This is a very important question to the people at the Atlantic Council, a right leaning institution
Nope. ‘Nuff said.
Oh, you want article. OK.
From the release of the Green New Deal to global protests on environmental policy, “climate [has become] a prominent national issue and all the attention it received in 2019 guarantees that it will be a top issue in an American presidential election for the first time ever,†according to former US Congressman Carlos Curbelo (R-FL).
Speaking at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Forum in Abu Dhabi on January 12, Curbelo argued that there has been a recent “Republican evolution on climate,†that has led Republican politicians at the federal and state level to begin to ponder their own climate policies in response to those of their Democratic colleagues. “The growth of the Republican side of the aisle,†on this issue “has been extraordinary,†he said. He noted plans by Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy to roll out a new package of bills to address climate change and the formation of a bipartisan climate caucus by Senator Mike Braun (R-IN) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) as evidence that Republicans are beginning to move on the issue. This shift in thinking leads Curbelo to believe that “we are moving inexorably towards a national climate policy and…that will happen regardless of who wins the next election.â€
Nothing says “I believe and I’m super concerned” like taking a long fossil fueled flight to Abu Dhabi. One interesting thing is the way some of the squishy Republicans are handling their beliefs in the man-caused climate change scam. They avoid taxation, fees, and governmental power increases. Mostly. And much is simply pandering to brainwashed cultists.
The climate plans of the 2020 Democratic candidates for president have already received significant attention as the primary season heats up. While there is concern among many Democrats that the plans of Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Sanders (D-VT) are too radical for a general election, Goldwyn argued that “there is rhetoric and there is reality. I think the rhetoric is that Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders cannot, without having both House of Congress and a lot of support from swing Democrats, intervene and [enact policies like] regulating fracking on private lands.†Garbow argued that in his view, there really isn’t “a tremendous difference between the climate plans at least that have been put forward by Elizabeth Warren, certainly Bernie Sanders. Even [former Vice President] Joe Biden’s plan is relatively aggressive in contrast to what we saw in the Obama administration and what we have seen since.â€
Goldwyn warned, however, that the 2020 election will likely once again come down to swing states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, that have significant oil and natural gas industries. “Democratic candidates have to have their eyes on Pennsylvania and Ohio and places where they are gas producing states,†he said, “and not threaten the efficacy of their industry there.†(snip)
All of the panelists agreed that climate change will be one of the top issues on the minds of voters as they elect a new president in 2020—even if the implications of their choice are still unclear.
The panelists were squishy Republicans like Michael Steele and climate cultist Dems like Curbelo. If they think this election will be about Hotcoldwetdry, then they haven’t been paying attention. Because it doesn’t move the needle. The Democrats whose focus for the primaries was on ‘climate change’ dropped out. Then a few more go in, and they aren’t gaining traction. If they want to lose swing states, they’ll keep yapping about ‘climate change.’ And then Trump will run roughshod through the china shop, explaining how the Democrats plans will increase taxes and fees, as well as limit freedom and choice.
I’d vote no. First, we already know from polling data that Climate isn’t even in the top 20 issues for voters. We also know that the most virulent Climate activists are already going to vote party line Democrat party. So… No change.
Please please please… run on climate change!!!!
It’s the most important issue in this election besides universal healthcare, gay rights, and racism!!!
Can’t leave out racism!!!
And equality!!!!
All voters are as dumb as the little sissybitch so that’s a winning message.
#Lolgf
One question to ask any AGW proponent…
What is the ideal average global surface temperature?
They can’t answer because no one knows. No one can say with any certainty if the current warming is at all harmful. After all, the global temps have been much higher in the past and the world didn’t end.
Good question. Note that the global temps have NOT been much higher when humans were around.
