New Study: Climate Change report from the White House

[Baker Boy 1,485]

State of Fear by Michael Crichton deals with this subject. It is Fiction but he backs it up with facts.

[Drizzay 646]

What if the Earth is supposed to be warmer, and we are just helping it get to the correct temperature?

It was. We are still coming out of the little ice age.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

I thought this thread was about Global Warming and the Environment. Honcho's link is crap. That's Co2 emmissions which is but one variable in pollution. He quickly googled some random link. And then quantified by "per capita".

 

 

Every year Yale (and others) puts out an Environmental Performance Index (EPI). The EPI is "a method of quantifying and numerically marking the environmental performance of a state's policies" This is what the United Nations uses as a the major indicator for pollution per country.

 

 

 

Here is 2018's list:

 

 

https://epi.envirocenter.yale.edu/epi-topline?country=&order=field_epi_rank_new&sort=desc

 

Again, like I said previously.....I'm all for lowering the USA's pollution (who doesn't like clean air?), but not at the expense of our economy when the USA is but one country even if we went ALL CLEAN somehow it'd be a drop in the bucket. I don't agree with Trump that it's not even an issue, but China and India need to get on board or else it's fruitless.

 

This is a thread about Global Warming and The National Climate Assessment Report. My link is not "crap", those CO₂ emissions numbers are accurate and can be verified from other sources. I did not quickly google some random link, I googled CO₂ emissions because carbon dioxide makes up about 75% of the man made green house gas emissions. And the reason I quantified by "per capita" is because in a thread about Global Warming some jackazz said "India and China are the main pollutants of the Earth." as a reason for the US not moving forward on a pro-environment strategy while ignoring that per person the US releases far more green house gases then the countries he named.

 

Then for someone who knows what the thread is about, he then produces a list of the worlds biggest polluters, but that is a full list of how each country pollutes, of which only a percentage affects the climate---hint water pollution, sanitation heavy metals, not big actors on climate change.

 

Great post KSB, did you spike the tennis racket into home plate and yell touchdown when you were done?

[penultimatestraw 473]

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/the-real-purpose-behind-global-warming-agenda-destroying-capitalism

 

Seems credible

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,584]

co2 is not bad

[KSB2424 3,083]

[Cdub100 3,381]

Scientist - in 50 years the Earth's oceans will rise 6 bazzilion feet. It'll be 5000 degrees outside and you won't be able to breath the air. Give me money so I can study and find a solution

 

Regular people - is it going to rain tomorrow?

 

Also Scientist - there's no way to tell. There are so many factors that can influence the weather.

[sderk 1,040]

 

at some point, they're just going to call it "Global" so they won't have to add terms anymore.

 

"Hey, the earth is warming/cooling/stable because of GLOBAL!!!"

CNN breaking news:

 

"Leading scientists from around the world studying Global, are telling Donald Trump that he needs to shut down all industrial complexes in the US until they can find a solution to this Global. They are demanding the US put up $700 trillion in reparations for the Global they caused by the industrialization of America. The money is to go towards further research into Global."

 

"And as is typical of Trump, he recently replied to this news on twitter with a resounding "Fvck You!". Can you believe it? This is the POTUS for God's sake!. I'm scared."

 

"And as noted in a previous post on FFToday's Geek Club, when the scientists were asked what the weather is going to be like tomorrow in Chicago, they stated "there is precisely a 50/50 chance of rain. Or maybe 55/45. Or something like that. We'll call our Chicago office tomorrow and they can look out the window and let you know. But believe me, we know what we are doing! We have been studying Global for decades now. Give us some money.", and so there you have it."

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

CNN breaking news:

 

"Leading scientists from around the world studying Global, are telling Donald Trump that he needs to shut down all industrial complexes in the US until they can find a solution to this Global. They are demanding the US put up $700 trillion in reparations for the Global they caused by the industrialization of America. The money is to go towards further research into Global."

 

"And as is typical of Trump, he recently replied to this news on twitter with a resounding "Fvck You!". Can you believe it? This is the POTUS for God's sake!. I'm scared."

