Those prices are coming down all the time. If you really account for everything, fossil fuels aren't actually "cheap" anyway, it's just the biases of the current market that make them seem cheap on paper. External cost projections for energy sources are based partially on projections of climate change, but there are also considerable costs from air pollution and resource depletion as well. When you factor these all in, wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear are all cheaper in the long run. That's using 2012 data that ignores some key years of the ongoing renewable energy boom. http://www.ecofys.com/en/news/first...sts-and-subsidies-for-eu28-across-all-techno/ As for global warming having a positive impact on agriculture in some regions, you're correct. I don't think that's the case for either of our states however... or for much of Asia. Thank you Hoosier, for listing the *real* reason we're all concerned about global warming: UFO sightings. That's what this is really all about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new.../British-UFO-sightings-at-bizarre-levels.html You just can't make this stuff up.
Based on another Rahmstorf paper and it doesn't appear he is working in reality. The same Rahmstorf that predicted AGW was slowing the Atlantic circulation based on Bristlecone proxies (of course Michael Mann was involved in that one) completely ignoring actual measurements that showed nothing of the sort. Of course this is all based on models.
Denier cult drivel! It doesn't appear that you have any connection to reality whatsoever. Atlantic Circulation Weakens Compared with Last Thousand Years An ocean current that carries warm water north is weakening as Greenland melts Scientific American By John Upton March 24, 2015
Of course Ramstorf and Mann would avoid including this paper in their study because it would be 'inconvenient' to their models. On the long-term stability of Gulf Stream transport based on 20 years of direct measurements http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058636/abstract
LOLOLOLOLOL.......so a study by some of the top ocean specialists finds that the Atlantic Overturning Current, which slowed down in the 1970s and then recovered somewhat since, is slower now than it's ever been in over a thousand years......and you idiotically imagine that a study of the speed of the current over just the last twenty years somehow refutes that study......hilarious.....you are sooooo clueless.... Moreover, Dr. Ramsdorf's paper is based on measurements, not just models.
Oh one with so much drivel. They are not ocean scientists yet the one ocean scientist that has done it so long that he is now retired you reject. Pretty funny stuff.
Deranged reality denial. You really don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Dr. Stefan Rahmsdorf Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf is a German oceanographer and climatologist. Since 2000, he has been a Professor of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University. He received his Ph.D. in oceanography from Victoria University of Wellington (1990). His work focuses on the role of ocean currents in climate change. He was one of the lead authors of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
While our government says that climate change needs to be addressed, they are making nuclear bombs, biological warfare(disease), trying to create a black hole here on earth, creating anti matter, smashing particles and nearly the speed of light, without knowing the consequences. Do you really think they care about climate change? It would seem to me that they are only trying to implement another policy that can be taxed, and use the money for the already stated above.
The same policy they presented for global cooling. The same policy they presented for the population bomb scare. The agenda never changes, just the method of fear mongering.
I won't try to dispute the fact that there sea level is rising or that ocean the temps. are rising.. But I will despite that humans can significantly alter this natural course. Instead I would suggest that that we don't rebuild near shore lines. Don't build homes closer than two miles of the ocean shore or in areas prone to flooding. And that we don't insure these properties. The federal government should five a total tax deduction for the value of destroyed properties that can't rebuilt.
Then you are just another silly, confused, anti-science reality denier, with no idea what you talking about. "Natural course" my ass!
u will never approach public policy arenas without getting'r'done, in 3 minutes or they will tell u, stf. just saying. see?
Nope! Wrong again, as always, little retard. It's a battle between the science-based rational realists and the insanity-based braindead denier cultists, like you.
Coming from someone as irrational and insane as you, your opinion on someone else's rationality is meaningless....since you utterly lack any trace of rationality yourself, how could you possibly recognize it in others...