iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Change: Doing Nothing Will Cost More Than Preventative Measures, New Report Shows

Climate Change Costs

First Posted: 04/19/11 05:39 PM ET Updated: 06/18/11 06:12 AM ET

NEW YORK -- Everyone will have to pay more for the effects of climate change than we would have to pay to prevent climate change.

This is the alarming message revealed in the American Security Project’s 50 new reports, “Pay Now, Pay Later” (PNPL), revealing the costs of unchecked climate change.

Why 50 reports? Because every single state in the U.S. will have to pay for its own specific problems.

Former EPA Administrator and former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (R) is on the board of directors for the American Security Project, a nonprofit, bipartisan public policy and research organization. In an interview with The Huffington Post, Whitman spoke about the organization’s recent findings.

“The exciting thing for me about this report is it’s the first time I have seen a reasoned breakdown, state by state, as to the cost of doing nothing relative to climate change,” she said.

Climate change is not just an issue affecting the environment. It is an issue affecting health, economics, and both national and global security. PNPL shows how tourism, agriculture, and the defense industry will all be hurt by climate change.

For example, east coast military bases are considered vulnerable to severe weather events. The report cites Hurricane Andrew, which caused so much damage to Florida’s Homestead Air Force Base in 1992 that it never reopened.

“We are seeing a change in our climate. You’re seeing more devastating and frequent storms. You’re seeing more droughts, you’re seeing more floods," Whitman said. "Overall you’re seeing changes in weather patterns, and if there’s anything we can do to help slow that down, we’ll be better off.”

PNPL isn’t the only report to suggest that the costs of climate change will be high. A study last year found that the Gulf Coast could face cumulative losses of $350 billion if it fails to address the issues surrounding climate change.

The American Security Project reports show that for every state, the cost of transitioning to alternative energy sources is less than the costs that would be incurred from maintaining dependence on dirty energy sources.

Take Florida for example. The report suggests that as early as 2025, Florida could see economic losses of at least $27 billion per year, or more than $3,100 per household, due to climate change. 10.5 million people along Florida’s coastline may be in jeopardy due to rising sea levels. PNPL estimates that nearly one in five members of Florida’s labor force will be significantly affected by global warming. Specifically, workers in some food and beverage industries, transportation sectors, and real estate, leisure and hospitality areas will feel the effects of global warming.

PNPL reports that the Everglades bring in $120 million annually to Florida’s local economy. This national park is also located in one of the state’s most vulnerable areas. Projections suggest that the lowest lying lands will be completely submerged by 2100.

The situation is just as grim in other regions. In Alaska, the report suggests that melting permafrost could add up to over $6 billion to the state’s public infrastructure costs in the next 20 years. Lake Mead could dry up in the Southwest as soon as 2021, leaving up to 36 million people without a dependable water supply.

In Midwest states, increases in temperature and rainfall over 30-year averages could cost more than $9 billion in lost agriculture profits. All PNPL state reports can be found online at www.americansecurityproject.org through an interactive map of the U.S.

According to Whitman, “To do something is a choice, but to do nothing is a choice. And I believe the American people make good decisions -- I know they do -- when they have the facts in front of them. And the facts are, there are going to be costs.”

--
Video of Huffington Post interview created and provided by KEF Media.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

NEW YORK -- Everyone will have to pay more for the effects of climate change than we would have to pay to prevent climate change. This is the alarming message revealed in the American Security Pro...
NEW YORK -- Everyone will have to pay more for the effects of climate change than we would have to pay to prevent climate change. This is the alarming message revealed in the American Security Pro...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,241
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
01:47 PM on 05/17/2011
Without a doubt there is a need for change, but change isn't as simple done as it is said. There are even people who oppose the changes even though proven helpful. For example this case in Europe where they're taking certain cars off the streets. What do you think of this, are Low Emission Zones good or not a valid solution? http://bit.ly/kNM6I0
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ReedYoung
global mean temperature, obviously INCREASING
05:44 PM on 05/17/2011
That's a great idea! Because the zero emission zones are in major cities, places that

1) are crowded, thus pollution causes more asthma and the like
2) are very well served by public transit - Americans can't even imagine, not even New Yorkers!
3) electric cars have more than adequate range to easily cover
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
02:48 PM on 05/03/2011
agwscam: "global warming is the greatest scam in world history"

Yawn.

