The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Lets assume for argument sake that global warming is fact, and that global temperatures will rise 2C in a hundred years.

What is the consensus on the net effects of the temperature rise? It's quite clear that cold temperatures are bad for humans, and that winter lows kill more people than summer highs. Some argue that the net benefits of global warming outweigh the negative consequences.

Even the IPCC says storms have not been getting worse with the rising temperatures, yet. "no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century".

This link says that global warming has been a small but net positive benefit to humans, and will continue to be a net positive until 2080, at which point it will be a small net negative.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/

The debate of whether global temperature rise is more the fault of humans, or more the result of nature is extremely boring. It doesn't have any bearing on if those changes are good or bad, or if we should do a little or a lot to fight the change.

It will be the end of the world as you know it.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

On CBS this morning they are saying in 2040 will see lots of sea level rise, the Bahamas and maldeeves will be gone.

They are saying the sea level could rise 5 to 7 feet, they infer that it will happen during this time.
Which we know isn't going to happen.

So more lies and deception from the believers.

But the maldeeves already spent their UN climate change money on multiple, multi million dollar beach resorts.
They were laughing all the way to the bankwith that check, the laughed harder when it cleared.
I know some one who went there last summer so the islands and resorts are there.
She posted lot and lots of pictures to fb and they don't look like they are struggling at all.

They have been wrong for the last 20 years, I bet they are going to wrong for the next 20 years too.

the October,12,2018 NEWSWEEK mentioned that,over the last 100-years,sea-level has gone up between 4 and 8-inches.
Seal-level rise is not uniformly distributed around the globe.
The Eastern US is particularly vulnerable due to subsidence and is likely to suffer an additional 4-to-9 inches.
The worst-case-scenario is a hurricane storm surge,on top of a King Tide,with wind-blown waves on top.
Superstorm Sandy was an 11-foot surge.They haven't recovered from that storm in 2012.
Florence was 20-feet.
Michael is predicted to be around 12-feet at Panama City.
That same storm in 2100 would be 16-feet.
You'd have to build a 16-ft sea wall from Maine to Florida to protect the trillions in property.
If the Twaite's Glacier goes in Antarctica,we could be looking at 16-feet of rise in a very short time.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

So we have some global warming deniers, and we have many global warming supporters; do we have any global warming supporters who also think it might be a net good for humans, if only in the short term?

If a tree is falling in your direction, you wouldn't launch an investigation as to whether the wind blew it over, or someone pushed it. Instead you'd assess if it's going to hit you and figure out which direction you need to go.

The climatologists say that while there will be some benefits,they're far out shadowed by problems.And we don't want to go there.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by sendler

I'm in a forth category. A climate change believer that is pragmatic to understand that we have a much bigger problem than too much carbon. Which is too little carbon. When the liquid fuel turns the corner on availability in 20 years the price will sky rocket and wreck the world economy beyond all redemption. There will be a Great Simplification.

I hear what you're saying,but as Kunstler mentioned in 'The Long Emergency',what you're saying is predicated upon 'current' consumption.
If an energy Pearl Harbor were declared,as some climatologists advocate (I belong to this camp),consumption could be severely curtailed,as has been done in two previous world wars.
We don't have to build for a world in which Barbie and Ken make eleven trips to town everyday.In a HUMMER or G-Wagon.
And price volatility of oil especially is a reason to get away from it as fast as we possibly can.And we can,with off-the-shelf technology.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The last time my house in Virginia almost flooded was 1960. If 20% of what they said was true then I should have had a boat instead of a car in my drive way.

So because the ipcc can admit some predictions were wrong and don't preach about immediate impending disaster they are fake?

An example which has been cited is the IPCC Report#5.
40-climate models were collected and an algorithm was written to process all 40 simultaneously.
The output created a range of outcomes and probabilities for each.
Since the IPCC can't yell 'FIRE' in the theater,they choose scenarios with higher probabilities and confidence.They're not out to freak people out,especially the world markets.
Probability is really all they have.Just like drilling for oil.The geologist will do the best they can,but you still might end up with a dry hole.

[oil pan 4]

So the ipcc isn't fake?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

How do they propose to use a state constitution to steer private enterprise. That sounds dicey.



For the coal-fired airships, the attitude rockets could be fluidized nano-scale coal particles. But for ships the Thorium in the coal should be used in fission.

PBS recently broadcast,'DARK MONEY',on Point of View (POV).
Essentially what the story is about is how:
*Koch Brothers setup 501 C-4 non-profit corporations.
*The 501-C-4s funnel unlimited oil money into political campaigns,via,Citizens United vs US,and the 'due process' clause of the 14th Amendment,and control of the US Fair Election Committee.
*Attack ads show up 3-days before election day,and candidates have no time to rebut the ads before election.
*Koch-friendly candidates win the elections and go to work on the Koch agenda,and Koch never has to lobby any more,since they 'own' the elected official.
It's really quite exquisite!
A North Dakota politician got caught,but he only had to pay a $67,000 fine,and he's still in office.
These are the people who will amend their state constitutions to the advantage of business.It goes back to Roman times.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

So the ipcc isn't fake?

It's what we have.And it isn't perfect,but we never get perfection,accept maybe in pure mathematics.
Rather than run around with their hair on fire, screaming at the top of their lungs that we're doomed,they've been attempting to create a framework and policies to deal with the issue.It's very bureaucratic and moves at a glacial pace (maybe we shouldn't use that expression anymore).It involves quadrillions of dollars.
We knew about the greenhouse effect in 1859.
Arrhenius Svante crunched some numbers for it also in the 19th century.
No one was looking for global warming when they hit on it.
Even the US Air Force has had problems with it,related to Cold War missile guidance systems.
Their just trying to give folks a heads up,like watch out for rattle snakes.

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I don't see how people could be at all worried about this and still live below sea level on the coast.

Worried, no. Coping.

[redpoint5]

I don't like the intermingling of business and politics as it corrupts those who should be working on behalf of all people by special interests.

That said, the Koch brothers are humanists and their agendas are motivated by promoting well-being for people. They have campaigned for politicians on both sides of the aisle, and promote ideas, not particular political groups, and have even pushed agendas that went against their economic interests.

Perhaps they are sometimes wrong about how best to serve humanity, but it seems clear to me their actions are in consideration for what is best for people, not necessarily what is best for their pocketbooks.

Considering the great good oil has done for humanity in the past 200 years, it's not unreasonable for humanists to want to promote continued fossil fuel use.