It wasn't me, I was quoting an expert, I have no reason to think he doesn't know his oats. Now, why should I give you any credence?
The sky isn't falling, the temperatures are rising as is the sea. "We're past the tipping point." Doesn't that mean anything to you? If not, I have to think you're been bought and sold like so many other people.
I tend not to talk out of my ass
Our electric bills in the summer are ridiculous due to the AC - $300-$400 per month. Hopefully it'll be lower this year.
Not sure if yours offers it but my power co offers "level billing". They basically average your yearly power usage and you pay the same thing every month. Personally I don't sign up because while the summer bills suck ass I like the really cheap bills in the winter.
:thumbsup: Perspective is everything!This is wise, because this is when relatively more expensive stouts, porters, and overall higher ABV beers start appearing in the markets compared to the cheap and crappy lager-style beers in the summer.
This is wise, because this is when relatively more expensive stouts, porters, and overall higher ABV beers start appearing in the markets compared to the cheap and crappy lager-style beers in the summer.
You know I would give some credence to that if a SINGLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST has predicted the increasing ice in Antarctica. They all predicted the opposite. NOW they can explain why it happened but I sure as hell put no credence in their predictive capabilities about the impact of a warming climate and neither should you. They always predict the worst and then explain why it didn't happen. This cycle has occurred all my life. The oil would definitely run out by 2000, the population bomb would wipe out humanity, etc.... What these scientists can not predict and never have predicted is how advancing technology inevitably overcomes with ridiculous ease the worst predictions they make.
The HARD limit is when the fossil fuels become so rare as to be economically unfeasible. That will happen. THAT IS THE TIMELINE ULTIMATELY THAT HUMANITY HAS TO SWITCH OVER. All the fearmongering in the world is not going to change that.
The reason it's hard to predict/measure is the same reason the temperature in any specific room in the house is hard to predict at any given time even if you gradually turn up the thermostat or add insulation year after year. The basic physic of warming is pretty straightforward: add more greenhouse gases and the environment will retain more heat.
Also, most of those other "predictions" aren't exactly made by any sort of rigorous science, but the layman often has trouble discerning the difference.
Well that is the rub. There is no need to stop global warming ABSENT objective measurable data that indicates that the ill effects are so horrible too vastly outweigh any benefits. All the horrible ill effects are nothing more than predictions. The reality that we can all observe is a greening planet with skyrocketing crop yields. I have went over with the Paratus before and the best he could come up with is rising sea levels. The time frame we are talking about here is over a hundred years.... plenty of time to move or build levees if need be. For perspective, Las Vegas didn't exist 100 years ago. The rising sea levels will be dealt with by our great grand children with relatively little difficulty.
This issue may be resolving itself. The cost of renewables is fast closing on fossil fuels. I can't wait for that to happen, then we can quit arguing about this.
I happen to like the cheap and crappy lager-style beers! That other stuff is far too sophisticated for my palate.
Low blow! lolwell, that partially explains why you usually advocate for Thunderlizard-friendly climates in these threads.
:hmm:
It amazes me out every single time scientists decide to adjust (change) the data, it always always always adjusts in the direction that supports global warming. It blows my mind that there don't ever seem to be adjustments that make the warming trends looks smaller. I wonder what the statistical probability of this is in a non politically dominated scientific climate. Maybe I have simply missed studies that have adjusted the temps otherwise?
Well that is the rub. There is no need to stop global warming ABSENT objective measurable data that indicates that the ill effects are so horrible too vastly outweigh any benefits. All the horrible ill effects are nothing more than predictions.
The reality that we can all observe is a greening planet with skyrocketing crop yields.
I have went over with the Paratus before and the best he could come up with is rising sea levels.
That could become an increasingly common story, according to the largest-ever survey of how insurance companies are dealing with climate change, released today. Global warming is increasing the risk of damage to lives and property from natural disasters beyond what many insurers are willing to shoulder. And most insurance companies aren't taking adequate steps to change that trend, the survey found. That's a problem even if you don't live by the coast: When private insurers back out, the government is left to pick up much of the damage costs; already, the federal flood insurance program is one of the nation's largest fiscal liabilities.
Ceres, an environmental nonprofit, evaluated the climate risk management policies of 330 large insurance companies operating in the United States. The results are worrying. Only nine companies, 3 percent of the total, earned the highest ranking....
...Certainly the threat is real. Globally, average annual weather-related losses have increased more than tenfold in the last several decades, from $10 billion per year in the period 1974-1983 to $131 billion in 2004-2013, according to the report. The insurance industry is not keeping pace: The proportion of those damages that are insured is steadily declining:
The time frame we are talking about here is over a hundred years.... plenty of time to move or build levees if need be. For perspective, Las Vegas didn't exist 100 years ago. The rising sea levels will be dealt with by our great grand children with relatively little difficulty.
This issue may be resolving itself. The cost of renewables is fast closing on fossil fuels. I can't wait for that to happen, then we can quit arguing about this.
Look, I need some closure on this. Does anyone here think it statistically likely that all post measurement data adjustments skew in the direction of the politically popular and expedient? Am I missing adjustments that make global warming look less bad or do they just not exist? I feel like I'm being bullshitted.
You need Paratus to engage on this one, he is the most educated on this topic and he does a very good job of defending the adjustments. If your lucky, he will stop by and discuss it.
We have discussed it in the past and eventually my eyes glassed over....
Look, I need some closure on this. Does anyone here think it statistically likely that all post measurement data adjustments skew in the direction of the politically popular and expedient? Am I missing adjustments that make global warming look less bad or do they just not exist? I feel like I'm being bullshitted.
You need Paratus to engage on this one, he is the most educated on this topic and he does a very good job of defending the adjustments. If your lucky, he will stop by and discuss it.
We have discussed it in the past and eventually my eyes glassed over....
I'll see what I can pull together.
You never studied.
Heh, thanks. Perhaps he will grace this thread with his presence.
I'm not so interested in the adjustments themselves and the science behind them, I'm far more interested in the statistical likelihood that such adjustments of this type of data might always skew in one direction, a direction that just so happens to be the correct direction from a political point of view. Smells like bullshit but then again my knowledge of the sum total of all such adjustments could very well be incomplete.
Heh, thanks. Perhaps he will grace this thread with his presence.
I'm not so interested in the adjustments themselves and the science behind them, I'm far more interested in the statistical likelihood that such adjustments of this type of data might always skew in one direction, a direction that just so happens to be the correct direction from a political point of view. Smells like bullshit but then again my knowledge of the sum total of all such adjustments could very well be incomplete.