Posted on 11/23/2018 1:01:38 PM PST by RightGeek
Today, U.S. government agencies released a heavily anticipated new report about how climate change is impacting the United States. The 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4) lays out a detailed picture of how communities across the country are already feeling the effects of climate change—from intensified risk of wildfires in California, to droughts slowing agricultural production in Iowa and much more.
The report is the second half of a vast effort by scientists, land managers, public health officials, and others to assess the state of the climate across the U.S. The report's first volume, published in 2017, summarized the state-of-the-art knowledge about how climate is affecting temperatures, water resources, sea-level rise, and other natural systems around the country. The second half, published today, focuses on how climate change is already tugging at the economic and social fabric of the United States.
In clear, unwavering terms, the new report states that without "substantial and sustained reductions" in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change will hurt people, economies, and resources across the U.S. But the report also highlights how its worst impacts can be avoided, by adapting to our warmer world and by working to lessen future changes in Earth's climate.
...
This new report is an installment in an ongoing series. It was produced by the U.S. Global Change Research program, a consortium made up of representatives from thirteen different federal agencies that was established in 1990, after George H.W. Bush signed the Global Change Research Act into law.
The 1990 act—which passed with not a single dissent in the Senate—required a report every four years to pull together the best available research on how climate change affects the U.S. The reports were supposed to look into the future, predicting how climate would influence Americans 25 to 100 years ahead.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalgeographic.com ...
Lemmiwinks?
Whoa, Nelly! Backup the turnip truck. Envirokooks NEVER suggest that we adapt, only that we give up all our income and freedom. This is astonishing.
Let's see how we can adapt? Longer growing seasons? Check. Better growing conditions in more northern and far southern latitudes? Check. Fewer people freezing to death in winter? Check.
And western ice sheets that carved valleys and left massive lakes all over the west.
People forget that the last great ice sheets disappeared only 11,500 years ago. That’s only 5X farther in the past than when Jesus walked the earth. It wasn’t that long ago.
L8r
A carbon tax, carbon offsets, carbon banks and exchanges,.... would hit all levels but especially the middle class.
Also, the government solution only offers taxes and forced reduced consumption.
No, there is absolutely nothing offered to help mitigate the costs to the middle class. Plus, what will the government do with the windfall except give it to third world dictators as a bribe to not develop their resources.
In the early 2000s, there was an attempt to blame Christ and Christianity for "global warming".
I wonder what the life expectancy was in Jesus’s time? Half of what it is now? I’d say progress has been made.
“No, there is absolutely nothing offered to help mitigate the costs to the middle class. Plus, what will the government do with the windfall except give it to third world dictators as a bribe to not develop their resources.”
I agree with you. Having that is what is meant by “adapting”.
To help adapt to climate change means developing technologies and products with which human life would be less adversely affected in general, and mitigating means developing ways to offset or makeup for any adverse impacts that adapatations alone cannot avoid. Many of the things that could be done to improve human adaptation to “warming” would also prove their worth if adverse affects turned out to be from “cooling”. As I said most of that would be done in and come from the private sector, though “mitigation” efforts in particular would come under the same bedgetary items that spending for “natural disasters” falls under. But all of it, adapting and mitigating would collectively cost a mazzive amount less to the economy than chasing CO2.
If you listen carefully you can hear the global warming alarmists moving the goal post.
National Geographic is another once great entity hijacked and destroyed by the left. An aggressive cancer that destroys everything it touches
Whew! Glad I have already moved to Florida from Seattle!
Looks like I need a bigger SUV.
Here's what really causes my temperature to go up when I read this:
Have there not been wildfires before? Haven't some been particularly intense? How are the Californian fires over the past few months differed from fires in say, the last 200 years?
Have there not been droughts before, even in Iowa? What was the Dust Bowl of the 1930s? Was this recent drought in Iowa worse than the 1930s Dust Bowl that swept over the Great Plains and Midwest?
I don't think there is anything SPECIAL about these two disparate events (fires and droughts). Proponents of global warming say climate isn't weather and I'd say they're right; so why do journalists bring up these very recent fires and droughts to imply climate when they're both more likely weather events?
Prove to me--since you want to tax more, and stifle industry--that either of these things are directly related to recent (since 1990) rising temperatures.
What angers me the most is how they question our motives!
News ALERT! Conservatives live on the Earth, too!
We don't want to see the Earth a smoking ruin any more than you Leftists do, but before we make a national policy that can hurt us economically, let's come up with some definitive answers!
1. What is the worst case scenario? --ok, we know this one because it's hyped in the press constantly...
2. What is the LIKEY scenario? In other words, not worst case, but scientifically provable, like what is the temperature REALLY going to be say 50 years from now? You don't know? Then say THAT.
3. What is the BEST case scenario? We hear little of this, but such things as an extended growing season for crops, faster and stronger growing crops due to CO2 (it's got what plants crave!). More habitable land area in the far North. All of these things might happen also.
This will put a crimp in the RATs mantra:
So educate the libs to quit using CO2 in their fountain drinks. They are killing us!
In other words, blame every natural event on their religion of climate change.
Unfortunately, we are I’ll prepared for any change. We rely on technology for everything which requires petroleum energy to make it work. For that reason, we are extremely vulnerable. Will we adapt? Definitely. But it will be tough and it will be dramatic. People will suffer and people will die.
Agreed. There is a clear line between education and indoctrination. It is obvious to those of us here who follow FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.