myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 285, 286, 287 ... 322, 323, 324  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3205

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That adapting you mentioned is the process going on among climate scientists.
Those who don't adapt die out, but not all.
That is the process going on with those who buy into the Carbon companies lies, or who don't believe just because they are conservatives no science needed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4957

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

NW says, that's my opinion. Don't confuse me with facts--I won't read them or try to understand them. My mind is made up, and is now closed.

Gotta love it for comic relief.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2572

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

keycocker wrote:

Those who don't adapt die out, but not all.

True enough.

Cockroaches have been around millions of years and are still going strong. Hell, some even made it to Congress. Of course, they're laughed at for their tax policies, gender bias, rejection of climate change, abortion stance, Bible-thumping, and blind support of the Koch brothers. Strange to see those 'roaches Cruzing around, dragging their little tea bags...

Maybe we should sprinkle boric acid around the streets of DC.
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1442

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I post things I find interesting which the readers can support or criticize as they wish.

My issue, which hasn't changed, is how far does the world go in an effort to control global warming? And how much money do we throw at it to MAYBE have an impact. With the rising sea levels the "cry wolf" left is supporting, how many millions of people should be move inland to higher ground and at what cost? I am not saying that it won't happen, just the we should be damn sure before we fix something that can't or doesn't need to be fixed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5685

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

" I am not saying that it won't happen, just the we should be damn sure before we fix something that can't or doesn't need to be fixed."


You said earlier that it might be better to buy a new car instead of fix the old one. Seems you're on the other side of the coin on this issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1442

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am pretty sure we can't buy a new earth or the people that inhabit the globe. So what's left? My point is that we could possibly spend trillions of dollars trying to fix something that can't or doesn't need to be fixed. I can't be any more clear than that. Maybe it's just an old beater that smokes a bit, but will run forever.

At this point in time, we don't know enough to begin moving everyone next to the sea to higher ground. In 10-20 years, maybe? 50 years? Who knows.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4957

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Techno--It isn't just people that might have to move. Look up the level of damage from Hurricane Sandy, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/estimate-of-economic-losses-now-up-to-50-billion.html?_r=0, $50 billion at least. Look at the constantly rising cost of hurricanes, in constant dollars, over the last 40 years. In part, this is because of Federal policies--that you and I think should be changed--that shift the risk from those who build in these areas to the public, and thus encourage development in risky areas.

But the amount of public infrastructure at risk from even modest levels of sea level rise is staggering. This is what coastal engineers do, and this is why I began studying this issue in about 1981. (I did know Charles Keeling before I went to graduate school--but I didn't believe him at the time. I did know that he was very smart, and very honest.) In San Francisco Bay, virtually the entire Silicon Valley industry is now at risk of flooding from storm surges, and the risks are steadily rising with sea level rise. In New York, salt water flooded the subways and electrical systems because the infrastructure was mostly installed over twenty years ago when few knew about this issue. Most of the nation's infrastructure in coastal areas--where more than half the people live--is at risk. Roads, sewage treatment plants (water runs downhill, and trillions of dollars have been invested in systems that virtually all windsurfers need to go into the water), subways and the like are all at risk. California, because its politicians are not controlled by campaign contributions from oil and coal folks, has been looking at these issues seriously for about a decade. In some cases we will move away from the water, slowly, over a long time, because we won't be able to afford to build protection. Some people will lose value in their property, but the economic impact will not be dramatic. If there aren't a lot of people and improvements at risk, we won't have the tax base to afford protection systems. In other places we will build protection systems that will be sufficient, or others, like those on the Thames, that will be overwhelmed by a big flood.

Isobars is right, although inadvertently, that this is about income redistribution. This is all a furious fight by the CO2 producing industries to make sure that no fees are enacted to capture the cost of these CO2 impacts. Those fees would make alternatives more economical sooner, would encourage conservation (the cheapest source of energy today), and would reduce demand--and profits. There really are markets, if not a Santa Claus. So they hire some of the folks that systematically lied about the risk of tobacco smoke, and hid the evidence, and they use the same playbook. All they need to do is create a little doubt and delay any response, and they make more money. They hide the costs of what they are doing to tell lies with a series of shadow "think tanks" that keep the list of their donors secret.

Both of our grandchildren will curse them. You will have been on the wrong side.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2572

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
My point is that we could possibly spend trillions of dollars trying to fix something that can't or doesn't need to be fixed.

That might be true or it might not be true, but the downside risk is too terrible to ponder, while the upside risk isn't quite so bad. If we develop alternative energy sources (that don't depend on ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, or Haliburton), then the world will be a better place -- and we might reduce the CO2 levels.

Hell, Bush/Cheney sunk trillions into several wars that the world did not need, and the only tangible result was thousands and thousands dead.

Why should you worry about a few trillion here or a few trillion there? As Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter."
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3205

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The fake media has laid it out for us.
We either spend trillions or wisely do nothing .
How about the policy real life libs endorse? They say we should start planning our civilization in a smarter way.
You can see ideas toward that right here, but you have to forget the Talk Radio trillions.
Solar. Stop insuring seaside homes at public expense. Reduce polluting, CO2 is one of tne least nasty things that would reduce.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nw30



Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 1535
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast

PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Techno--It isn't just people that might have to move. Look up the level of damage from Hurricane Sandy, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/business/estimate-of-economic-losses-now-up-to-50-billion.html?_r=0, $50 billion at least. Look at the constantly rising cost of hurricanes, in constant dollars, over the last 40 years. In part, this is because of Federal policies--


Because you brought this up in this thread, it seems to me that you are trying to link hurricanes to global warming.
All I can say is O M G !!! Shocked
Are you really that far gone?
Bring a real hurricane into the Bay Area, and I might pay attention.

_________________
I don't drink the 'cool' aid, I drink tequila, it's more honest.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 285, 286, 287 ... 322, 323, 324  Next
Page 286 of 324

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group