Would like to see the numbers on cost of Climate caused damage due to flooding, storms etc etc etc.#

Went to the Google.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

That is obviously only a snap shot and just for the USA. Would be surprised if cost of damage from climate measured across the globe was not increasing.

Five Insurance Companies Debunk Fox On Extreme Weather:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11...extreme/196734

The cost of extreme weather events would have increased even without global warming so it is impossible to put a figure on it due to global warming. This is mainly because of population growth and more people living in areas that are prone to hurricanes, tornados, flooding and bush fires. There isn't any evidence yet that any of those events are happening more often or more extremely globally because of global warming. Of these events only flooding can be linked directly to global warming and an increase in sea levels. Most floods however are caused by rivers overflowing which has no proven link to global warming yet.

Climate change can however change rain patterns, storm patterns etc. so that places that aren't used to for example tornados will have to start dealing with them while places that used to get tornados become safer.

It is very likely global warming is the cause of black solar panels changing the albedo of the desert, land use due to increasing population, and immigration into coastal cities. A lot of the costs associated with damage can be associated with deadbeat baby boomers and their socialist spawn. For example Sandy was not even a hurricane when it hit shore but was made so to juice insurance claims. 50 years ago people would not even make a claim to keep costs lower for everyone.

Liberal government prevented the monorail from going to the airport in Las Vegas, limit the amount of solar panels you can put on your house and force you to use licensed contractors to do so, yada yada yada. Bernie Sanders should be in jail for his environmental atrocities. Why didn't he write any bills banning cars in the Senate? A 30% tax credit puts far fewer panels on peoples roofs than preventing the city from inspecting systems or even a $1 per watt credit. There are inverters you can plug directly in a 110 outlet that are illegal, as it would be too easy to save money, as the government wants you to spend money to pay more taxes.

From the World Meteorologic Organization:

1. Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point.

2. No individual tropical cyclone can be directly attributed to climate change.

3. The recent increase in societal impact from tropical cyclones has largely been caused by rising concentrations of population and infrastructure in coastal regions.

https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp?MR=1

My Point: Too many humans are causing climate destruction. Existance or non-existance of MMGW is a total canard and waste of time.

His reply: More humans than ever, therefore nothing is wrong.


Yeah real debate about facts and stuff going on here.

Lol at the term climate destruction! What does that even mean?

So your a crazy person and think human population is a problem? I realize that's at the root of the green movement but not to often people come out and say it.

If you don't think population growth has a serious impact on the environment then you just don't care about anything but humans. You are only crazy if you want to fix the population growth with anything other than education and increases in wealth.

And long term, really not even humans.

+1

Of course it has an impact on the environment. Why do you think any impact on the environment is a bad thing?

Bull****. Human life has improved in pretty much every measurable metric since we started using fossil fuels. Your the one that wants to ban the only cheap, plentiful energy humans have ever had, which would have a negative impact on billions on people's lives.

If we keep going this way then the people born now are the last ones who will see the great barrier reef as a wonder of nature. I know you don't care about that and think that it is better to have cheap fuel than a diverse nature but that just means you are extremely selfish and a short term thinker. We don't even understand what the long term consequences are of destroying these habitats but you are happy to take your chances. Or you are just a troll. Either way you belong in the climate change thread.

Things start to smell way earlier than they really go bad. Not that I would eat them. :/

We never had it so good, better kill more animals.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-su...-idUSKCN0XI1TC

SunEdison filing chapter 11. Biggest solar bankruptcy in the US.

This is not a sign the industry is going away. People have asked me where to invest in solar and I always say nowhere. The industry is growing, but it's very difficult to be in a business where prices are rapidly decreasing.

What do you mean by keep going this way? You have no idea what I do and don't care about. I know you'd rather have a coral reef then flourishing humans, I view that as pretty selfish.

Let's pretend your right and humans are causing "climate destruction". What's your solution? How many humans do you want to see suffer to save your coral reef?

If only us liberals weren't so smug, maybe Shifty would understand the basic mechanics of climate change by now.

No need for humans to suffer. We have enough resources to save the environment and stop most of the suffering of humans. But most people against climate policies actually don't care at all about humans sufffering. They are happily destroying the environment while doing very little or nothing to raise the poorest out of poverty. At the same time they pretend that either climate change isn't a problem or come up with strawmen arguments about all those suffering humans.

At the same time they totally ignore the fact that climate change is eventually going to cause suffering for humans and mostly for the currently already poor ones. Ignoring all the evidence that the richest countries in the world can afford to stop using coal and pay more for alternative energy sources and that it is fine not to buy a new iphone every year.

Of course the above doesn't describe you. You just believe that because coal lifted people out of poverty in the last 100 years we should dig up as much as possible and continue to use it no matter the consequences. And of course I have an idea what you do and don't care about. Your posting history is here for everyone to read. You deny climate change is a problem and believe it is fine for humans to destroy every other species on the planet as long as that means they themselves don't suffer. Which in itself is never going to be achieved as the poorest will always be considered to be suffering compared to the richest in the world.

So to answer your strawman. I don't want humans to suffer to safe the great barrier reef but I am willing to accept that some might because humans are selfish. I do want to make sure it still exists for future generations especially since we don't know what the consequences are of destroying it.

^^ So your worried about the effects of global warming on the poor. The poor are poor for one reason, private ownership in land and government wanting to keep it that way so they don't have to work.

That's two reasons.

Its almost like human beings are not animals highly dependent on a healthy functioning eco system rich in bio diversity.

What externality costs Shifty amirite?

We evolved with our earth, plants and animals. It should be obvious that our existence and future as a species depends greatly upon how we treat our planet.

I wonder how much climate change denile or its impact is correlated to belief in God. Does anyone know any atheists that are deniers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is definitely some sentiment among religious people that man can not change the earth and suggesting such is some kind of heresy.

And beyond that, the Bible explicitly says God will create a new Earth, so tons of Christians have the attitude that it doesn't matter anyway.

I wonder how much correlation there is between greens and leftist big government people.

Your hard core commies can fetishize industrial production and disregard the environment just as much as idiots like George Bush and the Koch Brothers.

But, there is no protection of the environment without government, so at least you can say there is not really any correlation between greens and anarcho-capitalists.