National Academy of Sciences, 2010
-----------------------------------------

What is Known about Climate Change

Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels.

Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:00 PM on 05/03/2011
Oxford Journals > European Journal of Public Health

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? ...

The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media...

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus… Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action.

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way. The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy...

There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one's own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’... whose aim is to ‘manufacture alleged evidence...'

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:05 PM on 05/03/2011
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? (continued) ...

The second is the use of fake experts. These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge. They have been used extensively by the tobacco industry since 1974... In 1998, the American Petroleum Institute developed a Global Climate Science Communications Plan, involving the recruitment of ‘scientists who share the industry's views of climate science [who can] help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases’.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
06:23 PM on 05/04/2011
Re-posting the same garbage again doesn't make it correct this time - but I do understand that all you warmist fanatics have is the same garbage over and over and over...

"...Unfort­unately, the National Academy seems to have lost its way, and is morphing into a climate-al­arm propaganda organ of the U.S. government­..."

"This latest NAS slide into politiciza­tion should send a serious wakeup call. This disease’s progressio­n has become clear. A few years ago, the NAS shamelessl­y defended the thoroughly demolished "hockey stick" graph which claimed to show that current temperatur­es lack a historical precedent. Early this year, the NAS issued a blatant call for a specific climate policy, going far beyond serving as an objective voice of scientific explicatio­n. And now it has allowed a badly flawed study in its flagship publicatio­n that effectivel­y creates a blacklist, in order to delegitimi­ze scientists who might disagree with a vague “consensus­” position on climate-ch­ange science. With such antics, the NAS risks losing its credibilit­y, which is really all it has to offer. Someone needs to publicly clean house at the NAS, washing the institutio­n’s hands of public policy pronouncem­ents and renouncing efforts to turn them into a propaganda organ for climate alarmists. The alternativ­e will be declining trust in the NAS, and the further erosion of the public’s belief in scientific pronouncem­ents in general."

http://www­.american.­com/archiv­e/2010/jul­y/the-nati­onal-acade­my-of-blac­klists
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
12:15 AM on 05/05/2011
Global Temperatures
The year 2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average. The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.07°C (0.13°F). The 2010 combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was also the warmest on record, while the combined land and ocean surface temperature in the Southern Hemisphere was the sixth warmest such period on record. The annual globally averaged land temperature was 0.96°C (1.73°F) above average, which tied with 2005 as the second warmest year record. The range associated with this value is plus or minus 0.11°C (0.20°F). The warmest year was 2007, at 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average. The decadal global land and ocean average temperature anomaly for 2001–2010 was the warmest decade on record for the globe, with a surface global temperature of 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous decadal record (1991–2000) value of 0.36°C (0.65°F).
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2010/13
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
11:20 AM on 05/05/2011
Reposting the same talking points from right-wing PR front group American Enterprise Institute doesn't make them any less dishonest.

"In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, which "is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science." AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere," in a letter describing the IPCC as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent."

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
05:40 PM on 04/29/2011
Is climate change real or not, that is the question.
In our hearts we know what the answer is.
Will governments step forward to reverse the effects of civilization on planet earth or have we waited to long?
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
04:34 PM on 04/26/2011
But, how much more?

"Everyone will have to pay more for the effects of climate change than we would have to pay to prevent climate change."

Would it be the same "everyone?" Or, if we skip our bill, does it mainly fall to our children? Because that's just fine with some people.

Regarding public opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09krosnick.html?_r=1
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
07:29 PM on 04/28/2011
This article indicates that the Gallop poll was skewed by the questions it asked: "Or consider a widely publicized Gallup question: “Thinking about what is said in the news, in your view, is the seriousness of global warming generally exaggerated, generally correct or is it generally underestimated?” This question asked about respondents’ perceptions of the news, not the respondents’ perception of warming."
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
11:43 PM on 05/04/2011
:-) Hey, you actually read the article I linked! Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
06:31 PM on 05/23/2011
That is a really interesting article! Encouraging too. I thought we were looking at 50% idiots.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
04:50 AM on 04/26/2011
Thankfully, the global warming fanatics you see posting here on Huffpo are a shrinking minority of the world population who refuse to accept the truth that global warming is the greatest scam in world history...money and power, that's all it was ever about...