 

"And as noted in a previous post on FFToday's Geek Club, when the scientists were asked what the weather is going to be like tomorrow in Chicago, they stated there is precisely a 50/50 chance of rain. Or maybe 55/45. Or something like that. We'll call our Chicago office tomorrow and they can look out the window and let you know. But believe me, we know what we are doing! We have been studying Global for decades now. Give us some money."

 

That's still more coherent that President Trump really is on climate change

WAPO

 

DAWSEY: You said yesterday when you were leaving that you were skeptical of a climate change report that the government had done. Can you just explain why you're skeptical of that report?

 

TRUMP: One of the problems that a lot of people like myself — we have very high levels of intelligence, but we’re not necessarily such believers. You look at our air and our water, and it’s right now at a record clean. But when you look at China and you look at parts of Asia and when you look at South America, and when you look at many other places in this world, including Russia, including — just many other places — the air is incredibly dirty. And when you’re talking about an atmosphere, oceans are very small. And it blows over and it sails over. I mean, we take thousands of tons of garbage off our beaches all the time that comes over from Asia. It just flows right down the Pacific, it flows, and we say where does this come from. And it takes many people to start off with. Number two, if you go back and if you look at articles, they talked about global freezing, they talked about at some point the planets could have freeze to death, then it’s going to die of heat exhaustion. There is movement in the atmosphere. There’s no question. As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it — not nearly like it is. Do we want clean water? Absolutely. Do we want clean air to breathe? Absolutely. The fire in California, where I was, if you looked at the floor, the floor of the fire, they have trees that were fallen, they did no forest management, no forest maintenance, and you can light — you can take a match like this and light a tree trunk when that thing is laying there for more than 14 or 15 months. And it’s a massive problem in California.

 

[MDC 5,891]

 

That's still more coherent that President Trump really is on climate change

WAPO

Its always amazing to see Long Trump quotes in print.

[RLLD 3,455]

Its always amazing to see Long Trump quotes in print.

 

He just goes on and on, and drifts all over the place....

[Baker Boy 1,485]

This is a thread about Global Warming and The National Climate Assessment Report. My link is not "crap", those CO₂ emissions numbers are accurate and can be verified from other sources. I did not quickly google some random link, I googled CO₂ emissions because carbon dioxide makes up about 75% of the man made green house gas emissions. And the reason I quantified by "per capita" is because in a thread about Global Warming some jackazz said "India and China are the main pollutants of the Earth." as a reason for the US not moving forward on a pro-environment strategy while ignoring that per person the US releases far more green house gases then the countries he named.

 

Then for someone who knows what the thread is about, he then produces a list of the worlds biggest polluters, but that is a full list of how each country pollutes, of which only a percentage affects the climate---hint water pollution, sanitation heavy metals, not big actors on climate change.

 

Great post KSB, did you spike the tennis racket into home plate and yell touchdown when you were done?

 

The US is not only moving forward on a pro-environment strategy it is leading the world. And we have been doing it for decades.

[sderk 1,040]

CNN breaking news:

 

"Leading scientists from around the world studying Global, are telling Donald Trump that he needs to shut down all industrial complexes in the US until they can find a solution to this Global. They are demanding the US put up $700 trillion in reparations for the Global they caused by the industrialization of America. The money is to go towards further research into Global."

 

"And as is typical of Trump, he recently replied to this news on twitter with a resounding "Fvck You!". Can you believe it? This is the POTUS for God's sake!. I'm scared."

 

"And as noted in a previous post on FFToday's Geek Club, when the scientists were asked what the weather is going to be like tomorrow in Chicago, they stated "there is precisely a 50/50 chance of rain. Or maybe 55/45. Or something like that. We'll call our Chicago office tomorrow and they can look out the window and let you know. But believe me, we know what we are doing! We have been studying Global for decades now. Give us some money.", and so there you have it."

