It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GAO: Climate change already costing US billions in losses

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like some left-over alarmists are still working.



I’ll give you that, the alarmist’s messaging approach was front and center back in the day. Need better messaging — I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #.


I think there's pretty good evidence that the planet is experiencing Climate Change. I'm not going to argue the anthropogenic elements, just the effects of the warming that is already occurring.

-dex


I’d advise you not to (argue the merits of AGW). Don’t know Xen from Adam, but there’s more truth in his one-liners than hyperbole; hyperbolic alarmism is very much an egregious factor in AGW being solidly rebuked by the citizenry of the U.S.A. As I said earlier, I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #, in the meantime, I’ll do what we do pretty well: adapt. Climate change/disruption is old hat. Good, bad, or indifferent it’s time to move on. The opportunity “to do something about it” was when this could have been presented as an energy issue. The messaging would have been more effective.


I'm not arguing the cause of Climate Change. That's one of the biggest problems that I see with Climate Change deniers. AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are two separate issues here.

I see Earth changes that I refer to as Climate Change. The anthropogenic part is not as important to me as addressing the current and predicted future effects on our civilization.

-dex




posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift
I guess it all depends on what you want to attribute to "climate change," rather than simply normal statistical variations in weather over time.


Well, I'm not a statistician. I'll defer to the experts in that area. If the statistics used by the scientists who make these claims can't stand up to scrutiny by their peers, then I'll disregard these reports. So far I haven't seen that happen.

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DexterRiley

relax the knee first, but am I to understand that all the recent disasters are due to Climate Change, yet all previous disasters were just things that happened?


Ok, thank you, my knee is now relaxed.


I believe the conclusions reached by the authors of this report is that the effects of recent disasters have been exacerbated by Climate Change. It's not an attempt to total up all the costs of recent natural disasters and attributing all of it Climate Change.

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
There is actually a good chance to stop this thing with a 50% income tax of everyone in congress.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mandroid7
There is actually a good chance to stop this thing with a 50% income tax of everyone in congress.


Sounds like a plan to me!


-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Look,

Here is the deal...

Nobody is going to care or support "fighting climate change" when the only solutions provided are a big money financial scams.

Why are we going to pay through the nose and kill our economy for nothing? Just so rich people can get richer by using a feel good cause to take our money.

Provide a well thought out plan that isn't a financial scam, get rich quick off of the public and maybe someone might listen.

edit on 24-10-2017 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Never fear. We can use the trillions of dollars that the GAO said Obamacare was going to save us to offset the billions of dollars the GAO says Climate Change is going to cost us.

Alternatively, the US could save hundreds of billions by getting out of the Middle East. We spend 50 billion a year in Iraq for air conditioning alone.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: BeefNoMeat

originally posted by: xuenchen
Sounds like some left-over alarmists are still working.



I’ll give you that, the alarmist’s messaging approach was front and center back in the day. Need better messaging — I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #.


I think there's pretty good evidence that the planet is experiencing Climate Change. I'm not going to argue the anthropogenic elements, just the effects of the warming that is already occurring.

-dex


I’d advise you not to (argue the merits of AGW). Don’t know Xen from Adam, but there’s more truth in his one-liners than hyperbole; hyperbolic alarmism is very much an egregious factor in AGW being solidly rebuked by the citizenry of the U.S.A. As I said earlier, I’ll lament not having beachfront property when I’m old enough to give a #, in the meantime, I’ll do what we do pretty well: adapt. Climate change/disruption is old hat. Good, bad, or indifferent it’s time to move on. The opportunity “to do something about it” was when this could have been presented as an energy issue. The messaging would have been more effective.


I'm not arguing the cause of Climate Change. That's one of the biggest problems that I see with Climate Change deniers. AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming. There are two separate issues here.

I see Earth changes that I refer to as Climate Change. The anthropogenic part is not as important to me as addressing the current and predicted future effects on our civilization.

-dex




You clearly didn’t bring this to ATS to grab stars and flags, so for that, I sincerely tip the hat to you.

