Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies

What does this universal scientific consensus say will be the effect on global average temperature in the next 100 years resulting from US energy policy ??

 

What is the exact number of years added to your life from quitting smoking. To the day please. The myth of exactness is ridiculous. But if you quit smoking....do you think it might help you to live longer?

 

If you want to start a thread about smoking then please do so.

But the very models which are used to justify alarmism clearly show that Obama/Clinton energy policy will have zero effect on the global average temperature one hundred years from now.

 

Trump's nuclear winter will cool the planet and thin the population. I am surprised the democrats haven't figured out that he is the only candidate who will save the planet.

 

Trump's nuclear winter ?? Don't you mean the nuclear winter from Iran's "nuc's" - it appears that the Iran nuclear agreement may be the answer to global warming and over population that the alarmists advocate.

 

According to democrats, Trump is too irrational to be put in charge of nukes, so a democrat concerned about global warming is backing the wrong horse with Clinton. Hillary supports fracking. A vote for Hillary is a vote for the slow end to all life on the planet.

 

According to democrats supply side (which they derisively label trickle down) economics doesn't work. But supply side economics is the basis (according to Joe Stiglitz, chairman of Bill's council of economic advisors) for the success of the Clinton economy in his second term.

Agreed - a vote for Hillary is a vote for further US economic rate reductions. The Chinese and Indians are laughing at us for being foolish enough to shut down fossil fuels and forcibly convert to solar and wind. Their economies are growing at ~ 10% whilst the US is growing at ~ 2%.

 

They are growing at 10% from the stoneage start line. Ultimately, more wealth flowing to the two countries that represent about 25% of the world's population is necessary for stability in the long term. The US, on the other hand, represents about 5% of the global population and consumes 16% of global GDP. We have some wealth to share. The problem isn't that wealth is going to China and India anyway. It is that it is being trapped in Wall Street. The trickle is stopped by the kidney stone of perpetual low interest rates. As unattractive as it sounds, time for the fed to run the roto-rooter up the collective pee pee and make significant rate hikes.

 

They are creating wealth from a very well developed economic system by exporting to the ROW whose economies are trapped in a morass of "duma$$" economic and public policies. And those economies who import from China and India benefit greatly from the low prices whilst complaining mightily about unfair trade practices.

 

Again the scientific community disagrees with you

 

Only parts of the economies do--the capital markets--which is part of the reason the trickle isn't happening. I am not horribly worried about the US. I would like to see less monetization of debt primarily by less debt via higher taxation, but living in the US still beats being a Sri Lankan anything.

 

You make that claim but can't quantify anything. Again what is the magnitude of the temperature reduction resulting from the Obama/Clinton energy and global warming policies does your scientific community predict ?? The answer is zero per the MAGICC code.

 

Again the question is so ridiculous that no one who understands science would ever ask it. It is laughable.

 

That is a result of the Obama economic policies. Corporate profits and war chests are high/full but companies are not investing. The Obama economy can only survive on the low interest rates set by the Fed. Look for interest rates to go up significantly in the lame duck period if Trump is elected.

Raising tax rates will reduce economic growth. The keys to debt reduction are included in the Trump economic plan designed to produce economic growth of 4%. These are also included in Bowles/Simpson (why did Obama turn his back) and the Ryan Roadmap.

 

More predictions. How many times are you allowed to get these wrong? Lol

 

Why would anyone implement policies which have zero effect on the goal of those policies ?? That is truly laughable.

 

The 4% growth has been done by the economic policies of Reagan - QED. Trump's proposals are based on the success of the Reagan policies which also repeal the Obama policies which have resulted in economic productivity increases of ~ 1% and ~ 0% for 2016 so far.

 

No problem with any of those four points, just your inclination to get all righteous and high and mighty about the matter. Absolutely there is no solution to the climate change problem without addressing population. What I generally get in reply when I bring it up is that the trend line is toward fewer average children per family and that maybe around 2100 we will achieve a steady state of population at say 11 billion or so. My guess is we already have too many but so many folks believe there is a green techno-fix around the corner.

We'll see,

 

Because the scientific community disagrees with you and our government should go with the scientific consensus as they do for every other issue

 

We should go with AFM because he has his finger on the pulse of the climate. And he is also a fine economic counsel. He is never wrong about anything. Just ask him.

 

Difference is changes then were based on innovation and invention and most of all efficiency.Changes now proposed by AGW alarmist are based on none of the above. The MAIN thing I am noticing here though is that suddenly when it comes to having children you are more concerned with economic issues than your previous seas are rising earth is warming rhetoric. If you honestly believe Florida and new York city are about to be swallowed by the sea you would maybe kind of think that would have more economic impact than not having children so you busted yourself here and it is clear you don't really believe your own dogma

 

I'm only stating fact and fact is more people equals more carbon no matter how you cut it and AGW alarmist who have or intend to have children run from this fact like the devil himself was after them

 

I have said quite clearly that population reduction if done correctly could be an element of addressing climate change. But by itself it is not enough

 

You still haven't answered the question of why you think the economic impact of population reduction is bigger than the impact of states and major cities being swallowed by the ocean and it becomes clear that when push comes to shove you don't really believe that is a real possibility. As I said, BUSTED!

 

I have never said such a thing. For the third time....population reduction can be one part of efforts to reduce climate change if done correctly.