California Made A Big Mistake (to buy, luxury, deal)

[oldtrader]

Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/sc...teau.html?_r=0

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by sunshine7793

We Californians have taken it upon ourselves to solve global warming by restricting our C02 emissions. Turns out that this job killer program serves no purpose as global warming has not been occurring during the last 16 years and there is no link between global warming and our C02 output anyway. In fact the future may hold colder temperatures for us:

Climate Study: Evidence Leans Against Human-Caused Global Warming

So what's the chance that we wise up and turn away from the path we are on?

Am I missing something here? We restricted our emissions to solve global warming....and global warming stopped...

Oh, yeah, but there's no link...

We need an emoticon that is scratching it's head.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I don't think that humans have as much of an impact on global warming as some people insist. That being said, I see nothing wrong with taking measures to cut back on pollution and conserve resources.

Agreed. Of course, there needs to be a cost - benefit analysis done for these.

Most things follow the 80 / 20 rule. There are definitely points of diminishing return most especially in matters of ecological mitigation.

[Ion_Exchange]

Overall global climate change should be the top priority on everyones radar. These older republican idiots dont give a f*ck because the true effects will take place after they're gone. Unfortunately, I am 25 and fully expect to see the negative anthropogenic driven effects of centuries of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within my lifetime. I dont think many people have wrapped their head around the fact that if we continue our reckless pace of environmental destruction the gaia hypothesis will come true and human existence will cease to exist. This is some real **** here!!

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Ion_Exchange

Overall global climate change should be the top priority on everyones radar. These older republican idiots dont give a f*ck because the true effects will take place after they're gone. Unfortunately, I am 25 and fully expect to see the negative anthropogenic driven effects of centuries of carbon and greenhouse gas emissions within my lifetime. I dont think many people have wrapped their head around the fact that if we continue our reckless pace of environmental destruction the gaia hypothesis will come true and human existence will cease to exist. This is some real **** here!!

Good points. It first started getting talked about when I was a teenager in the 80's and even I have seen things change. However, with climate change, some things can't be attributed to it but the cumulative overall over decades is undeniable. Like I said, just ask any farmer. Climate zones have been shifting north generally overall.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

... Climate zones have been shifting north generally overall.

I keep telling everyone to watch the northern border, not the south ... damn Canadians will rob us blind.

[Curmudgeon]

What astounds me is that some seem to think that this report is just cause to put an end to all the "green" advances that have taken place. Now I will admit that they have driven up costs in some arenas and likely cost some jobs. However, I'm sure that those of you who lived in or near the L.A. area in the 50s and 60s like I did (Orange County) can recall the "hazy" days as they were called then. They were horrendous and the air pollution was enough to gag a maggot some days. Today that's hardly the case, thanks to the green movement, and that's worthy of consideration. While government has perhaps gone too far in some instances as is its wont, overall it has been reasonably beneficial.

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/sc...teau.html?_r=0

Good links. The Economist has this feature that's missing from most American news outlets (and most message boards, for that matter). I believe that feature is called "nuance". People who look at this issue at a superficial level do not know how much uncertainty they have to deal with and how that uncertainty is dealt with. You won't encounter a responsible scientist who says that we must take drastic action or we're all doomed. People who advocate emissions reductions do so because the risks of rising temperatures, given the current science, are high enough to justify the cost in reducing emissions. What actions one advocates depends on other variables, like projections of costs, competing priorities, assumed discount rates (essentially, how much value we put on the well-being of future generations), and the like.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

What astounds me is that some seem to think that this report is just cause to put an end to all the "green" advances that have taken place. Now I will admit that they have driven up costs in some arenas and likely cost some jobs. However, I'm sure that those of you who lived in or near the L.A. area in the 50s and 60s like I did (Orange County) can recall the "hazy" days as they were called then. They were horrendous and the air pollution was enough to gag a maggot some days. Today that's hardly the case, thanks to the green movement, and that's worthy of consideration. While government has perhaps gone too far in some instances as is its wont, overall it has been reasonably beneficial.

Well said! True it's an inconvenience for many, especially if they're not used to it but in the long run, everyone benefits. The occurrences of acid rain have decreased as well.

[Think4Yourself]

Only a moron believes the disinformation spread by partisan blogs like breitbart. If someone wants actual information from actual scientists then it is very easy to get just by going to the source and not partisan blogs.