[chiralSPO]

For an in-depth analysis of pros and cons of climate change across the US, see here: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/global-warming-american-south/532200/?utm_source=feed

actual article is here: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6345/1362.full

Long story short, the American South (especially Southeast) is going to suffer economically. A lot.

[evan_au]

not having any fuel?

Both sides of this debate often descend into scaremongering.

Nobody is suggesting that society(s) stop consuming energy.

What environmentalists are suggesting is that:
- The fuels that got society out of the 1700s into the 1800s killed lots of people
- To get us out of the 1800s into the 1900s, these legacy fuels were supplemented by liquid fuels. But even more people died.
- There is a more diverse set of technologies available now, and it is about time that some of these older technologies were forcefully retired.

Coal mining has massive economies of scale, and considerable political leverage - but in many places is still receiving government subsidies. It is also an extremely dangerous occupation, and produces lots of damaging pollution.

Governments need to promote innovation, and move their incentives out of the 18th century into the 21st century.

[jeffreyH]

The data required to actually work out what is going on is not in the public domain. The owners want to recoup their investment and may release portions for a fee. This is why people are in the dark. Unless you work for a business that builds the equipment to monitor various environmental parameters you don't get access. You are also excluded from any modelling and analysis. So people generally pick one side or another. That is the major issue here.

[evan_au]

Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?

Yes, it is hotter in Mexico and Florida than in Canada.

The predictions suggest that on current trends of human emissions of greenhouse gasses, Mexico, Canada and everywhere in-between will get hotter over the next century.

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states
- rising temperatures will impact productivity in Mexico and southern USA more than northern USA
- It will increase the disparity between rich and poor in USA
- But it will unfreeze some parts of Canada for more of the year (which might be a good thing for some Canadians).

[Bored chemist]

Is it slightly hotter in Mexico? Do they manage?

Yes, it is hotter in Mexico and Florida than in Canada.

The predictions suggest that on current trends of human emissions of greenhouse gasses, Mexico, Canada and everywhere in-between will get hotter over the next century.

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states
- rising temperatures will impact productivity in Mexico and southern USA more than northern USA
- It will increase the disparity between rich and poor in USA
- But it will unfreeze some parts of Canada for more of the year (which might be a good thing for some Canadians).

It's also important to realise that, since the earth is roughly spherical, if you push the "temperate" bands towards the poles they cover less actual land area.
So there's less space for growing crops.

[alancalverd]

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states

But Australian mining towns, where the surface temperature rarely dips below 40 deg C,  are awash with money, and Scotland is poorer than England.

[Herman]

Global Warming is very dangerous to our Earth's Environment.

[Jajdj]

Thanks For Posting Bro!!

[Bored chemist]

Studies suggest that economic output drops as temperatures rise (within limits - the north of Canada is frozen solid for half the year...).
- Mexico is poorer than the USA
- The southern states of the USA are poorer than the northern states

But Australian mining towns, where the surface temperature rarely dips below 40 deg C,  are awash with money, and Scotland is poorer than England.

"But Australian mining towns..."
Aberdeen's pretty rich from its oil wealth too.
So?

Air temperature makes little difference to mineral extraction.
How wealthy are the farming towns in the 40C bits of Australia?

[alancalverd]

Not sure there was ever much agriculture in the hottest parts of Oz, but the introduction of Bramah cattle genes has changed the livestock economy from mutton to beef in my lifetime, and there's no shortage of good tucker down under, mate.

[Jajdj]

Yes, you are right there are so many people which are looking for help, according to their needs, so If you guys want << spam link removed >> they will help you out to make any kind of writing wok

[YarSmirnov]

And what is more dangerous - global warming on two Celsium degrees, or global cooling on two Celsium degrees (for example as result of volcanic erruption)?

[puppypower]

One also has to consider the el Nino, which has been occurring for thousands of years. The el Nino is a cyclic band of warm ocean water that occurs in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Peru. The Inca Indians of Peru used to make sacrifices to the el Nino in an attempt to avoid the torrential rains.This is not new or caused by green house gases.

