Documenting the duplicitous hypocrisy of the left...

[Raoul_Luke]

The study is unique in that it finds higher potential costs from climate change, particularly in the industrial world, compared with past research. For example, the study found that continued temperature increases of about 0.072 degrees per year (0.04 Celsius) under a roughly “business as usual," or high-emissions, scenario would yield a 7.2 percent cut to GDP per capita worldwide by 2100. (This is relative to a world in which countries see temperature increases equal to their 1960 to 2014 rate of change.)

In contrast, if countries were to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement, then such effects could be limited to closer to a 1.1 percent loss in GDP per capita.

“What our study suggests is that climate change is costly for all countries under the business as usual scenario (no matter whether they are hot or cold, rich or poor), and the United States will be one of the countries that will suffer the most (reflecting sharp increases in U.S. average temperatures by 2100),” study co-author Kamiar Mohaddes, an economist at the University of Cambridge, said via email.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...ld-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/

Wait, what? Isn't this the same left whose "high priest" of economics, Paul Krugman, recently suggested that an invasion by space aliens would be a BOOST to GDP??? So which is it, do the costs of dealing with disaster improve or destroy economic conditions? I guess you can have it both ways, as long as you are a two-faced lefty...

 

[ObamacareForever]

The study is unique in that it finds higher potential costs from climate change, particularly in the industrial world, compared with past research. For example, the study found that continued temperature increases of about 0.072 degrees per year (0.04 Celsius) under a roughly “business as usual," or high-emissions, scenario would yield a 7.2 percent cut to GDP per capita worldwide by 2100. (This is relative to a world in which countries see temperature increases equal to their 1960 to 2014 rate of change.)

In contrast, if countries were to cut greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris climate agreement, then such effects could be limited to closer to a 1.1 percent loss in GDP per capita.

“What our study suggests is that climate change is costly for all countries under the business as usual scenario (no matter whether they are hot or cold, rich or poor), and the United States will be one of the countries that will suffer the most (reflecting sharp increases in U.S. average temperatures by 2100),” study co-author Kamiar Mohaddes, an economist at the University of Cambridge, said via email.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...ld-cost-us-up-percent-its-gdp-by-study-finds/

Wait, what? Isn't this the same left whose "high priest" of economics, Paul Krugman, recently suggested that an invasion by space aliens would be a BOOST to GDP??? So which is it, do the costs of dealing with disaster improve or destroy economic conditions? I guess you can have it both ways, as long as you are a two-faced lefty...

what are you even arguing here?

 

[Nostra]

what are you even arguing here?

My question exactly. There is no arguing that the left is full of hypocrites.

 

[ObamacareForever]

My question exactly. There is no arguing that the left is full of hypocrites.

There isn't any hypocrisy here.

 

[Nostra]

There isn't any hypocrisy here.

That's what makes the left's massive hypocrisy funny.

 

[ObamacareForever]

That's what makes the left's massive hypocrisy funny.

what hypocrisy are you seeing?

 

[Raoul_Luke]

what hypocrisy are you seeing?

That dealing with a space alien invasion would add to the economy but dealing with climate change will subtract from it is complete bullshit. Why wouldn't left wing Keynesians be salivating over the (infrastructure) spending that a warming planet would cause? Simple reason - because it would counter the narrative that climate change is bad, no good, awful, horrible, and, well, really really bad...

 

[Nutty Cortez]

I give to you: Hypocrisy -Oblammo style

 

[Raoul_Luke]

I give to you: Hypocrisy -Oblammo style

View attachment 44554

Didn't he say something like "you can only live in so big of a house?"

 

[ObamacareForever]

That dealing with a space alien invasion would add to the economy but dealing with climate change will subtract from it is complete bullshit. Why wouldn't left wing Keynesians be salivating over the (infrastructure) spending that a warming planet would cause? Simple reason - because it would counter the narrative that climate change is bad, no good, awful, horrible, and, well, really really bad...

You did a fine job of dreaming up a Straw man to knock down.