Gallup: Majority of Human Race Does Not See Global Warming as Serious Threat
Monday, April 25, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-majority-human-race-does-not-see
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
05:35 PM on 04/26/2011
Majority thinking on critical items isn't always the best guauge.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
06:51 PM on 04/28/2011
You are right. but only because people have been subjected to the greatest scam in history: the fossil fuel lobby's disinformation campaign to confuse the public about the threat of man-made climate change.

In 1994 this memo from APCO Associates, Inc., a PR firm working for Phillip Morris, was leaked. It details how the firm can expand on their model of denial they created for their client Phillip Morris and expand it as a tool for other issues where big business stands to loose money due to health and environmental safety regulations. It gives great insight into how they challenge legitimate science with a small group of spokespeople and a big money megaphone. http://tobaccodocuments.org/pm/2024233595-3602.html

This 1998 American Petroleum Institute memo outlines how big oil could adopt the denial techniques developed to protect big tobacco, the lobby and their "think tank" front groups to create false doubt about science. http://preview.tinyurl.com/API-Disinform-98

In 2002 this leaked memo from Frank Luntz to the GOP showed the world how PR framing gets disseminated to the political class: http://www.ewg.org/project/luntz-memo-environment

And here is how they are doing it today. This astroturf group was created to give Coal barrons some faked grassroots support: http://www.desmogblog.com/new-grassroots-pro-coal-group-backed-k-street-pr-firm

And it happens online, too. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/12/13/reclaim-the-cyber-commons/
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
08:08 AM on 04/30/2011
You had me at "You are right" - your should have stopped there because just for that one brief moment...you were right~

This whole attempt at smearing skeptics of the global warming scam with big tobacco is yet another example of why the warmist cult is deteriorating into the punchline that we all knew they would become. I know, why don't you accuse me of being a member of the 'flat earth society', you wamists all love that one!

Grasp at any good straws lately?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
REMEMBER2050
Bring on that War on Women, GOP! I'm game.
06:08 PM on 05/23/2011
This is all brilliantly described in "Merchants of Doubt" by Oreskes. Best book I've ever read--and I'm assuming from your various links you haven't seen it. Go get it right now! She is an impeccably logical historian, writes beautifully, and is even polite, which makes her conclusons even more damning. There's even more in there to get from cigarettes to climate change: DDT, Star Wars, the ozone hole, it's amazing stuff the right will do to try to fool the absurdly credulous American public into believing flat-out garbage.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
07:09 PM on 04/25/2011
The cost of doing nothing.

More and more piles of papers and press releases to read!

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
11:47 PM on 04/25/2011
It looks like we go out with a (methane) burp, then.
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
12:05 AM on 04/26/2011
Oh, I mean "natural gas." :-p
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:00 PM on 04/24/2011
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
09:40 PM on 04/24/2011
"...Unfortunately, the National Academy seems to have lost its way, and is morphing into a climate-alarm propaganda organ of the U.S. government..."

"This latest NAS slide into politicization should send a serious wakeup call. This disease’s progression has become clear. A few years ago, the NAS shamelessly defended the thoroughly demolished "hockey stick" graph which claimed to show that current temperatures lack a historical precedent. Early this year, the NAS issued a blatant call for a specific climate policy, going far beyond serving as an objective voice of scientific explication. And now it has allowed a badly flawed study in its flagship publication that effectively creates a blacklist, in order to delegitimize scientists who might disagree with a vague “consensus” position on climate-change science. With such antics, the NAS risks losing its credibility, which is really all it has to offer. Someone needs to publicly clean house at the NAS, washing the institution’s hands of public policy pronouncements and renouncing efforts to turn them into a propaganda organ for climate alarmists. The alternative will be declining trust in the NAS, and the further erosion of the public’s belief in scientific pronouncements in general."

http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:13 PM on 04/24/2011
"...Unfort­unately, the National Academy seems to have lost its way, and is morphing into a climate-al­arm propaganda organ of the U.S. government­..."

Science denier "conspiracy" propaganda from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Yawn.

----------------------------------------
Sourcewatch:

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is an extremely influential, pro-business, conservative think tank founded in 1943 by Lewis H. Brown... It is the center base for many neo-conservatives...

In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report...

