Scholarship table
Yeah, since tens of thousands of people are killed worldwide every year by severe weather events and the devastation that follows (disease, famine, etc.), I would say that children's lives are put in danger by an increasing number of severe weather events.
A bit of a stretch but that's fine. You've made your point. I'm not denying climate change but I guess I don't feel as strongly about its effects as others on here.
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?[...]Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.
And the even bigger point, how much will we spend and what is the benefit?Personally, I think it should be tied to absolute metrics. We will spend $X trillion and it will result in Y (define the metrics). If that fails to happen, then the funding is stopped, discounted, or whatever. For the simple reason that if they cannot determine what the money spent will do in terms of an impact gain, it means they are just spit balling and don't have a general clue on the subject at hand. Instead, the answer is just throw gobs of money at it....what does the gobs of money get us and if it the gobs of money DOESN'T deliver that promise, then there should be an appropriate response. Otherwise we're just wasting money for the sake of wasting it if it's going to happen and no tangible results can be derived.
And that has been going on for 1000's of years, not something that just started since the industrial revolution. That's part of the bigger point.
Only a fool would deny climate change.
You're not wrong, but here's the problem: Climate change is likely a cumulative and exponential problem that can't just be "solved". It's going to take YEARS of work to change our behaviors, and we likely won't see huge impacts until years down the road. But, if we wait around and/or don't address the issues, then it's seriously going to be too late to change.
Many educated people in Orange County, not many Fruitcakes in Orange County....the rest of the state....that's another story.
[...]The other problem some have partially addressed is that climate change is a long-term process. But the biggest problem with it is that there will be a point of no return. Are we there yet? Some say yes, some say no. But waiting around isn't exactly helping.
but we'd feel so good doing it.
We have hundreds, perhaps thousands, of bridges and tunnels and trestles and water-carrying pipelines that are seriously in need of repair. To do this, however, is outrageously expensive and it seems we only have money for defense and entitlements. So we are using your system: We won't do it until we know what the tangible results of money we spend on these projects will be. So we wait until a bridge collapses or a tunnel caves in to fix it.As for the anti-vax crowd ... I wonder how many of these same people were so worried about Ebola getting into the U.S. and wiping us all out. Between the measles, the severe weather and the 2-year-olds shooting their parents with the guns they find in purses, we don't need no stinkin' Ebola to doom us.
So I ask, we are going to spend all of this money, etc, and what are we getting for it? I think it's a fair question. Shouldn't someone be able to say that by doing all of this we believe we will lower C02 by X and temperature by Y? No one is willing to put any metrics behind it, but we should just spend away and just trust the process. No wonder so many people are skeptical. Where's the accountability?
You're absolutely right about thisBut we have a pretty good idea about the causes and preventative measures. The only immediate solution is to intensely regulate industry that we know are primary causes
We also know we are in a 19 year pause right now.....climate is so complex....there are so many things we don't know....many more that we don't know then we do. That's the scary part for both outcomes. Meaning, it could get really bad, or it could be nothing at all and things revert. What's the role of the Sun? What's the role of the oceans? How much is man at fault? What about all the farting cows. So on and so forth.
I'm aware that the earth has a cyclical nature, but the most recent intense cycle cannot be denied. So why not make an undoubtedly safe move and fix this the best we can because we don't really know for sure? Oh...right. It would cut into profits of multinational corporations. We must always cater to the most wealthy
Because to make the meaningful dent in CO2 emissions that activists are calling for then the nation doing so would by definition cripple its competitiveness in an international marketplace leading to an economic depression and a certain overall increase in the suffering of its citizens?
Winner winner.Plus, this idea of "fixing" this....what will be fixed? Are we lowering temps by what amount for how much? No one knows and no one will say it, because they don't know.
Well obviously nobody knows for sure, but I don't know if that's a good reason for not trying.
Should we do so if it triples the cost of energy and all consumer goods produced in the United States?