Also......

"Regulators have already imposed $26 billion in annual costs to limit GHGs and have proposed an additional $1.7 billion. However, to meet President Obama’s climate goals the nation will have to spend up to $45 billion more each year by 2025.

What are the benefits of these investments? According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates, previous actions will avert a combined 0.0573 degrees Celsius of warming. Meeting the president’s 2025 goals could add reductions up to 0.125 degree Celsius. In other words, full achievement of the president’s climate goals will cost more than $73 billion in annual burdens to alleviate less than two-tenths of one degree of warming."

Take it from the perspective that no one really knows, only that the possibility exists.
Here are the lottery tickets, pick yours and throw the dice with future generations.

https://trustyetverify.files.wordpre...ager.jpg?w=625

As bad as a global recession might be, not all is lost to the wind. We would have accelerated the transition to green energy.
Fossil fuel reserves are finite and will not last indefinitely, transition to alternate energy is a given, it's just a matter of when.

Risk management, if in doubt, take out the insurance policy against Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

With regard to your post above, and notwithstanding the accuracy of the costs you have cited which I find suspect, China is the big hitter with carbon dioxide emissions. If China doesn't get on-board then we're in real trouble.

This might be why, I believe, now 26 states have signaled they will not comply and are instituting federal suits.

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that $73 billion in annual burdens is accurate. How much do you think it would cost to walk the planet back from a barren wasteland in 2300? - given you even had a population to do it.

Currency collapse, famine, disease, wars, anarchy - all world wide, "Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome".

Don't confuse global averages with the actual extremes happening around the planet.
Sure .2 deg seems like nothing, it's the new highs and lows affecting large regions you need to focus on.

It's 60F in CA, 40F in NY, average is 50F.
It's 120F in CA, -20F in NY, average is still 50F, good luck trying to get comfortable in either.

So in 20 odd years we've see tenths of a degree and you're coming up with 70deg. out of thin air. Uh.......No.

This makes absolutely no sense. I never said 70deg, I gave an example of how global temp averages do not tell the whole story. Temperature extremes do, once fertile areas supporting plant life ...

http://i0.wp.com/www.un.org/climatec...size=690%2C311

http://media.salon.com/2012/06/climate_change_rect.jpg

http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/...matechange.jpg

Now and what it once looked like, get it?

A few data points:

Climate change: How do we know? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming https://www.skepticalscience.com/emp...al-warming.htm

Global Warming Science: The science is clear. Global warming is happening.
We are the primary cause. Global Warming Science | Union of Concerned Scientists

All interesting. Love the inference about the temp rises over 35 years. What none of them cares to articulate is precisely why have we had a major rise in Co2 over the last 20 or so years without a pickup in average temps??
Remember, some of these same luminaries were screaming about the sea levels that rose 3' plus since the 1880's, FOR YEARS, until they realized the true data points they used were off a bit......almost 3'. Translation, sea levels up 4"-6"...... oops.

While you're pouring over your scientific data, study up on the pretty large volume of research on atmospheric Co2 relating to clouds combined with the equally large body of opinion relating to solar activity and it's impact on cloud formation.
This is FAR from settled science.

Sea levels expected to rise two feet within the next 70 years, eight feet by 2200. A whole lot of this going on with the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ...

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU&feature=youtu.be"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

"Five years ago at a UN Conference on Climate Change, Al Gore predicted that, global warming having reached such an unbridled pitch, the North Pole might be completely ice-free during the summer of 2014. This climate change crusader had made the same claim when he accepted the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Was he right? Let's take a look.

The Danish Meteorological Institute's (DMI) Centre for Ocean and Ice closely monitors Arctic sea ice extent and publishes a monthly plot on its website. According to DMI, 2014 is the second summer in a row that the ice cap has expanded. Data from the U.S. National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) agrees, showing 2014's summer ice well within the average range for the years 1961-2010. In fact, NSIDC's website points out an ice extent decline rate of "slightly less than the average" for the month of August."

"Gore's disproven predictions add more notches to the ever-growing tally of climate alarmist prophecies that have been proven dead wrong. Alex Newman recently published a must-read comprehensive exposé of these "Embarrassing Predictions" in The New American. From catastrophic global cooling claims made in the 1960s and 1970s, to cataclysmic forecasts of global warming ever since — starvation, mass migration of "climate refugees," threats to national security, etc. — not one conjecture has come even close to reality.

Yet the "Great Global Warming Swindle" continues to form the basis of national and international climate policies, wasting billions of tax dollars and stifling economies."

Is this the same Antarctic where the ice pac has been growing every year to a now all time high????

By the by, as questioned above. Kindly avail yourself of the interesting and substantial piece in todays WSJ. Two points are made, first about our objective friends at NOAA who are "recalculating" their data on ocean temperatures to be "more inline" with other data about sea temperatures. Apparantly we won't have as many of those bothersome questions about why we have had a "pause" in the rise for the last several years if the recalculations suggest we didn't have a pause after all.....oops.
The second part of the piece talks about three major climate papers published primarily to chasten their global scientific brothers in presenting less than a unified global front on the subject..........perish all dissent.
Seems that we're now at the Vito Corleone approach..."when we want your opinion, we'll give it to you". Gotta love it.

That is true but it is a double-edged sword.
The West Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest warming areas on Earth, with only some areas of the Arctic Circle experiencing faster rising temperatures. However, since Antarctica is a big place, climate change is not having a uniform impact, with some areas experiencing increases in sea ice extent. Yet in others, sea ice is decreasing, with measurable impacts on wildlife. ASOC believes that understanding climate change impacts on Antarctica is a matter of critical importance for the world and for the continent itself.

BTW, that was Greenland giving up the ice cube the size of "south Manhattan".

The bottom line -
Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.


That increase in Antarctic ice results from ... wait for it, Climate Change. If you are going to reference facts, reference all of the facts.

Yep, I hear you. Ultimately we're all going to freeze to death because of global warming, I'm pretty sure.

This debunks your point: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ant...aining-ice.htm

Yep, some just don't get it. It's pretty clear what the Ozone hole has done regarding the Antarctic -

Ozone levels over Antarctica have dropped causing stratospheric cooling and increasing winds which lead to more areas of open water that can be frozen.

Such an easy concept to understand, I even tried to dumb it down for some -

What we're seeing today with big oil and their chemists pretending to be scientists is exactly what big tobacco did in the '80s with their respiratory experts pretending to be doctors. It will also end the same way, people will finally wise up that walking into the house with a snowball doesn't prove Global Warming is a myth.

I believe Al Gore actually did the climate scientists a disservice by using the term 'Global Warming' - kicking the door open for skeptics and the ignorant to seize isolated cold weather events as proof Global Warming was a hoax.

'Global Climate Change' is really a much better term, especially when trying the get the message out through short media bites.

As a general response, we are doomed to a planet that is slowly eating itself to extinction, and we, and our parents, and their parents, etc are to blame.


What more really needs to be said

cycleguy55 I agree but let's not open that door per lounge rules as it will surely spin out of control along partisan lines ;)
mrmustang, I agree with the end state on where we're headed, but I wouldn't lay this on my parents so much or their parents at all. You can't fix what you don't know is broken. The data is relatively new regarding global ecosystem impacts. No question the beginning of all this really started with the industrial revolution.

What more really needs to be said - nothing unless you are trying to change some minds which is also likely futile :)