CNN Breaking News follow-up 500 years later:

 

"It's now in. The world leading scientists of Global, have a solution. It is detailed in the following images:"

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=flintstones+car+gif&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=OFx2TAaTC5tCGM%253A%252C10h4-7nX4br23M%252C_&usg=AI4_-kSs7X-Ukl4yKB77fEkjdrn6InY1XQ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj2s4Tr8PneAhWOT98KHQTRCs0Q9QEwAHoECAQQBA#imgrc=OFx2TAaTC5tCGM:

 

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=flintstones+quarry+dinosaur+gif&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjzht-n8fneAhVQTd8KHX7sD44Q7Al6BAgDEBs&biw=1378&bih=535#imgrc=-wGi56K0jZJ3wM:&spf=1543504231280

 

"Thanks to these amazing scientists and their efforts."

[KSB2424 3,083]

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

TRILLIONS of your taxpayer dollars........for a fraction of a degree over the next century while countries like China and India pollute like it's the early 1900s.

[RLLD 3,455]

TRILLIONS of your taxpayer dollars........for a fraction of a degree over the next century while countries like China and India pollute like it's the early 1900s.

 

Does not seem right to me.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

 

Does not seem right to me.

 

Probably doesn't seem right, cause there is a whole lot of wrong in filthy's statement.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

Probably doesn't seem right, cause there is a whole lot of wrong in filthy's statement.

 

What is wrong with it?

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

 

Probably doesn't seem right, cause there is a whole lot of wrong in filthy's statement.

The U.S. was not asked to put 12 trillion towards this?

 

The other countries are being held to the same standards?

 

Please, regale us with a retort.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

The U.S. was not asked to put 12 trillion towards this?

 

The other countries are being held to the same standards?

 

Please, regale us with a retort.

 

You need to provide the specifics(particularly the 12T) before I respond in any detail.

[tanatastic 2,061]

There no more perfect scam besides maybe religion. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it, it’s invisible, wont be alive to be held accountable, numbers can show either side if you need them to. It’s brilliant.

[RLLD 3,455]

There no more perfect scam besides maybe religion. Can’t prove it, can’t disprove it, it’s invisible, wont be alive to be held accountable, numbers can show either side if you need them to. It’s brilliant.

 

It's a SJW construct, they use it everywhere to "prove" something that cannot be proven.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

You need to provide the specifics(particularly the 12T) before I respond in any detail.

 

No!

You said the statement is wrong you have to back that up!

 

I will ask again, what is wrong with his statement.

[NorthernVike 2,080]

So even though the US produces a lot as well, do you think is there is no benefit to us leading the way in environmental initiatives?

 

 

We already are.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

No!

You said the statement is wrong you have to back that up!

 

I will ask again, what is wrong with his statemen

 

 

.

I have to disprove an assertion that zero substance to it, yeah, I'll get right on that after I disprove that Bat Boy is real.

[Baker Boy 1,485]

TRILLIONS of your taxpayer dollars........for a fraction of a degree over the next century while countries like China and India pollute like it's the early 1900s.

There is nothing of substance to his statement. And since FF won't provide any more evidence to back up his assertions, and I have responded and backed it up accordingly.

This is the statement you questioned and it is accurate. I will ask again what is wrong with it?

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

 

This is the statement you questioned and it is accurate. I will ask again what is wrong with it?

 

If it's accurate, it will be easy to prove. So go ahead, trillions of tax dollars and pollution standards of the early 1900's. I'm waiting.

[Cloaca du jour 2,064]

Scientists know alot about the past. Used to be over 400 days in a year...the earth is slowing. Oxygen levels used to be much higher..that supported huge 3 foot dragonflies. If anything we are long overdue for a magnetic shift as well as an ice age.

[SUXBNME 1,335]

State of Fear by Michael Crichton deals with this subject. It is Fiction but he backs it up with facts.

Yep. There's like a footnote on every other page.

 

Also, great book

[SUXBNME 1,335]

 

If it's accurate, it will be easy to prove. So go ahead, trillions of tax dollars and pollution standards of the early 1900's. I'm waiting.

