Posted on 01/15/2018 7:38:31 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Climate change is first and foremost a threat to human society.
That fact has been somewhat obscured in regular discourse, in favor of a false dichotomy portraying climate policy as an upper-middle-class noblesse oblige idea for anxious birders and other environmentalist types, and hardheaded economists who think building up yet more wealth is more important.
In reality, one obvious way that threat to humanity is going to be expressed is through economic damage. In other words, unchecked climate change is going to be terrifically expensive.
It drives home the fact that dawdling on climate policy, as Democrats did when they had majorities in 2009-10 — or denying it's even necessary, as virtually every person of consequence in the Republican Party does — is not going to be some profitable venture. Poor countries will be hit worse, but American cities will be wrecked, much critical infrastructure will be destroyed, and many insurance companies and programs will be bankrupted. It will require endless expensive bailouts and reconstruction packages simply to stay ahead of the damage.
Conversely, the faster we move on climate policy, the cheaper it will be. The International Energy Agency has roughly estimated that every year of delay adds $500 billion to the world total of necessary investment to head off climate change. (A stitch in time saves nine, as the saying goes.)
On the most important issue facing humanity, the United States is becoming dangerously close to a rogue state. Let us hope we can soon rejoin the world community and start acting like sensible, moral adults again.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
I Couldn't agree more, you ignorant imbecile!
Science has no room within it for hysteria.
Not now, not ever!
Sure. When real estate values in Miami Beach and Manhattan start plummeting, then I’ll pay attention. Until then, this is hokum.
Science uses the scientific method.
AGW/climate-change “science” does not use the scientific method.
Any questions?
To the author: Tell it to the Chinese and India, then get back to us next century.
He’s right, but not in how he means it.
Unchecked climate change hysteria will be stupefyingly expensive.
Definitely the second
Unchecked climate change is going to be stupendously expensive
Sure.
Cities are heat islands. The temperature there is consistently higher than in outlying areas. A difference in temperature affects precipitation patterns.
However, a mere cloud can do more to change the temperature than all the man made warming.
We have an effect, yet it is minor and can be overridden by the powerful forces of nature in an instant.
It's called physics.
If you increase the temperature you change the humidity.
How GREAT an effect it has outside the lab where things like 'clouds' change the amount of radiation(heat) over large areas in seconds is the only debatable part.
I think the problem is you misunderstand what I was saying.
We do add extra heat to the equation. It does have an effect. However, it is nothing compared to what nature can do in an instant, or over the long term.
The heat we add is probably only marginally slowing the global ‘cooling’ that is anticipated.
The corruption involved in the nuclear fuel industry and the power of those who will do whatever it takes to protect those ill gotten gains.
I can buy that there is protectionism here in the U.S. of the present nuclear industry by those in the game. However, that argument is without merit in India or China or even Japan for that matter prior to their recent disaster.
I know there is a problem with finding a metal or other material that can handle the corrosiveness of the thorium molten salts, but I have been hearing about thorium since I was in college about 30 years ago and it does not seem like we are any closer today than we were when an active thorium reactor was in use at Oak Ridge.
If thorium has so much potential (and I think it does) where is the real world application? China would love to have a cheap energy source that did not pollute. India would also love the same. I don’t think the U.S. nuclear industry has much say in Asia.
Why? The Globalists need to control all sources of 'energy' and uranium is a very popular source. That is why the Clinton Foundation is involved in the Uranium One scandal. Where do India, China, and Japan get their uranium ?
If those countries no longer had to use uranium, who would that affect ?
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.