The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[freebeard]

I truly believe that they mean well....
They'd want to surround themselves with the smartest people available for all the specifics.
You might write to them and offer your expertise.Show 'em how the cow eats the cabbage.

For our international audience: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+the+cow+eats+the+cabbage

The Green New Deal is the product of a specific world view. It envisions total government control of the economy. It's the end-game of the Frankfurt School Marxists.

The person AOC defeated (Crowley) would otherwise be the Speaker of the House, but even Nancy Pelosi isn't buying it. When the President called for unity in the SOTU address, she reached up and shifted her red and blue necklace to her right.

The last picture I saw of AOC, she had a tear rolling down her cheek.

edit:
It's hard to keep up. The Louisiana Purchase is socialism?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Lol, I'd like to see anything at all get done when there's zero accountability and zero profit motive.

I don't see an issue with respect to accountability.You own the means of production.Your as much a stakeholder as anyone else.You wouldn't need a freedom of information act to have access to the books.Again,it's YOUR facility.
Profit isn't the object.Getting the majority of the population access to to technology which lowers demand and simultaneously provides for demand,with the lowest conceivable cost renewable energy sources is the goal.
You're fighting a war!
After the war is won,we can talk about relaxing some restrictions.
The American people have all the real wealth.You're just building the equivalent of a national SAM's Club or COSCO which owns the manufacturing which provided the store's inventory, and you sell it to yourself at the lowest cost.Why would you not.
Sure,you've got fixed overhead,but you're not dragged down with advertising costs (which can exceed the cost of the product itself),redundant R&D to get around patent infringement,sales commissions,fancy,wasteful,hey look at me bling architecture,expensive real estate,etc.,expensive boards of directors,CEOs,COOs,attorneys,lackeys,sycophants,s ociopaths.
Capitalism couldn't possibly compete.You can use that for more worthless consumer products which don't impact the environment (if you can find any).

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What were the profits due to global warming? Where can I look that data up?

Until population decreases due to increased deaths (as opposed to decreased births), the evidence just isn't there. FEMA probably should go away. People shouldn't be insulated from the risk of building their homes below sea level, or in flood or tornado prone areas. People have the right to buy the level of insurance they are comfortable with. It's up to insurance actuaries to calculate the risk.

The reason you'll have difficulty is because the economists didn't do the research in the first place.That's why we have global warming.
Are you going to pay me for the research? A PhD across the street is making $175,000/year.I'll answer your expensive questions for that.
Are your fingers broken?
Do you think I'm not busy enough?

[redpoint5]

My point isn't that I lack time to research (though I do as much as anyone else), it's that nobody is interested in researching the positive benefits of anything.

BTW, cold has killed far more people than heat, including during the hottest years on record, and the difference isn't even close (like a factor of 20 not close).

[freebeard]

The American people have all the real wealth.You're just building the equivalent of a national SAM's Club or COSCO which owns the manufacturing which provided the store's inventory, and you sell it to yourself at the lowest cost.Why would you not.
[snip]
Capitalism couldn't possibly compete.

Sounds to me like anarcho-capitalism.

The reason you'll have difficulty is because the economists didn't do the research in the first place.That's why we have global warming.
Are you going to pay me for the research? A PhD across the street is making $175,000/year.I'll answer your expensive questions for that.
Are your fingers broken?
Do you think I'm not busy enough?

Myself, I don't know what to think. War-time footing? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=livingry

[All Darc]

Cold kills a lot of homeless and crack users and deep drunkers that fall on streets and parks.
Heat kills more old people specially if they have no air conditioner.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

BTW, cold has killed far more people than heat, including during the hottest years on record, and the difference isn't even close (like a factor of 20 not close).

About population... when population reduced there will be a rise of dumb people due "reverse eugenics" and poor culture, since intelligent people today tends to have one or no kids, while stupid people have 2, 3, 4, and during young are, with less economic conditions.
We will also have some rise in crime and agressive tendencies, since dumb and also agressive people have more kids.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The other night on the news they mentioned that NASA/NOAA said that the last 4-years were the hottest ever recorded,and 20-out of the last 22-years are the warmest.


In the last 30-years,more people have died from heat-related deaths than from any other weather-related cause.