You are so odd

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

You are so odd

 

You have 50,000+ posts and at least 8000 of them are of a dancing cat...don't throw stones from you glass house.

[lickin_starfish 1,481]

 

If it's accurate, it will be easy to prove. I'm waiting.

Prove that man is the cause of Global Warming. Surely, the climate has never fluctuated before man, so it should be easy for you to prove.

 

We're waiting.

[Mike Honcho 4,035]

Prove that man is the cause of Global Warming. Surely, the climate has never fluctuated before man, so it should be easy for you to prove.

 

We're waiting.

 

Did you see the OP, obviously I find that enough proof for me, if you don't sorry, but at least I've sourced my claims.

 

 

PS...your post trying to trap me in some logical hypocrisy after I have linked multiple times to back up my assertions might be the weakest comeback in the history of the geek club, hands down.

[posty 2,296]

Obama official helped prepare dire National Climate Assessment

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/andrew-light-obama-official-helped-prepare-dire-na/

 

A former Obama administration official with ties to a liberal advocacy group funded by Democratic megadonors George Soros and Tom Steyer helped prepare the Fourth National Climate Assessment, whose dire predictions have since been attacked as overblown.

 

Andrew Light, who worked on the 2015 Paris accord negotiations as a senior adviser to the U.S. Special Envoy on Climate Change under Secretary of State John F. Kerry, served as a review editor for the assessment, overseeing the pivotal final chapter that concluded under a worst-case scenario that global warming could wipe out as much as 10 percent of the U.S. economy by 2100.

 

Now a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute, Mr. Light also spent five years as senior fellow and director of international climate policy at the Center for American Progress, which was founded and now led by longtime Democratic insider John Podesta. The center is also financed by liberal billionaires such as Mr. Soros and Mr. Steyer.

 

The involvement of Mr. Light and other figures known for their climate change advocacy has raised questions about the credibility of the report, which has been widely depicted as a politically neutral, scientific document prepared by disinterested specialists from 13 federal agencies.

 

Roger A. Pielke Jr., University of Colorado Boulder environmental studies professor, criticized the decision to bring in Mr. Light, as well as the report’s reliance for the 10 percent figure on a 2017 study funded in part by Mr. Steyer’s Next Generation and Bloomberg Philanthropies.

 

“The question remains, whose idea was it to have John Podesta’s climate adviser and Obama political appointee be in charge of the review of the most important chapter, which leans heavily on Tom Steyer research?” Mr. Pielke said in an email.

 

Mr. Light directed questions about his role to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is required by Congress to prepare a new assessment no less than every four years. The program did not immediately return messages requesting comment.

 

“I was appointed in my capacity as a professor at George Mason University, where I have worked since 2008,” Mr. Light said in an email. “Any questions about decisions on who was or was not appointed to one of the chapter author teams should be directed to the U.S. Office of Global Change Research, because that is the office that put together those teams.”

 

Mr. Light has no formal academic scientific credentials — he earned his Ph.D. in philosophy — but noted that he completed a three-year postdoctoral research fellowship in environmental risk assessment.

 

“I believe I was selected as a Review Editor because for over fifteen years I have been working on domestic and international environmental, climate, and energy policy,” he said. “I have authored or co-authored over a dozen policy reports in this area, participated and led several important dialogues and projects in this field, and made substantial contributions to climate and energy agreements.”

 

Mr. Light denied being in charge of the chapter, saying it would be “inaccurate to say that I was responsible for any of the content.”

 

He made the media rounds after the report was released, with both CBS News and Bloomberg News calling him the report’s “co-author,” which he said was incorrect.

 

The report lists more than 200 authors and contributors, most of them federal employees but also dozens from universities, advocacy groups, foundations, think tanks and consulting firms specializing in advising governments and businesses on climate change adaptation and resilience.

 

The advocacy groups include the Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy, Ocean Conservancy, and Arctic Institute. Others involved with the report are affiliated with the Brookings Institution, the Paulson Institute, and the Rand Corp., as well as the Kresge and Packard foundations.

