More ice in the Arctic today then 95 years ago

[jtssrx]

 

[Snake]

1 minute ago, jtssrx said:

 

Al Gore said we would be ice free by now...

[Rod]

Whatever happens is a bad thing and you need to pay 

[Zambroski]

49 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

Whatever happens is a bad thing and you need to pay 

 Nailed.

[Anler]

It's almost like all of the pollution we put in the earth is throwing the climate out of whack.

[F3600]

Or its almost like the climate has cycles and variables outside of man that are influencing what we see today.

[Zambroski]

6 minutes ago, F3600 said:

Or its almost like the climate has cycles and variables outside of man that are influencing what we see today.

I think maybe you should just fuck right off and dig into your wallet to fix this shit!!!!

[Rod]

46 minutes ago, Anler said:

It's almost like all of the pollution we put in the earth is throwing the climate out of whack.

What’s the climate supposed to be like?

[XC.Morrison]

1 hour ago, DUMPY said:

Whatever happens is a bad thing and you need to pay 

Bingo.  One way or another, you have to pay.  I read recently that we here in the U.S. spend $450 billion to clean up disasters over the past three years.  It's really about balance though.  You could tax the shit of carbon emissions and drastically reduce human impact on the climate but the economic impact would be disastrous in and of itself.  That's why there's need for a balanced approach where we can both mitigate the negative consequences of climate change without incurring a greater amount of economic impact than would be caused by the climate change we're trying to minimize.  It's basic return on investment.

 

"Similarly, opponents of action on climate change like to complain about the costs of eliminating fossil fuel emissions. Typically, this implies that the alternative—ignoring climate change—is free. It is not.

A new study by Jeremy Martinich and Allison Crimmins of the US Environmental Protection Agency provides the most detailed estimate yet of the economic costs of climate change in the United States. They found that taking action to reduce emissions could save us at least $200 billion per year by the end of the century."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/limiting-climate-change-could-save-the-us-a-ton-of-money/

[Rod]

Just now, XC.Morrison said:

Bingo.  One way or another, you have to pay.  I read recently that we here in the U.S. spend $450 billion to clean up disasters over the past three years.  It's really about balance though.  You could tax the shit of carbon emissions and drastically reduce human impact on the climate but the economic impact would be disastrous in and of itself.  That's why there's need for a balanced approach where we can both mitigate the negative consequences of climate change without incurring a greater amount of economic impact than would be caused by the climate change we're trying to minimize.  It's basic return on investment.

 

"Similarly, opponents of action on climate change like to complain about the costs of eliminating fossil fuel emissions. Typically, this implies that the alternative—ignoring climate change—is free. It is not.

A new study by Jeremy Martinich and Allison Crimmins of the US Environmental Protection Agency provides the most detailed estimate yet of the economic costs of climate change in the United States. They found that taking action to reduce emissions could save us at least $200 billion per year by the end of the century."

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/limiting-climate-change-could-save-the-us-a-ton-of-money/

We’re mitigating the consequences of detrimental climate change by adding c02 to the atmosphere 

[XC.Morrison]

3 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

We’re mitigating the consequences of detrimental climate change by adding c02 to the atmosphere 

We were for a while, but then we went overboard.  It's like mitigating the effect of drowsiness by having a cup of coffee but then instead of just having one cup you actually have 15. 

[Zambroski]

3 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

We were for a while, but then we went overboard.  It's like mitigating the effect of drowsiness by having a cup of coffee but then instead of just having one cup you actually have 15. 

Lol...made me giggle.  Nicely done.

[Rod]

10 minutes ago, XC.Morrison said:

We were for a while, but then we went overboard.  It's like mitigating the effect of drowsiness by having a cup of coffee but then instead of just having one cup you actually have 15. 

No historically were only a couple sips into the first cut of coffee 

[XC.Morrison]

19 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

No historically were only a couple sips into the first cut of coffee