He fks up the future, the housing price drops yay!

I think he meant costs, not risks. The costs, assuming global warming is a hoax or the damages are greatly overstated making carbon taxes pointless, are the benefits derived from the things we would have bought/used without the tax but that because of the tax we no longer buy/use. The stuff that we continue to use at a higher price are value neutral since the increase in price is tax revenue.

Like if a carbon tax jacked up gas prices by 10%... the social cost (in the context of driving) isn't the 10% price increase. It's the trips that we would have taken without the tax that we decide "meh, dont feel like going out" in proportion to the strength of our preference, which by definition is <= 10% of the cost of gas.

Looks like you would be shocked if he "fks up the future" and housing market remained strong.

You think the climate doesn't change? lol

Or that it's not caused by humans? Or not enough to matter?

Worth debating the particulars, but trumps handling of the issue is horrific. Why could he not tweet some kind of an interview or lecture from the people who he's deferring to on the issue? He obviously has no issue posting links on twitter to highly unscientific content to justify his choices, what's stopping him from posting some of the legitimate critiques of the conventional wisdom on climate science?

If he really thinks it's important, it's worth giving a voice to highly credentialed dissenters so that there can be some kind of a public debate to shift public opinion. But no. He'd rather a) call it a hoax and then b) suggest that his withdrawal from the paris accord is because the US is getting a bad deal, which actually implies that he DOES accept the conventional wisdom on climate science but wants others to pay more. It's not even internally consistent.

If he writes what he really thinks, his post will get deleted.

Didn't Gore and his cronies say in the early 2000's that all the ice in the north pole would be melted by 2015?

No.

Yes he did:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.WT1ZrGhVlpg

And he was wrong.

No:

But even that headline is wrong:

But it wasn't a good argument from Gore--most scientists knew those extreme models were likely wrong.

So listen to scientists and not Gore.

The same scientists who were peddling "global cooling" back in the 70's?

B-b-but it's different this time.

The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

+1

This is a fun one. Climate change was pretty well accepted in the early 1900's. Wonder what changed.

http://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/

Everyone knows that Gore is an idiot and only in it for the money and fame. He's done so much harm for the movement that it may not be reparable in time. However, that does not discount the facts.

Also, many of the dire warnings from real scientists have not come true because policy has changed in many areas. Look at the ozone layer, for example. While some argue that the hole has not been reduced back to pre-dangerous levels, it clearly has not gotten any bigger.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/eart...nt-matter.html

A good read about the Dutch and their fight against sea levels and climate change, specifically in the city of Rotterdam, where they've managed to turn the fight against flooding into a bit of an industry.

Netherlands underwater?

wtf I love climate change now

Topical given the current heat wave in the western US that's breaking temperature records: NYT article with some good visuals about temperature changes over the next 80 years

Right now, this is how much of the world sees temperatures over 95F (35C) over 5 days per year on average, colored by how many days (darkest = 200+ days a year):



There are two projections for how this map changes, one based on nations meeting Paris goals, the other ("doing nothing") based on emissions continuing to rise at the same rate as 2000-2010:





The latter one isn't likely to happen, given that coal use is declining, but we still have work to do to make it to the Paris map, which still isn't ideal. Extreme heat both increases our need for energy and decreases our ability to feed the world:



It also has harmful economic effects:

Cue: "but it's probably just the sun, we can't help it"

It's probably just the moon. Nothing we can do about it.

show that "it's the same scientists." ... give me a name.

science constantly evolves as better data comes in... you realize this by now, yes? ... probably not.

I admit I don't know the scope of whatever global cooling theories were advanced back in the 70s. I suspect that the scope was smaller than what you would say. Wikipedia says this:

Emphasis mine.

But despite what was said in the past, yes, things are different now. Every field has been revolutionized by the data analysis tools of computers. Fields like climate science in particular, featuring phenomena which are very complex from a mechanistic standpoint, benefit greatly from the collecting and crunching of massive amounts of data which has become possible with computers.

Two stories based not on any future climate models, but rather current measurements of what is happening right now:

Even as carbon emissions are stabilizing, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is still rising at record rates

Sea level rise is accelerating (who was it earlier saying "yeah why listen to the guy making the observations" about some east coast fisherman saying "I'm out on the water every day and I don't see it rise"? rofl what a dumbass)

Climate change will hit the South and Midwest the hardest economically


(color scale is % of GDP each county will experience in damages)

lol dumbass conservatives

Interesting. Just FYI, the scale from the article shows, I think, dark green is 5-10% economic growth, light green is 0-5% growth, light orange is 0-5% economic damage, orange is 5-10% damage, red-orange is 10-15% damage and red is 15-20% damage.

The damage appears to be primarily from heat stroke deaths and crops not growing as well. Adapting by preventing heat stroke deaths (France provided cooling centers for those without AC in 2003) and changing/adapting crops may alleviate some or much of the damage.

I wonder why San Diego and, what is that, Fresno, benefit.