Kevin.... this is an easy one. A very easy one. You could have just searched it yourself.
HEAT kills many, many, many times more humans than cold. In a cold climate, there is still a growing season for food production, and you can easily keep warm all winter. In a baked, dry, hot environment, people cannot cool off, cannot grow food well, cannot find enough water.
It's really pretty basic chemistry and physics to measure and understand that humans are now taking enough fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them to substantially alter the CO2 concentration in our atmosphere, which has a very logical and proven effect on heat retention in the oceans and air. What is not proven, is exactly how much of our recent warming and climate shifts are due to our human contribution. It is simply illogical to say it has had no effect, but any good scientist will acknowledge that greater, natural trends could also be underway.
Nonetheless, virtually the entire global scientific community now overwhelmingly agrees that humans are contributing heavily to the real climate changes observed. So what are you deniers and skeptics really trying to win here? Avoiding guilt for your personal contributions?
Green energy and reasonable regulation of industry does not kill jobs. It just changes them, with new opportunities arising. If you are willing to chance torching the entire earth because you're simply afraid of change, or just want your political tribe to win, well that's a pretty sad critique on human nature. We have to make this shift in energy use together, so please don't make the majority drag you along so reluctantly.
Right off CNN.
Couple of questions:
1. If we determined the climate was indeed changing, but, it was independent of human activity, would that be ok and accepted, or would we try to manage it?
2. On the outside chance the group of nearly everyone that overwhelmingly agrees that we are killing ourselves is wrong, will they take accountability for the tremendous debt they have created? In short, can we get R12 back if it didn't turn out to eat the ozone? Could we get the government out of health care if it somehow didn't bend the cost curve and save us all a couple a grand a year, or if the unthinkable happened and we could keep our doctor of choice?
"Green jobs" do not translate 1 to 1 for old shitty "black jobs".
Just for the record, I love technology, when someone builds something new and useful, or improves something by an order of magnitude, I buy it, and I hope they are wealthy.
I hate government debt, and government exerting undue influence on private industry.
e.g. If Elon (see bond villain) builds a car that is preferred over cars currently on the market, and can do it at a price point that people buy his car, then ford should go broke for being lazy.
However, to use our tax dollars to unnaturally incent people to buy cars from the bond villain, and disrupt a functional segment of our economy is unconscionable.
You could be right about the science of CO2. I am absolutely correct about the motives of the people that profess to solve it.
Carbon credits will not buy Florida 1 additional day above sea level.......
Best,
ed