 

[llovejim]

I give to you: Hypocrisy -Oblammo style

except obama is cool with paying a really high income tax rate on all the dough he makes over 5 million or so. get it? i know right wingers are slow and trying to do math bothers them almost as much as trying to use logic, but the obamas have scores of millions in the bank, like all the other rich who got super duper tax cuts from trump for no reason...that is untouched by income taxes. that is in the bank, or under a mattress or in a trust fund or in the Cayman Islands...or whatever. so paying a high tax on MORE INCOME they get, in addition to their wealth which is non-taxable, is fair and allows other people not so well off to not pay as much taxes, and helps them have more discretionary income, which really boosts the economy!! try think, THEN POST!!

 

[Raoul_Luke]

You did a fine job of dreaming up a Straw man to knock down.

LOL! Either disasters are "good" like Krugman suggested, or they are not, as this "study" suggests. It's not a "straw man" to point out the abject hypocrisy in the left's stance on these two hypothetical situations. Look, you can certainly admit that climate change would create jobs and increase economic activity as the population of the world adapts and still maintain that there are other reasons that "trump" that which argue for immediate efforts to prevent it. But the left won't do that because it makes the consequences for not immediately putting the left in charge of the economy less dire.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

except obama is cool with paying a really high income tax rate on all the dough he makes over 5 million or so. get it? i know right wingers are slow and trying to do math bothers them almost as much as trying to use logic, but the obamas have scores of millions in the bank, like all the other rich who got super duper tax cuts from trump for no reason...that is untouched by income taxes. that is in the bank, or under a mattress or in a trust fund or in the Cayman Islands...or whatever. so paying a high tax on MORE INCOME they get, in addition to their wealth which is non-taxable, is fair and allows other people not so well off to not pay as much taxes, and helps them have more discretionary income, which really boosts the economy!! try think, THEN POST!!

That is a canard! The Obamas are leftist climate warriors who are buying a 6900 square foot summer home on a beach (that they have in the past at least implied will likely not be there in a couple of decades). It's not the simple fact that they have money that is hypocritical (well, for a couple of Marxists it kind of is, but that's a complete nother argument), it's WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH IT.

 

[ObamacareForever]

LOL! Either disasters are "good" like Krugman suggested, or they are not, as this "study" suggests. It's not a "straw man" to point out the abject hypocrisy in the left's stance on these two hypothetical situations. Look, you can certainly admit that climate change would create jobs and increase economic activity as the population of the world adapts and still maintain that there are other reasons that "trump" that which argue for immediate efforts to prevent it. But the left won't do that because it makes the consequences for not immediately putting the left in charge of the economy less dire.

Yea... it's a Straw man to pretend Krugman and the study are the same person.
And You completely mischaracterized the study in another Straw man.

Strawmen all around.

 

[llovejim]

Even a trump voter should know whenever a city or state gets hit with a tornado, or a hurricane, the economy of that area goes nuts because of reconstruction necessary. even someone with an IQ of 70 or less can see how that works, because it costs money to rebuild houses and roads and infrastructure because of a catastrophe as much as costs to do it the first time, when a lot of those costs were borne by developers and private lenders, not the local, state or federal government, and was thus almost all budget deficit free economic expansion, not almost all budget deficit causing public spending that occurs after a catastrophe. both boost the local economy, but one is a big hit on budget deficits, and one is a big decrease in budget deficits, because the more economic expansion, the more taxes and more demand for more jobs occurs.

So, while it is true any catastrophe that destroys homes, farms, roads, businesses and the like will increase the economic activity in that area, it also devastates public deficits, so it is not a win-win.

the devastation caused by climate change is not houses, farms, buildings, roads being destroyed quickly and then able to be rebuilt right away. if the climate change destroyed any area economically, it will stay destroyed...it is not a hit and run, like a tornado or hurricane. in other words, the area will be in a permanent drought, or permanently under ocean water, or in a permanent weather pattern that destroyed the existing area in the first place. there will no economic revival. once climate change affects an area to where the economy dies, or the whole area becomes uninhabitable for most people, there is no saving it. it only destroys areas economically, period. there is no rebuilding.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Yea... it's a Straw man to pretend Krugman and the study are the same person.
And You completely mischaracterized the study in another Straw man.

Strawmen all around.

Who ever said they were? They are, however, both leading minds in leftist thought. I won't hold my breath for Krugman's op ed that corrects the record on this climate "study." THERE'S your hypocrisy!!!