The el Nino has been impacting climate changes for thousands of year with many of its modern day affects sort of extrapolated to global warming and climate change. One interesting observation by fisherman is the el Nino water is nutrient depleted. This suggests to me that warm water is seeping into the ocean.

This may sound unlikely because the media, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and many politicians have inundated you, the public with reports stating humans are responsible for heating the atmosphere and causing all unusual climate events including El Niños. Not true.  There is an alternative and much more probable cause of the emerging 2015 El Niño...deep ocean geological forces.

But now an intriguing explanation has been put forward for the cause of El Nino. Surprisingly, it has little to do with the atmosphere or the sea.

The proposed prime mover is fiery lava from the earth's molten interior that erupts between tectonic plates on the Pacific sea floor, heating the overlying waters enough to affect the ocean's surface and bring on the fury of El Nino.

An unusual spate of such seabed eruptions and their accompanying swarms of sea quakes predated the current El Nino cycle, which at four or five years of age is unusually old. One of this cycle's repercussions has been torrential rains in California and the longest drought in Australia's recorded history.

"The seismicity was totally bizarre, maybe the most anomalous it's been in the past 30 years," Dr. Daniel A. Walker, a geophysicist at the University of Hawaii who is the author of the deep-lava theory, said in an interview.

Say this was true, yet politicians are able to maintain the CO2 scam, and cause social changes that benefits them and their crony capitalism buddies, what would be the impact of that on human civilization?

[syhprum]

I support the EU not because the colour of the passports but as I have been affected by the effects of to civel wars each vastly worse than the American one I want to avoid a third

[YarSmirnov]

I support the EU not because the colour of the passports but as I have been affected by the effects of to civel wars each vastly worse than the American one I want to avoid a third

Sorry, but, imho, you have a little chances to avoid civil or imperialistic war . Europe is too overpopulated and energydeficitic. So, they have only two chances - "Drang nach Osten" (and nuclear war with Russia) or civil war between it's members until enough depopulation.

[Bored chemist]

The birthrate in the EU is currently 1.6 children per woman.
If it gets unpleasantly full people will stop migrating into it and the population will then fall.
No war needed

[puppypower]

As an analogy to help answer the question, why global warming is a threat, consider the situation of President Trump and the Russian collusion, accusation. This conclusion, formed ahead of the evidence, has been supported by the left with an endless parade of paid experts, using a one sided media propaganda approach; 90% hostile to anything that resists. After one year, It is turning out this was a scam to destabilize a presidency and to cover up crimes, 

The real threat of manmade Russian collusion, was not the threat of Trump and Russian colluding, but the fact that a political group, with the assistance of mass media, demonstrated it could create and weaponize propaganda that could lead citizens with misinformation. This was the real threat.

How many people bought into the collusion narrative, one year ago, and how many of these also believe in manmade global warming? There is a parallel. What was the underlying motive for buying the collusion farm? What convinced you and why did you wish to be convinced and not remain skeptical until all the evidence appeared? Was it all the paid experts in parade? Or was it a therapeutic outlet for emotional release? These questions help break down the propaganda strategy.

In terms of the collusion illusion, those who fought against the propaganda campaign, and suffered at the hands of those under its spell, have been tediously collected evidence, against the foot dragging of the head of the beast; swamp. Now the time has come for  the mask to be pulled off. The mass propaganda campaign was an advanced prototype in the mass programming of citizen, using modern media, for power and money. This is what you need to be afraid of. Man made up global warming was a trial run to see if this new political weapon works.

Say the collusion scam had been successful to where the propaganda worked and Trump was placed in kangaroo court before his prison sentence. Would this have damaged the Republic in terms of individual rights and freedoms? The same answer is applies to the affect of man made up global warming. 

[Bored chemist]

After one year, It is turning out this was a scam

Got any proof?
Those close to Trump are on record lying about their involvement with Russia.

[jeffreyH]

Donald Trump is the epitome of a fake president. He is not a politician but an egotistical wannabe fascist dictator. There is a difference between the two. However, this very stable genius doesn't have the common sense to cover his tracks. He depends upon his rhetoric to obscure the truth. The danger is that he turns America into a one party state. The coming elections will determine America's fate. It will have reverberations far outside America's borders.

