Mad Mike

Downloads for the CIRA Report | Climate Change in the United States: Benefits of Global Action | US EPA

 

Summary of Key Findings: 

Climate change poses significant risks to humans and the environment. The CIRA project quantifies and monetizes the risks of inaction and bene1fits to the U.S. of global GHG mitigation within six broad sectors (water resources, electricity, infrastructure, health, agriculture and forestry, and ecosystems). Looking across the impact estimates presented in this report, several common themes emerge

Global GHG Mitigation Avoids Costly Damages in the U.S.:

For nearly all sectors analyzed, global GHG mitigation is projected to prevent or substantially reduce adverse impacts in the U.S. this century compared to a future without emission reductions. For many sectors, the projected benefits of mitigation are substantial; for example, in 2100 mitigation is projected to result in cost savings of $4.2-$7.4 billion associated with avoided road maintenance. Global GHG mitigation is also projected to avoid the loss of 230,000-360,000 acres of coldwater fish habitat across the country compared to a future without emissions reductions. 

Illegal not to act: Could courts save world from climate change? - environment - 25 June 2015 - New Scientist

 

All governments have a legal duty to protect their citizens from harm. They must therefore do their part to prevent dangerous global warming. And if they fail to act, their citizens can take them to court to compel them. This legal argument has been tested for the first time in the Netherlands. A court ruled yesterday that the government must do much more than it is currently doing. 

 

The Netherlands was aiming to cut its greenhouse emissions by 17 per cent by 2020, but the court has ordered that they must be cut by 25 per cent in the same time frame. "It's an historic case," says James Thornton, head of environmental law firm ClientEarth. "It's revolutionary in terms of requiring the government to do it."

 

The Dutch government can appeal against the decision, but if it loses it will have to come up with a plan for achieving the 25 per cent cut by 2020.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/taxpayers-slapped-with-866615-jet-fuel-bill-for-obamas-earth-day-speech/article/2566914

how come they only act like it is a crisis when they want more money and control?

we are all gonna die....from the Greens exhaust.

And I noticed you didn't address my link. Classic tactic... Can't argue facts? Deflect and change the subject.

I think that the safest and most sane way to look at global warming is that there are costs associated to both lowering carbon output and ignoring the problem and dealing with the consequences of global warming.

The bottom line for me is that while oil and coal profits will take a hit, America can offset that impact on the overall economy by LEADING in alternative energy solutions. Unfortunately Republicans don't seem to believe in American ingenuity and our ability to tackle remaining hurdles in solar and other alternative energy sources. They have no problem with subsidies for oil and coal but they demand that alternative energy gets no such help.

writing is on the wall, people are not enrolling at anywhere near the numbers expected. 

That is NOT in any way shape or form what the link you provided says.

EPA: Limiting Climate Change Would Have Tremendous Benefits For The U.S. | ThinkProgress

 

Acting on climate change will have major economic, environmental, and health benefits, according to a report released Monday by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The report analyzes two future climate change scenarios — one in which “significant global action” on climate change has limited warming to 2°C (3.6°F), and one in which no action on climate change has forced global temperatures to rise 9°F. The report documents the multiple benefits that the U.S would feel if major action is taken on climate change. 

These benefits include a reduction of the frequency of extreme weather events and a lowered risk of extreme temperatures. According to the report, if the world limits warming to 2°C, 49 U.S. cities could avoid 12,000 deaths associated with extreme temperatures every year by 2100. Compared to a scenario with no action on climate change, that’s a 90 percent reduction in annual deaths. The report notes that, if the world doesn’t tackle greenhouse gas emissions, America’s number of extremely hot days is expected to more than triple between 2050 and 2100. And, it adds, the reduction in deaths from extreme cold that is expected to occur will be “more than offset” by the projected increase in heat-related deaths. 

“Climate change is not a belief system — it is a fact. This is science,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told CNN Monday. “So EPA is putting the science on the table. We’re providing all the information, and we’re showing that, in fact, if you actually take action today, you will save significant lives.”

 

In addition, the EPA looked at costs associated with combating climate change, particularly in terms of infrastructure damage. It found that with no action on climate change, annual road immanence costs would increase by $10 billion by the end of the century — whereas with action on climate change, up to $7 billion of those costs could be avoided. The report also looked at the impact climate change will have on bridges. It found that the costs of adapting bridges to climate change if no climate action is taken would total about $170 billion from 2010 to 2050, and $24 billion from 2051 to 2100.

 

Heat wave kills more than 1,100 in India - CNN.com

Heatwave in Pakistan's Sindh province leaves 224 dead - BBC News

Australia Is Melting Under a Horrifying Heatwave | TIME

But hey, "I haz a snowball".

Sculpture by Issac Cordal in Berlin called "Politicians discussing global warming." 

From the article....

"Matt Ridley is an English science journalist whose books include The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. A member of the House of Lords, he has a website at www.mattridley.co.uk. He declares an interest in coal through the leasing of land for mining."

So he is NOT a climate scientist. He's just a guy spreading disinformation who profits from coal.

Funny. I didn't single out your post. (Frankly, twa does it a lot more than you, or at least it seems that way).

And I post from my iPhone, and I'm actually able to type on it. (I'm on the iPad, right now).

Deal with it.

You do realize that my single link post was directly above yours right? You think maybe you can be more specific about your issue next time? It might help avoid further confusion. 

Can we get a board rule prohibiting posts which consist entirely of a link, with no point in the post whatsoever?

What is your friggin issue now? Do you get some special thrill complaining about my posts?

And for the record, when posting from my iPhone i am forced to be brief. Deal with it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2015-06-18/this-year-is-headed-for-the-hottest-on-record-by-a-long-shot

 

We broke the record. Again. 