Between 2015 and 2017,heat-related deaths were up 82%.


In the summer of 2017,Maricopa,County,Arizona,alone, saw 182 heat-related deaths,1,720-hospitalizations,and 6,880 emergency room visits.


By 2030 an additional 250,000/year are expected to die from heat-related causes.

#1

Need context. How much warming? Method(s) used? If landbased, how many stations used? How many stations added or deleted during the recorded period? Locations of added or deleted stations? Satellite data ? Ocean temp Satellite data was found to have had a algorithm problem. Supposedly corrected. Need a lot more info.

#2

How many people? What percentage? Has the percentage changed? How much has the population increased during the time period? What was the criteria used to determine the outcome? Has the criteria changed during the length of the study period?


#3

How many heated related deaths exactly? What is the criteria for heat related death? Has the criteria changed? Who determines heat related deaths?


#4

What is the percentage difference from previous years? What is the criteria? Has it changed over the years? Has the population increased? Who determines it heat related?

#5

In Arizona? The U.S.? The world? ???

By the year 2030 it is estimated that 1.2 Billion more people will be added to the face of the Earth for a total of 8.2 Billion.

250,000 as a percentage doesn’t even make a dent...


Percentages and numbers that are inter changed skew results.

Percentages and numbers mean nothing without context or methodology.


Just wanted to point it out.

(Not asking you to validate your post. We all have better things to do)








Edit

#5

Might be a world number.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/weath...aths/27657269/

Cold weather is 20 times as deadly as hot weather, and it's not the extreme low or high temperatures that cause the most deaths, according to a study published Wednesday.

The study found the majority of deaths occurred on moderately hot and moderately cold days instead of during extreme temperatures.

"Although the risk of mortality due to extremely cold or hot days is actually higher, they are less frequent," said lead author Antonio Gasparrini of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

The study — published in the British journal The Lancet — analyzed data on more than 74 million deaths in 13 countries between 1985 and 2012. Of those, 5.4 million deaths were related to cold, while 311,000 were related to heat.

>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

The other night on the news they mentioned that NASA/NOAA said that the last 4-years were the hottest ever recorded,and 20-out of the last 22-years are the warmest.
In the last 30-years,more people have died from heat-related deaths than from any other weather-related cause.
Between 2015 and 2017,heat-related deaths were up 82%.
In the summer of 2017,Maricopa,County,Arizona,alone, saw 182 heat-related deaths,1,720-hospitalizations,and 6,880 emergency room visits.
By 2030 an additional 250,000/year are expected to die from heat-related causes.

That's going to be nothing compared to when electricity and gas infrastructure fail during a cold winter since only around 1 or 2% of people have home heating that will function with out electricity or gas.
A few million people could easily die after several days with no electricity and gas over a large area.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I truly believe that they mean well.They may possess no more climate-related education then the next guy on the street.Don't know.
They'd want to surround themselves with the smartest people available for all the specifics.
The impossible takes a little longer,we'll have to see where all this goes.
You might write to them and offer your expertise.Show 'em how the cow eats the cabbage.

They don't mean well. It's a power grab pure and simple.
I believe you can't fix stupid and these people have gone full retard. My time would be better spent cutting fire wood rather than try and tell them about something that they clearly can't even begin to comprehend.

[RedDevil]

I cannot believe that this discussion is still dragging on.

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that:
- We do burn a lot of fossil fuel
- CO2 is building up in the atmosphere and seas
- CO2 in the upper atmosphere is reflecting heat, creating a blanket effect
- This causes global temperature rise
- This will melt the glaciers and ice caps, cause a sea level rise and massive loss of land and infrastructure.

So there is a problem. What to do about it?

There is no simple way to extract the carbon from the atmosphere at the rate it gets pumped in. So we need to somehow reduce the carbon input.
There are several ways to do that:
- by improving the economy of heating, transport and production processes
- by preventing spillage
- by generating power in different ways: nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, wave, etc.
- by optimizing power usage by smart storage systems and delaying or distributing non time essential usage (Like EV top level charging).

We can't pick a favorite there; we'll need all. And even then we can't banish fossil fuel completely, but hopefully we can reduce it enough to stabilize the carbon level.

There's no time to waste though.