View Single Post
Old 11-14-2013, 04:18 PM   #27
Isaac Clarke
@Isaac Clarke
Junior Member
Isaac Clarke's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Look at pictures of LA in the 70's and compare it to today. The air is MUCH cleaner now. Unless you believe that we should just yank all that emissions crap off the cars and go back to Regular Leaded gas since it apparently hasn't done anything. :roll eyes:
That is not scientific evidence. It is still an anecdote.

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
This is evidence I need to leave this thread alone. When you're asking for evidence of a known quantity. Sorry, I'm not interested enough in discrediting the science as you are in defending it. It's a waste of resources to focus on Global Warming. Air quality, absolutely. Clean up the waterways, ABSOFRIGGINLOOTLY! Take care of our forests, EFFIN AY RIGHT! Pour billions and trillions into looking into the possibility of stopping man made global warming? NOPE! Trading "Carbon Credits" so poorer countries can take on the pollution production of the richer countries? Are you serious?
There was just an excellent paper in Nature calculating how much we will spend in the future attributed to global warming.

The paper was only about the damage done by flooding and sea level rise (not about the damages to communities of organisms, human civilization, ocean acidification, etc.) The study found that expenses due to flood losses in 136 major coastal cities will increase to US$52 billion per year by 2050 with projected socio-economic change alone. Half a trillion dollars per year, with just flooding alone! The paper also suggested that present flood protection must be upgraded to avoid costs of $1 trillion or more per year. This is more than your supposed, "billions and trillions" being poured into stopping anthropogenic global warming.

Even if adaptation investments maintain constant flood probability, it said, subsidence and sea-level rise will still increase global flood losses to US$60-63 billion per year in 2050. In order to maintain our current flood risk, we need to reduce flood probabilities below present values.

Pouring money into stopping anthropogenic climate change, and capping emissions, will pay off in the long run.
Isaac Clarke is offline   you may: quote & reply,