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

The Guardian reported further that AEI "has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil, and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees," added The Guardian.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Enterprise_Institute
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
10:13 PM on 04/24/2011
Oxford Journals > European Journal of Public Health

Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?

HIV does not cause AIDS. The world was created in 4004 BCE. Smoking does not cause cancer. And if climate change is happening, it is nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. Few, if any, of the readers of this journal will believe any of these statements. Yet each can be found easily in the mass media...

All of these examples have one feature in common. There is an overwhelming consensus on the evidence among scientists yet there are also vocal commentators who reject this consensus… Their goal is to convince that there are sufficient grounds to reject the case for taking action…

Denialism is a process that employs some or all of five characteristic elements in a concerted way.

The first is the identification of conspiracies. When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy...

There is also a variant of conspiracy theory, inversionism, in which some of one's own characteristics and motivations are attributed to others. For example, tobacco companies describe academic research into the health effects of smoking as the product of an ‘anti-smoking industry’ ...

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full
10:23 AM on 04/24/2011
How selfish!

Sure, preventative measures will cost less -- for YOU, proles, but what about me?? What about Charlie? Heck, what about the Sauds?

Won't somebody, please, think of the billionaires???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
agwscam
Nullius in Verba
07:15 AM on 04/24/2011
Let's get out a magnifying glass and take a close look at a microcosm of the global warming cult.

Dr. Tim Flannery, respected, educated, multi-disciplinary, recognized 'leader' amongst his AGW fanatic peers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery

Flannery was named Australian of the Year in 2007[1] and is presently a professor at Macquarie University. He is also the chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council, an international climate change awareness group.[2] His sometimes controversial views on shutting down conventional coal fired power stations for electricity generation in the medium term are frequently cited in the media.

WOW - impressive guy...right? What's not to believe...right? Who could question his authority and integrity...right? Just the kind of person the fanatics here at Huffpo would quote...right?
~~~~~
Nosedive moment for warm mantra
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/nosedive-moment-for-warm-mantra/story-e6frfifx-1226041787475

"So far, then, we've got Flannery demonstrating two of the worst failings of the global warming hypesters - their dud predictions of doom and their dud prescriptions for salvation."

"Last week he spectacularly demonstrated just how much this warming movement is actually driven not by science but a new green faith."
~~~~~
Take Dr. Tim Flannery and multiply him by 1000 and you will have some idea of the scope, "idiocracy" and fanaticism of the leaders of the global warming scam. virtually every one of their proponents has similar tales of incorrect statements and predictions.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
09:20 AM on 04/24/2011
Wow that was great.

Tell us an Al Gore story.

I love the old classics.
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
03:54 PM on 04/28/2011
And next, do 'Freebird!!!'
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
11:34 AM on 04/24/2011
It's all only a vast conspiracy, right agwscam? Nothing more to it?
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
11:53 PM on 04/23/2011
The problem is that for our survival we only have one choice.
Stop all poluting of the air. Convert to clean energy now.
So, out of total ineptness the bought polititions are peeing their pants over it.
If they don't do anything about it, we are all going to die. It is that simple.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
04:22 PM on 04/23/2011
Note to Huff Post. Your commenter Poptech here is really starting to annoy a lot of us with his continual spamming of his own web site, and then his taunting when he is called out , and then his flagging others when he is called out.

Don't you have a rule HP? See here for the last few days:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85451856.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85444868.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/obama-climate-change-deniers_n_852013_85326485.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/obama-climate-change-deniers_n_852013_85326335.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/obama-climate-change-deniers_n_852013_85326335.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/obama-climate-change-deniers_n_852013_85326335.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85228248.html

5 self references:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85222595.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85222403.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85204493.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85196738.html

2 self references
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-costs-report_n_850810_85195148.html