Human civilizations evolved during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years or so), so it makes sense that the we target that temperature range. As you know, Earth’s climate is always in flux, e.g., cold glacial periods (ice ages) interrupted by warmer interglacial periods like the current Holocene epoch. Surprisingly, based on paleoclimate studies the average global surface temperature has been relatively constant during the Holocene. When the Earth came out of the last ice age about 12,000 years ago it spend a few thousand years at about the current temperature, but in the past 6,000 years began a very gradual cool down – gradual meaning a drop of 1C over several thousand years. Some 150 years ago the average temperature started to rapidly increase (in geologic terms) – 1C over just a century! Some of that increase is likely natural – but most is attributable to greenhouse gas emissions. Although many non-scientists deny it, it’s likely the Earth is already experiencing weather events related to the changing climate. Most alarming is that the increase in average global surface temperature today shows no sign of stopping short of global nuclear war, massive volcanic activity or an asteroid strike like the one that eliminated the dinosaurs some 65 million years ago.
Of course the Earth will not end from a 3C increase in average temperature. It didn’t end 65 million years ago when much of life on Earth was eliminated. It didn’t end 20,000 years ago during the previous glacial period. But there were not 7 billion humans on Earth then with coastal cities of 10s of millions of humans, associated infrastructures, large swaths of the Earth that may become uninhabitable (where do those billions go?). No doubt AGW proponents are being very selfish, thinking of humans and not the overall Earth, which will survive climate change, nuclear wars, iPhones, ISIS, Trumpism, anti-vaxxers, the Kardashians, AOC and Putin. Continued global warming will have significant impacts on human civilizations in a world with enough problems already.
So for now the ideal global surface temperature is no warmer than now – which is impossible to maintain – but we should do the best we can. It is not possible to predict the next glacial period – based on models of insolation and Milankovitch cycles it’s believed to be 10s of thousands of years. When it begins our descendants will be able to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to combat cooling!
Human civilizations evolved during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years or so), so it makes sense that the we target that temperature range
IOW fudge the data.
“So for now the ideal surface temp is no warmer than now.†There’s absolutely no evidence to support that view. In fact, global food production, life expectancy, poverty, etc., have all changed for the positive as temps have gone up.
“But there were not 7 billion humans on earth…â€. Correct-and what’s happened as the temps have gone up? The population steadily has increased. So the actual evidence would point to warmer being better, which it is
“Although many non-scientists deny it, it’s likely the earth is already experiencing weather events related to changing climate.†Doesn’t matter if scientists deny or don’t deny; the evidence, which of course is what counts, shows no measurable change
So basically after all those words in your comment, you can’t say the ideal surface temperature. Got it.
Now, would you name which commie running as a woke Democrat you support or is it a secret?
rump 2020 Our candidate is not a secret.
Kye,
Here’s what was typed: “So for now the ideal global surface temperature is no warmer than now…”
I apologize for trying to give a thoughtful answer.
We’re supporting whomever runs against the Republican candidate, but you know that.
In Missouri I’m supporting every Democrat.
Tell us something we didn’t know.
I apologize for trying to give a thoughtful answer.
Only apologize when you’re guilty. You just blathered on in hopes people would be dazzled by all the mumbo jumbo. The only thought was how much you had to type to snow us.
You got called on it.
Be a man. don’t whine.
That wasn’t a thoughtful answer. 87.5 degrees would have been a thoughtful answer backed up by your explanation as to why. Your answer was just a dodge just as your answer about which candidate you support. I asked which of the Democrats running do you back. Saying you’ll back “whomever” is a dodge not an answer.
You don’t need to be skittish Elwood, there is no wrong answer. We are just interested in which candidate you are throwing your support. We are all well aware you will support any Nazi, commie, terrorist or racist who runs against Trump (or God for that matter). We are just asking which of these traitors you currently support but for some reason you feel you can’t answer. Why is that? Have you not made up your mind? I figure you for a Warren supporter. She’s a racist, a fraud, a liar, a gun grabber, an open border nut, a female and a dyed in the wool commie. If the moron was a handicapped transsexual she’d be the Democrat’s second coming. She’s got “Supported by Elwood” written all over her.
I hear the Democrats are suing IS for the rights to the slogan “Death to America” since they’ve been saying and hoping for that before there was an IS.
Trump 2020 Because he’s making America greater.