 

Last month was the hottest May on record, and the past five months were the warmest start to a year on record, according to new data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It's a continuation of trends that made 2014 the most blistering year for the surface of the planet, in records going back to 1880. 

 

The animation below shows the Earth’s warming climate, recorded in monthly measurements from land and sea over more than 135 years. Temperatures are displayed in degrees above or below the 20th-century average. Thirteen of the 14 hottest years are in the 21st century, and 2015 is on track to break the heat record again. It isn't even close.  

I was going to come back and post a quote from this article anyway. But for the record, I have more of a problem with stupid posts and links than brief ones.

Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone | Environment | The Guardian

 

Figures released by the US science agency Noaa on Wednesday show that for the first time since records began, the parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere were over 400 globally for a month.

 

The measure is the key indicator of the amount of planet-warming gases man is putting into the atmosphere at record rates, and the current concentrations are unprecedented in millions of years.

yes, it is why I asked.

ya are wrong on the % btw

You mean James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium is wrong? And you have done a study that refutes him?

Man you are one funny dude.

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

It takes a really "special" person to find something to feed their conformational bias in a report that says 99.9% of published scientists agree that their bias is wrong. LOL

in that review of material did he happen to sort out % of AGW?

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

add

Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

or is very different than and.....so is it and or or

You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you?

in that review of material did he happen to sort out % of AGW?

Warming or the existence of man contributing is rather weak sauce,

add

Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

or is very different than and.....so is it and or or

You do realize that "or" allows for more opportunity to find disagreement don't you?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/06/16/republicans-criticize-pope-on-climate-change-asearth-continues-to-heat-up/#.VYI23or3anN

"NASA’s monthly update on Earth’s average temperature is out, and it shows this past May in a tie with May 2012 for second warmest on record for the month.

Only May of last year was warmer in NASA’s record, which extends back to 1881."

Meanwhile in reality land...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-climate-change-deniers-got-it-very-wrong

"James L. Powell, director of the National Physical Sciences Consortium, reviewed more than 24,000 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published in 2013 and 2014. Only five reject the reality of rising temperatures or the fact that human emissions are the cause, he found.

“It’s now a ruling paradigm, as much an accepted fact in climate science as plate tectonics is in geology and evolution is in biology,” he told msnbc. “It’s 99.9% plus.”

RealClimate: What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

 

A number of things reveal that this is no ordinary scientific meeting:

• Normal scientific conferences have the goal of discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding. Not this one. The organisers are suprisingly open about this in their invitation letter to prospective speakers, which states:
  
  “The purpose of the conference is to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science, and that expensive campaigns to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are not necessary or cost-effective.”

  So this conference is not aimed at understanding, it is a PR event aimed at generating media reports. (The “official” conference goals presented to the general public on their website sound rather different, though – evidently these are already part of the PR campaign.)

• At the regular scientific conferences we attend in our field, like the AGU conferences or many smaller ones, we do not get any honorarium for speaking – if we are lucky, we get some travel expenses paid or the conference fee waived, but often not even this. We attend such conferences not for personal financial gains but because we like to discuss science with other scientists. The Heartland Institute must have realized that this is not what drives the kind of people they are trying to attract as speakers: they are offering $1,000 to those willing to give a talk. This reminds us of the American Enterprise Institute last year offering a honorarium of $10,000 for articles by scientists disputing anthropogenic climate change. So this appear to be the current market prices for calling global warming into question: $1000 for a lecture and $10,000 for a written paper.
• At regular scientific conferences, an independent scientific committee selects the talks. Here, the financial sponsors get to select their favorite speakers. The Heartland website is seeking sponsors and in return for the cash promises “input into the program regarding speakers and panel topics”. Easier than predicting future climate is therefore to predict who some of those speakers will be. We will be surprised if they do not include the many of the usual suspects e.g. Fred Singer, Pat Michaels, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, and other such luminaries. (For those interested in scientists’ links to industry sponsors, use the search function on sites like sourcewatch.org or exxonsecrets.org.)
• Heartland promises a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend.

This is very nice hotel indeed. Our recommendation to those elected officials tempted by the offer: enjoy a great weekend in Manhattan at Heartland’s expense and don’t waste your time on tobacco-science lectures – you are highly unlikely to hear any real science there.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/#sthash.5WJy12Rd.dpuf

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study | Environment | The Guardian

I'm well aware of the dangers of making the wrong choices

 

see California and the drought planning..

 

See NASA 

 

Ignorance comes in many flavors

 

add

 

take this brain fart for example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3113908/How-world-s-biggest-green-power-plant-actually-INCREASING-greenhouse-gas-emissions-Britain-s-energy-bill.html

Between the irony of you accusing others of conformational bias and the idiotic insinuation that NASA (the single most successful scientific organization the world has ever seen) should not be trusted even as you support Ted Cruz in his efforts to get them to NOT EVEN STUDY THE PROBLEM, you have once again proven that there is no limit to the level of stupid your positions can take.

most speakers are paid,some like the Clintons ect,. very,very well......... is there a point?

 

 

Are you assuming the AGW speakers are not getting paid?

You mean like this conference which stipulates that even the speakers must PAY to register?....

Our Common Future under Climate Change

Do you see any fees offered to attend here?

Northwest Climate Conference | Abstracts & Special Sessions

In short, NO. It is NOT common practice to pay scientists to represent set positions.

Here's how you get climate deniers... You pay them to speak.

http://www.realclimate.org/docs/Heartland.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-releases-detailed-global-climate-change-projections

is confirmation bias scientific misconduct or just bad science?

Is willfull ignorance of danger merely stupid or the product of a profound learning disability?

Exxon Mobil CEO: No fracking near my backyard

Keep making **** up TWA. Your alternate (loony) world is almost amusing enough to make your "contributions" to the thread worthwhile.