Beyond that, I would assert you can’t see the forest for the trees. Remind me, if you don’t care about the functional impact of humankind’s activities on the climate, what do you care for “current and predicted future effects on civilization”?

And if you wanna brush up on your statistics with respect to climate change*, research “fat tails” and playing around with differing probability distribution functions**.

*Really appreciate you reminding me what the acronym “AGW” stands for — possibly convinced me there are two separate issues.
**I don’t expect you to discuss heterogeneous variability in the error rate, but it would help in your actuarial quest to predict future effects on civilization.
edit on 24-10-2017 by BeefNoMeat because: Cleaned up some spelling...can’t expect a climate change denier to get it all right



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
More like they upset people waking up to that scam and now they cant cheat them out of their money .



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:12 PM
link   
There are so many factors that can go into this and I wonder how many were considered. I have no doubt the dollar figure is much higher now than years ago but there can be a lot of reasons why. There are a lot more people living along coastlines. That in turn requires more homes, buildings, roads and infrastructure. Then there's inflation. We all know statistics can be manipulated to suit a desired outcome.

I call BS on this study.



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley


The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.

Gi-Go
Garbage in - Garbage out



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: DexterRiley

Look,

Here is the deal...

Nobody is going to care or support "fighting climate change" when the only solutions provided are a big money financial scams.

Why are we going to pay through the nose and kill our economy for nothing? Just so rich people can get richer by using a feel good cause to take our money.

Provide a well thought out plan that isn't a financial scam, get rich quick off of the public and maybe someone might listen.


With respect to fighting the presumed causes of Climate Change, namely excess CO2, there is already a move toward using renewable energy sources like solar and wind power. That change has come about with little government investment and is generally free of onerous government regulations. Some forward-thinking entrepreneurs like Elon Musk are working to develop technologies that extend the usefulness of these alternative energy sources, and they are making money doing it.

So, to me, I thinks it's possible that new technologies and market forces may naturally move us away from using fossil fuels for energy production.

However, in terms of preparing for the extreme weather events we will experience from the already warming climate, regardless of any additional efforts to curb CO2 production, will probably require new government regulations and additional spending on the part of the populace.

To me, it's apparent that we are experiencing more flooding and other effects from increased precipitation. In other regions we are experiencing more droughts of greater intensity. The Global Climate Models are probably at least accurate in pointing out which areas are prone to the differing forms of Climate Change. I suggest we use those predictions to modify building codes and otherwise engineer and plan new structures to withstand those effects.

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
Never fear. We can use the trillions of dollars that the GAO said Obamacare was going to save us to offset the billions of dollars the GAO says Climate Change is going to cost us.

Alternatively, the US could save hundreds of billions by getting out of the Middle East. We spend 50 billion a year in Iraq for air conditioning alone.


The thing about predictions is that they are based on sets of assumptions. It's likely that the GAO's calculations of the long-term savings of the ACA did not account for extended partisan bickering and outright sabotage by those who hated it for no other reason than it was introduced by Barack Hussein Obama.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, I have read that removing ourselves from the region altogether may be the most successful option. I'm not informed enough about that to argue either way.

Does it really cost $50 billion a year for A/C?


-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BeefNoMeat


You clearly didn’t bring this to ATS to grab stars and flags, so for that, I sincerely tip the hat to you.

Thank you. ATS is even further right-leaning than it used to be. So, somebody has to do it.




Beyond that, I would assert you can’t see the forest for the trees. Remind me, if you don’t care about the functional impact of humankind’s activities on the climate, what do you care for “current and predicted future effects on civilization”?

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't care about the impact of human activities on the climate. I see that as a separate issue from preparing for its effects. To me, it seems far easier to convince people to do something about what they can see, than it is to persuade them to bite the bullet and address what they may perceive as the more abstract concept of causation.

I believe that things will get a lot worse before they start to get better. Perhaps when it's clear to a majority of the populace, and their decision makers, that weather events have indeed gotten more destructive, then they will be ready to take action. Also, I think that we're beginning to see new technologies that may address the excess carbon release that is apparently driving Climate Change; without the need for significant government intervention.

As far as "forest for the trees" is concerned, I assert that in order to tackle a forest, we have to do it one tree at a time.




