior to theirs. Take a weekend and read the IPCC reports - just a joke. My record on Global Warming far surpasses theirs.
You have no track record.
You do not know more than the climate scientists.
The fact that I may not have a track record puts me way in front of these so-called climate "scientists" who have been wrong, wrong and wrong again. Fat, why would you ever put any credence in these people who are never right?
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I am right. I have read your projections (I assume your talking about the National Climate Assessment). They said they projected the impact will be 10% of GDP over the next 100 years.
First of all, 10% of GDP over 100 years equals less than 0.1% per year compounded. If the GDP grows by 2.9% instead of 3%, that's 10% less after 100 years. That means unless the the fix costs less than 0.1% of GDP per year (whether by taxes and spending or suppressed growth by regulation), then it's not economically practical.
Second of all, 100-year economic projections are literally NEVER accurate, because as I've shown above, tiny 0.1% changes have a huge impact on the final result. It doesn't matter how "scientific" they are. No one accurately forecasted where we are today even 10 years ago, and no one will accurately project where we will be in 10 years let alone 100.
You are wrong. And I think your math is probably messed up. But since I don't know where you got your figures I can't see what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you can point me to where in the report you got that from.
But just go to the summary of the assessment:
With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.
That's losses of hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.
You also fail to consider that green energy leads to zero-cost electricity, which grows the economy.
You are arguing that if we do something to combat climate change then it might not work and it will turn out bad.
The problem with that argument is that if we do nothing we KNOW it will turn out bad.
Where are these 100s of billions/year lost from?
Which economic sectors will these losses occur from?
Is this net or gross losses>?
Fat hurts wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I am right. I have read your projections (I assume your talking about the National Climate Assessment). They said they projected the impact will be 10% of GDP over the next 100 years.
First of all, 10% of GDP over 100 years equals less than 0.1% per year compounded. If the GDP grows by 2.9% instead of 3%, that's 10% less after 100 years. That means unless the the fix costs less than 0.1% of GDP per year (whether by taxes and spending or suppressed growth by regulation), then it's not economically practical.
Second of all, 100-year economic projections are literally NEVER accurate, because as I've shown above, tiny 0.1% changes have a huge impact on the final result. It doesn't matter how "scientific" they are. No one accurately forecasted where we are today even 10 years ago, and no one will accurately project where we will be in 10 years let alone 100.
You are wrong. And I think your math is probably messed up. But since I don't know where you got your figures I can't see what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you can point me to where in the report you got that from.
But just go to the summary of the assessment:
With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states.
That's losses of hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.
You also fail to consider that green energy leads to zero-cost electricity, which grows the economy.
You are arguing that if we do something to combat climate change then it might not work and it will turn out bad.
The problem with that argument is that if we do nothing we KNOW it will turn out bad.
bro, you're throwing out a lot of wild claims here but never give any specifics or data to back it up
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.
If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.
No thanks on the David Wallace Book! Al Gore's An inconvenient Truth was full of mistatements, propaganda and lies. No, no need to read another garbage book on the subject. If you had an objective book on the subject, I could be persuaded to read but Gore, Wallace and any other propoganda crap- no thanks!
I didn't expect you to read it. Everything in his book is well documented. But since you know more than the climate scientists, why bother?
I just turned to a random page. It says:
In 2018, the Union of Concerned Scientists found that nearly 311,000 homes in the United States would be risk of chronic inundation [by water] by 2045 -- a timespan, as they pointed out, no longer than a mortgage. By 2100, the number would be more than 2.4 million properties, or $1 trillion worth of American real estate--underwater.
Sally Vix wrote:
My track record on Global Warming over the last 30 years versus the climate "scientists" is fair superior to theirs. Take a weekend and read the IPCC reports - just a joke. My record on Global Warming far surpasses theirs.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA, come on DiscoGary! You have no track record over the past 30 years. You are a joke, my friend.
No free lunch wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You are wrong. And I think your math is probably messed up. But since I don't know where you got your figures I can't see what you are actually talking about. Perhaps you can point me to where in the report you got that from.
But just go to the summary of the assessment:
That's losses of hundreds of billions of dollars EVERY YEAR.
You also fail to consider that green energy leads to zero-cost electricity, which grows the economy.
You are arguing that if we do something to combat climate change then it might not work and it will turn out bad.
The problem with that argument is that if we do nothing we KNOW it will turn out bad.
zero-cost electricity?
i want some of what you're smokin'
You can get zero-cost electricity today if you want it. Just put solar panels on your roof and add three or four Tesla power walls. Then you can disconnect from the grid and get all your power for free.
There is a large up front cost. It's going to be around $50,000. But depending on where you live, the system will pay for itself in less than 15 years. After that, you get another 15 years of free electricity.
So if we improve the technology, we can extend the same principle to the entire power grid. There is still a big upfront cost, but eventually, the system pays for itself and we enjoy electricity that is essentially free from then on.
And with improvements in technology and infrastructure, the payback period gets shorter.
I think Arizona is on its way to becoming a blue state. Or least an anti-Trump state with his John McCain insults.
Colorado seems pretty blue these days
Maine is normally blue and they may be upset with Susan Collins voting to confirm Kavanaugh
North Carolina is a mess. They are trying to become blue but established Republicans have been doing some shady voter suppression.
With Georgia, Stacey Abrams got a lot of people to register to vote and that state seems to be on a blue track.
Montana actually has a history of Democrat senators. The current seat up for reelection is a Republican but that seat had a Democrat senator form 1913-2015, over 100 years straight. And their other senator is Democrat John Tester.
4 out of those 6 is doable.
I don't know about any other seat but would have thought that the Democrats would have gotten Jeff Sessions seat in Alabama.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
You have no track record.
You do not know more than the climate scientists.
The fact that I may not have a track record puts me way in front of these so-called climate "scientists" who have been wrong, wrong and wrong again. Fat, why would you ever put any credence in these people who are never right?
Science works. That's why.
Why are leftists so angry and violent all the time? Enjoy life a little. Quit being mean to everyone.