[chiralSPO]

As an analogy to help answer the question, why global warming is a threat, consider the situation of President Trump and the Russian collusion, accusation. This conclusion, formed ahead of the evidence, has been supported by the left with an endless parade of paid experts, using a one sided media propaganda approach; 90% hostile to anything that resists. After one year, It is turning out this was a scam to destabilize a presidency and to cover up crimes, 

The real threat of manmade Russian collusion, was not the threat of Trump and Russian colluding, but the fact that a political group, with the assistance of mass media, demonstrated it could create and weaponize propaganda that could lead citizens with misinformation. This was the real threat.

How many people bought into the collusion narrative, one year ago, and how many of these also believe in manmade global warming? There is a parallel. What was the underlying motive for buying the collusion farm? What convinced you and why did you wish to be convinced and not remain skeptical until all the evidence appeared? Was it all the paid experts in parade? Or was it a therapeutic outlet for emotional release? These questions help break down the propaganda strategy.

In terms of the collusion illusion, those who fought against the propaganda campaign, and suffered at the hands of those under its spell, have been tediously collected evidence, against the foot dragging of the head of the beast; swamp. Now the time has come for  the mask to be pulled off. The mass propaganda campaign was an advanced prototype in the mass programming of citizen, using modern media, for power and money. This is what you need to be afraid of. Man made up global warming was a trial run to see if this new political weapon works.

Say the collusion scam had been successful to where the propaganda worked and Trump was placed in kangaroo court before his prison sentence. Would this have damaged the Republic in terms of individual rights and freedoms? The same answer is applies to the affect of man made up global warming. 

Ya know what, I think I may agree with much of this, but I don't think you'll like my agreement much.

There is probably a fairly high correlation between accepting that anthropogenic climate change is real, and accepting that Russia influenced the 2016 US  presidential election. I would guess that both of them are also very strongly correlated with accepting that men have landed on the moon, that the Earth is nearly spherical, and accepting that the Nazis killed several million Jews systematically in the Holocaust.

In all of the above examples, there appears to be a division between those who accept (with or without actually understanding, which is a major problem too) the historical and scientific facts as interpreted by "the experts," and those who choose to believe that near-consensus among "the experts" is only further evidence of conspiracy. This second group is usually more focused on narrative than data.

There are definitely people on both sides of each of these "debates" who are there blindly, choosing only to side with their friends and families. Those people bug the heck out of me sometimes, but it bothers me less when they defer to the judgement of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of these issues than when they defer to the judgement of radio personalities.

This is not to say that all of these "debates" are cut-and-dried, black-and-white, solved. They are all very complex, and our understanding changes with further study. But small refinements don't indicate controversy.

As a scientist, I am very confident that the conclusions drawn by most of my peers, collaborators, and competitors are largely correct regarding anthropogenic climate change, that we landed on the moon, and the shape of the Earth. I know enough people who survived the Holocaust to know that it did happen (it was also the best-documented genocide in history).

I don't have first hand knowledge regarding Russian interference, but as far as I can tell there is NO evidence that this is a "scam," as described by one of the biggest liars ever. Twitter didn't just decide it would get in on the scam and notify almost 700M of its users about its Russian Troll Problem.

As far as collusion goes, it's hard for someone like me to know. All of the truly relevant info is classified. But, given the timeline of public announcements and releases of Clinton's emails (which is verifiable fact), and the emails which Don Jr. released himself, it seems very clear that, in chronological order: (1) Trump won Republican primary, (2) some Russians contacted members of the Trump team offering dirt on Clinton, (3) Trump team discussed within itself this possibility, and at least some of them moved forward, (4) meeting happened, (5) Trump himself tweeted that we should expect dirt on Clinton, (6) Clinton emails were released.

Once we also factor in the fact that the cyber spies were traced to Russia (Clinton, DNC and RNC hackers, as well as document releasers), and the fact that over half of the senior members of the Trump team had illegal or covert contact with Russian agents or proxies at one point or another between the primary win and the inauguration, it doesn't take a particularly far leap of faith to connect those dots.

Has collusion been proven? No, not as far as I can tell. Is there a strong case for collusion? Yes, I think so. Has the investigation been a scam? Absolutely not.