 

[llovejim]

That is a canard! The Obamas are leftist climate warriors who are buying a 6900 square foot summer home on a beach (that they have in the past at least implied will likely not be there in a couple of decades). It's not the simple fact that they have money that is hypocritical (well, for a couple of Marxists it kind of is, but that's a complete nother argument), it's WHAT THEY ARE DOING WITH IT.

you are dead wrong. here are facts that prove how wrong you are. and rush limbaugh who spewed this crap to begin with-

that's funny!! somebody quoting oxycontin Rush like he has a clue!! Yeah, if you live close enough to the ocean where your house and most of your property are only about 4' above high tide, you might lose your house 12-40 years from now, assuming the rate of sea level change does not increase or decrease too much. but I looked at a photo the estate the Obama's just bought, and one picture is taken from the ocean looking back at the house, hundreds of feet away...and the house is at least 20' higher in elevation.

Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges. A Climate Central analysis finds the odds of “century” or worse floods occurring by 2030 are on track to double or more, over widespread areas of the U.S. These increases threaten an enormous amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide — a level lower than the century flood line for most locations analyzed. And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 7 more feet of sea level rise this century — a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

 

[Raoul_Luke]

Even a trump voter should know whenever a city or state gets hit with a tornado, or a hurricane, the economy of that area goes nuts because of reconstruction necessary. even someone with an IQ of 70 or less can see how that works, because it costs money to rebuild houses and roads and infrastructure because of a catastrophe as much as costs to do it the first time, when a lot of those costs were borne by developers and private lenders, not the local, state or federal government, and was thus almost all budget deficit free economic expansion, not almost all budget deficit causing public spending that occurs after a catastrophe. both boost the local economy, but one is a big hit on budget deficits, and one is a big decrease in budget deficits, because the more economic expansion, the more taxes and more demand for more jobs occurs.

So, while it is true any catastrophe that destroys homes, farms, roads, businesses and the like will increase the economic activity in that area, it also devastates public deficits, so it is not a win-win.

the devastation caused by climate change is not houses, farms, buildings, roads being destroyed quickly and then able to be rebuilt right away. if the climate change destroyed any area economically, it will stay destroyed...it is not a hit and run, like a tornado or hurricane. in other words, the area will be in a permanent drought, or permanently under ocean water, or in a permanent weather pattern that destroyed the existing area in the first place. there will no economic revival. once climate change affects an area to where the economy dies, or the whole area becomes uninhabitable for most people, there is no saving it. it only destroys areas economically, period. there is no rebuilding.

Professor Malthus called and wants his theory back. The temperature increase this study "assumes" will result in less that 1 degree by 2100. The notion that this constitutes a "mass extinction" outcome is absurd.

 

[Raoul_Luke]

you are dead wrong. here are facts that prove how wrong you are. and rush limbaugh who spewed this crap to begin with-

that's funny!! somebody quoting oxycontin Rush like he has a clue!! Yeah, if you live close enough to the ocean where your house and most of your property are only about 4' above high tide, you might lose your house 12-40 years from now, assuming the rate of sea level change does not increase or decrease too much. but I looked at a photo the estate the Obama's just bought, and one picture is taken from the ocean looking back at the house, hundreds of feet away...and the house is at least 20' higher in elevation.

Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating. Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from storm surges. A Climate Central analysis finds the odds of “century” or worse floods occurring by 2030 are on track to double or more, over widespread areas of the U.S. These increases threaten an enormous amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide — a level lower than the century flood line for most locations analyzed. And compounding this risk, scientists expect roughly 2 to 7 more feet of sea level rise this century — a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping pollution humanity puts into the sky.

http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/

Regardless, what about the energy it takes to heat this 6900 square foot house all winter while they are living in their other 5000 square foot house in DC? How can a climate change alarmist defend that waste of energy???

 

[llovejim]

Regardless, what about the energy it takes to heat this 6900 square foot house all winter while they are living in their other 5000 square foot house in DC? How can a climate change alarmist defend that waste of energy???

you have to live somewhere....maybe they will add solar panels to defray the environmental impact. maybe they will recycle their plastic and paper better than others. why would they heat their house very much if they are not living in it? why do you nitpick after you have been proven so wrong?