US Defence Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilising the world

The DDT ban has resulted in millions of deaths of low income people world wide.

 

We are doing our part, you need to convince China and India to do the same.

 

What are Mad-Dog's views on hot yoga?

 

Who cares ??

 

That's right! Just because he is an expert in one field, doesn't mean he knows crap about another.

 

When the daily high temperatures along the Equator reach 160 degrees F, making the whole region uninhabitable and pushing those living there to migrate either north or south to survive, I doubt those dealing with that influx of migration will think the way you are and give thanks that our generation felt it was more important to ignore global warming as a means of keeping the price of home heating down.

 

When will the temperature reach 160 deg F and what will be the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere ?? And if you have those answers how much will the Obama Clean Power Plan reduce the 160 deg F temperature at the equator ??

 

We were. . .under Obama. But Trump is refusing to continue all those positive actions you mentioned, and removing us from participation in solutions to global warming. Obama was working hard to do exactly what you suggested with China and India, and was making progress. Trump has proven already that's not on his radar. We are disengaging more every day, and that's a tragedy, not only for us, but for the entire planet.

 

I read a report a few months ago where climatologists were predicting high temperatures in the Middle East would reach into the 160's F by the end of this century. I don't personally know the amount of CO2 involved. Neither do I know how much Obama's plan would affect that outcome, since it was supposed to change over time as we worked with other nations. But I DO KNOW how much Trump's plan will help, and so do you.

 

Both Obama and Trump actions will have no significant effect on the global average temperature by the year 2100. The global average temperature will be ~ 1 deg C higher and the atmospheric CO2 concentration will be ~ 700 ppm.

 

Why would he want to fund con men?

 

It was reported on national news several times during both 2015 and 2016 that individual months in those years had broken all records ever recorded for high average temperatures. It was also reported in January 2016 and January 2017, that both 2015 and 2016 had the highest average temperatures ever recorded for any complete year since record keeping began. The sources you cite in your post appear to be propaganda put out by conservative climate change resistors trying to confuse the issue. Global Warming was first brought to public attention by scientists who were concerned for the safety and security of all humanity. Those who consistently oppose efforts to deal with it seem to be self-serving, selfish individuals mostly concerned about a few dollars being taken from their pockets without their consent. When I consider what motivates each group, the choice of which I support is easy for me. I stand with those who wish to help humanity and save the planet; and against those whose sole motivation is the preservation of their own financial well-being.

 

It was warmer 1000 years ago in the Medieval Warm Period.

Why would you support actions/policies which causes regressive economic damage for no reduction in global average temperature ?? Why would you support actions/policies which harm poor people economically for no reduction in global average temperature ??

 

Ah, you suffer from noble cause corruption or are easily frightened by something you know little about.

 

So was the new Ice Age back in the 1970's......

Busted telling the truth.

 

Yep it will help us reach 160 degrees

 

OMG! You are quoting a climate science denier to "prove" that mainstream scientists are wrong!

 

Possibly

Might be higher if we do not take action

 

Not really and remember unless it is referenced it is not fact just opinion

BTW how many would a ban on vaccines kill?

 

Any action taken by the US that would have any significant effect on global average temperature is politically impossible. Any governing party attempting this would be quickly voted out of office as the D's have been. This is the iron rule of climate policy.

 

It is referenced - "Science and Public Policy - The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science" - Aynsley Kellow - 2007 - page 152-153. And "The Precautionary Principle - A Critical Appraisal of Environmental Risk Assessment" - Indur Glokany - 2001. The estimate from reference one is ~ 30 million.

I give up - how many would die from the banning of all vaccines ??

 

I tried to look at both articles you cited in your post, but neither would connect on my computer. I don't know if they were current or written in the 1970's. Either way, the current consensus by the vast majority of scientists world-wide is that global warming is very real, very dangerous to existing societies, and capable of being dealt with with some measure of success IF WE DO IT NOW. I stand by my former post.

 

And yet you cannot answer basic questions about the extent of the warming and it's effect and the economic effects of policies to exclude fossil fuels by the US. Additionally you cannot answer basic questions on what the benefit in terms of temp reduction of global warming by these policies. The current consensus is that humans have contributed to some global warming but not all of it. And actually the consensus of economics papers indicate that global warming is net beneficial for a warming of ~ 3 deg C.

 

Beneficial to whom. . .the fossil fuels industry?

 

To answer that question for yourself do some homework. What benefits would a warming planet produce ??