 

Absent were prominent scientists affiliated with top research universities who have challenged catastrophic climate scenarios, such as John Christy, Judith Curry, William Happer, Richard Lindzen, Roger A. Pielke Sr. and Roy Spencer.

 

Mr. Light said review editors were selected by the National Climate Assessment federal steering committee from candidates nominated by others or themselves.

 

“Anyone could be nominated for the role of Review Editor or they could self-nominate,” he said.

 

The report landed President Trump on the hot seat, in part for its ominous findings, in part because it was released on Black Friday, fueling accusations that the administration wanted to bury the damning assessment.

 

Environmental groups reacted with calls for swift action to avoid the scenarios laid out in the report, including as many as 9,300 climate-related deaths per year by 2100 and an increase in extreme weather events.

 

“This assessment, put forth by Donald Trump’s own government, continues to make it clear that if we don’t act now, the catastrophic effects of climate change will reshape the United States and the world for those of us alive today and for generations to come,” the Sierra Club said in a statement.

 

Mr. Trump dismissed the assessment, saying, “I don’t believe it,” prompting CNN to scold him for “dismissing his own experts.”

 

Skeptics, meanwhile, have blasted the report as “tripe” (Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore), a “400-page pile of crap” (Heartland Institute’s John Dunn), “irrelevant” (JunkScience’s Steven J. Milloy), and “baseless scaremongering” (Watts Up With That’s Eric Worrall).

 

“The National Climate Assessment report reads like a press release from environmental pressure groups — because it is,” said Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

 

He described two of the authors — Texas Tech professor Katharine Hayhoe and Donald J. Wuebbles of the University of Illinois — as “longtime Union of Concerned Scientist activists.”

 

“These are not ‘Trump’s own scientists’ as the media likes to claim,” Mr. Morano said. “The key authors are in fact left-wing environmental activists with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for American Progress, and the Obama Administration. And they cited outlier studies funded by Steyer and [Michael] Bloomberg.”

 

The 2017 study, which appeared in the journal Science, was cited to support the claim of a possible 10 percent decline in U.S. gross domestic product by the end of the century, a scenario decried by critics as highly improbable.

 

The report concluded that reducing climate change under a more extreme scenario versus a lesser one would mean fewer deaths and fewer lost labor hours. The avoided health impacts would represent “domestic benefits of mitigation on the order of tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year.”

 

“These figures, as clearly identified in the references in the report, were not derived from one study but from a number of sources, primarily an EPA study from 2017,” he said.

 

Mr. Pielke, who has described climate change as “real” and Mr. Trump as “wrong” on the issue, said the estimate was not only “implausible,” but also was contradicted elsewhere in the assessment.

 

“The report obviously fell short in its quality control,” Mr. Pielke said. “Why this happened should be explored, but clearly it would have benefited from expanding its leadership beyond the ‘climate club.’”

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

And another corrupt effort of the left is exposed.

 

Good job posty.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

The cost of doing this is high. The IPCCs models said investments in resource extraction, power generation, fuel conversion, pipelines/transmission, and energy storage would need to reach levels of between 1.63.8 trillion [u.S. dollars per year] globally on average over the 2016-2050 timeframe.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/09/limiting-global-warming-cost/

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22457-climate-costs-estimated-at-more-than-12-trillion-for-u-s-taxpayers

[Baker Boy 1,485]

If it's accurate, it will be easy to prove. So go ahead, trillions of tax dollars and pollution standards of the early 1900's. I'm waiting.

If it is false it should be easy to prove. You questioned the statement and can’t prove it false.

 

BTW This has been documented here numerous times.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

If it is false it should be easy to prove. You questioned the statement and cant prove it false.

 

BTW This has been documented here numerous times.

I just reposted the articles about the trillions and the fractional difference it would make.

 

What these experts don't realize is that by admitting AT MOST we MIGHT lower the temp a fraction is that it should lead one to the following truth.

 

If it's not certain we can lower it, it's not certain man raised it.

[MDC 5,891]

If it is false it should be easy to prove.

A lock for dumbest post of the day and its not even noon.