And if you wanna brush up on your statistics with respect to climate change*, research “fat tails” and playing around with differing probability distribution functions**.

My initial thought with respect to "fat tails" is what's happening to me as I continue my rather sedentary lifestyle. My fat tail is spreading out to fill the voids left in the seat of my chair.


Thanks for the thoughtful response!

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
There are so many factors that can go into this and I wonder how many were considered. I have no doubt the dollar figure is much higher now than years ago but there can be a lot of reasons why. There are a lot more people living along coastlines. That in turn requires more homes, buildings, roads and infrastructure. Then there's inflation. We all know statistics can be manipulated to suit a desired outcome.

I call BS on this study.

Any study of this nature is going to have to base its model on some number of assumptions. And, I agree that there are a lot of aspects to the problem that need to be considered. Whether the actual numbers are accurate remains to be seen, and only time will tell. However, I think that the gist of the report is that as our climate changes, we can expect to continue spending more to address the effects.

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: DexterRiley


The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.

Gi-Go
Garbage in - Garbage out


Well you have to start somewhere. I'm sure that these experts are far more familiar with the science involved than most of us. And if I read this paragraph correctly, these experts just don't blindly accept the results of any single study. Presumably the authors of the study took into consideration any evidence contrary to the belief that Climate Change is real and that there will be real effects arising from it. In the absence of proof of a conspiracy, I'll accept at least the basic conclusion that the cost of addressing Climate Change related disasters will continue to increase.

-dex



posted on Oct, 24 2017 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley

The thing about predictions is that they are based on sets of assumptions. It's likely that the GAO's calculations of the long-term savings of the ACA did not account for extended partisan bickering and outright sabotage by those who hated it for no other reason than it was introduced by Barack Hussein Obama.

As far as the Middle East is concerned, I have read that removing ourselves from the region altogether may be the most successful option. I'm not informed enough about that to argue either way.

Does it really cost $50 billion a year for A/C?


-dex


Well, 50 billion is the figure I read some months back. I believe it, considering my power bill and figuring trying to air condition various places in a desert.

The Middle East is just one way the US could save or generate money. Another way would be to halt the NSA's unconstitutional mass spying program. Or we could legalize and tax marijuana. I'd be in favor of taxing churches, mosques, and synagogues and applying the money to health care and social programs. I figure it's better than praying to God to end hunger and sickness. Religious folks shouldn't mind if the money is used for things like helping people and not war. But the American people are never given those options. Things like war and the police state are given priority over helping people, whether we like it or not.

But I think the biggest problem Americans have is a lack of long term memory, and that was the point of my jab at Obamacare. I don't think the GAO failed to anticipate political opposition to Obamacare. That was there all along, how could they not anticipate it? I believe the GAO was used to try to convince the American people that Obamacare would work out as promised. The main false assumption with Obamacare was that by forcing people to buy insurance, insurance companies would lower premiums and improve coverage out of the kindness of their hearts. Many lies were told to try to divert from that obviously false assumption, and the GAO numbers were just part of that con game.

So when the GAO posts numbers that support an agenda of taxing people more, as in the Carbon Tax scheme, I think we should remember that they haven't exactly proven themselves to be reliable and impartial in such matters. When has the GAO ever posted some numbers indicating that people should pay less in taxes? Has the GAO ever recommended that we spend less on wars?



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley

Wonder who wrote that article,Al gore?,didn't he also invent the internet,he said that too



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Where do you get non partisan from?
One of the main reports was paid for by the same democrat that just spent $10,000,000 on anti Trump ads.




a reply to: DexterRiley


edit on 25-10-2017 by DonInHtown because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: DexterRiley


The report's authors reviewed 30 government and academic studies examining the national and regional impacts of climate change. They also interviewed 28 experts familiar with the strengths and limitations of the studies, which rely on future projections of climate impacts to estimate likely costs.

Gi-Go
Garbage in - Garbage out


Wow, what an informed and detailed comment.

You are a climate scientist or have some knowledge of this field, or are you another expert in rectally sourced idiocy?

I suspect the latter.




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join