2 self references
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Poptech/climate-change-case-heade_n_850176_85193908.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:17 PM on 04/23/2011
Co signed.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SageFire
Research Vote by Mail
08:20 PM on 04/23/2011
This is my first exposure to said PT so I have no opinion but if you have an issue with the profile the best thing you can do is go to the bottom of the page, select "contact us" then "comments" and copy and paste this into the dialog box that pops up. This has worked well for me for similar issues. The "report this profile" option on the profile of the person you are having problems with has never worked for me. I don't think the staff reads our threads for this sort of thing.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
10:45 PM on 04/23/2011
Thank you SageFire, I shall follow up. There is much more going on than is said here of course.
01:45 PM on 04/23/2011
Did any of these studies bother to address the good effects of warming such as lower heating costs, fewer cold related deaths (Cold deaths far exceed heat related ones), longer growing periods allowing multiple crops in one year, more livable conditions further north, etc.). The US migration from northern states to the south is primarily due to a preference for a warmer climate. It makes for good politics when only one side of the issue is addressed. By the way, has anyone ever determined exactly what the "ideal" average global temperature is? We may not be there yet.
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
02:14 PM on 04/23/2011
Q: How do you know any of that?
A: Science, done by smarter people than you.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
05:52 PM on 04/23/2011
Jshep: "By the way, has anyone ever determined exactly what the "ideal" average global temperatur­e is?"

Wouldn't you think it should be an average of the temps for which we evolved, and before the temperature started rising? In other words, species have evolved to be comfortable at a certain setting, and now we are suddenly (on evolutionary time scale) changing the setting.
photo
ILoveFiction
That's unbelievable!
06:42 AM on 04/23/2011
Scandal in progress:

A 1946 study of driftwood is being suppressed by the scientific community.

More info available at the popular technology web site. Hurry right over!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:19 PM on 04/23/2011
Did I mention your sense of humour is perfect?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
11:23 PM on 04/22/2011
This article shows that actuaries are already calculating the economic pain caused by climate change: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-17/munich-re-says-natural-disasters-tripled-in-germany-since-1970-on-climate.html

And this one shows that a 1-meter rise in global ocean levels = $944 Billion in lost GDP globally, approximately $100 Billion from U.S. www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=interactive-12-events
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
11:00 PM on 04/22/2011
From Elfish on HuffPo:

Skeptics: which of the following can you prove to be false?

1. We are burning more and more coal, oil and natural gas. (Doubled since 1960.)

2. Burning oil, coal, and natural gas releases CO2. (Doubled since 1970)

3. The Oceans have a fixed volume of water and have a limited ability to absorb CO2.

4. Plants have a limited ability to absorb CO2 and with deforestation it is decreasing . (10-million hectares/y ear.)

5. The net amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing; by 23% since 1959 and by 49% since 1850. (1850 = 280PPM.)

6. The current CO2 level of 390 PPM is higher than any time in the last 400,000 years. (Previous peak from Antarctic ice cores was 300PPM)

7. The last time CO2 levels were has high as today was 2.1-million years ago. (Previous pre-industrial peaks were around 300PPM, 400,000 years ago).

8. CO2 blocks Infrared radiation centered around the 1.4um wave length and is thus a greenhouse gas.

9. The CO2 increase over the last 150 years is responsible for the earth retaining 1.4 watts per M^2 in additional heat.

10. Various cycles such as sun spot cycles, orbital cycles, etc. amount to no more that 0.4 watts per M^2.

11. Positive feedback mechanisms, methane release, less snow cover, increased water vapor increase the effects by 2 to 9 watts per M^2.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:01 PM on 04/23/2011
1. Al Goes is prominent, and has publicized the dangers of global warming.

2. Al Gore emits more carbon than the average American.

3. This proves that global warming is a sham.

This is typical of the arguments the deniers trot out. They're not holding themselves to the rules of logic and reason. And they find plenty of reinforcement for their irrationality within the info-bubble of Fox, Limbaugh, et al.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
06:28 PM on 04/23/2011
And they omit that Al offsets his carbon through conservation and tree planting.
10:10 AM on 04/24/2011
10. Various cycles such as sun spot cycles, orbital cycles, etc. amount to no more that 0.4 watts per M^2.

While the TSI might vary slightly the effects of Solar Forcings might be underestimated. Especially in regards to the little understood formation of Clouds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1n2oq-XIxI&feature=player_embedded#at=1265
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
02:22 AM on 04/26/2011
Anything "might be" and anybody can upload a video to YouTube saying anything "might be" but can you link any PEER-REVIEWED SCIENCE showing that it IS so?
absolument
Debate the policy. But first, LEARN the science.
12:05 AM on 05/05/2011
Your wait is over.

amirlach: "I'm waiting to see PEER-REVIE­­WED SCIENCE that has ruled out Natural Variabilit­y for recent observed Climate Change."

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.167.2852&rep=rep1&type=pdf