Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, September 23, 2019

Scanning the maps, two patterns are clear. One is that climate change (and its economic impacts) are widespread. The other, which will be vital to understanding political geography, is that those impacts are highly uneven in their distribution. Most of that variation reflects variation in the single largest determinant of overall climate harm: mortality, which the Climate Impact Lab team quantifies using the Environmental Protection Agency's standard "Value of a Statistical Life (VSL)" measure. When people die that harms the economy, and VSL is a statistical measure of that harm -- not a number that declares the value of any particular life.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Trump Voters More Likely to Suffer from Climate Change"

Yup-- empty, arid deserts between the ears and extreme precipitation between the legs.

#1 | Posted by pumpkinhead at 2019-09-23 03:56 PM | Reply

Oh no! But I thought NY and California will be under water and last I knew they were Liberal utopias

#2 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-23 03:56 PM | Reply

Good. Too bad it's not ONLY trump voters who will suffer from climate change.

#3 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-23 04:01 PM | Reply

#3 Don't worry Speak, you won't notice it from your rubber room.

#4 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-09-23 04:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Trump voters are more likely to suffer from almost anything, especially Trump.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-09-23 05:05 PM | Reply

#3 Don't worry Speak, you won't notice it from your rubber room.

#4 | Posted by fishpaw

Rubber rooms are for crazy people. Crazy people deny climate change and support a reality tv show con man.

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-09-23 05:31 PM | Reply

Crazy people deny climate change and support a reality tv show con man.

#6 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

They are just trying to re-enact the movie "Idiocracy".

Come on Fish, you're halfway there. Now you gotta do the other half. Let's hear you say it... "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."

#7 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-09-23 05:49 PM | Reply

"Come on Fish, you're halfway there. Now you gotta do the other half. Let's hear you say it... "Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes."

#7 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL "

I've not seen the movie, but I presume "Grawndo" is some sort of muscle man drink, perhaps a Gatorade type drink.

Yeah, it seems odd to give Gatorade to plants. They get their electrolytes in othe ways.

I don't understand the point of your post. Please explain.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-23 05:53 PM | Reply

"They are just trying to re-enact the movie "Idiocracy".

#7 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL "

Is it a good movie? I see it came up on Hulu a couple of weeks ago.

#9 | Posted by goatman at 2019-09-23 06:04 PM | Reply

Good.

#10 | Posted by aborted_monson at 2019-09-23 06:04 PM | Reply

The greenhouse effect was first linked to carbon dioxide in 1823, nearly 40 years before the American Civil War. Deniers are trying to say that Fourier, back in 1823, made mistakes that the science that sent that probe to Pluto can't figure out. Some people have inhaled enough fossil fuel industry propaganda to believe that.

#11 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2019-09-23 08:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That convinced me. I'm voting for Joe. No more glowable wharming for me.

#12 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2019-09-24 09:56 AM | Reply

Haha, what a useless article. This is like saying more Liberals will be hurt from earthquakes due to overpopulation due to construction. While it's true, it doesn't mean anything is going to change. California is going to continue building skycrapers on fault lines and ruining the landscape.

But, by all means, please continue to try to bash one side because you don't agree with them and they hurt your snowflakiness. The last time I saw a group of people reaching this absurdly hard to come to a conclusion, it was certain that global cooling was going to doom us.

#13 | Posted by humtake at 2019-09-24 12:04 PM | Reply


I do hope that everyone understands that there has not ever been a "computer model" that accurately predicted the future of anything. I am a software engineer, so you might say I have some experience with this. But let's assume this one is right. We gain 3 degrees temperature. Last summer, temperature here reached 112 degrees. Would 115 be even remotely a significant change? No. It would not. And sea levels? Does anyone ever stop to think that if you melt ice in water, there is no change at all in "level" It already displaces all the volume of water it is going to by floating. You can do this experiment yourself, on a small scale. Get a glass of water and put a large chunk of ice in it. Mark on the glass where the water level is. When the ice has melted, the water level will still be exactly where it was. The ice mass that exists on land is a very small portion of polar ice. And, finally, it is universally recognised that slightly higher temperatures would increase arable land (that is, useful farming land), and greatly benefit native wildlife.

All in all, I think the benefits of global warming would actually be quite agreeable. Well, except to those who had hoped to use it to drum up a fake "crisis" in order to steal money from you. They aren't going to be too happy about it.

#14 | Posted by RobertZeurunkl at 2019-09-24 01:40 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort