Climate scientists give clear warning

Bergslagstroll · Jan 5, 2019

Moderate71 said:
How would you test that claim? Even if you were to immediately implement a specific policy and wait until 2050, you could only quantify the number of people dying every year at best. How would you quantify how many would be dying every year in 2050 if a specific policy hadn't been implemented in 2019 in order to do a comparison, especially considering that the number of people dying every year worldwide has such a massive number of contributing to factors?

That it can be hard to quantified negative health effect of pollution is one of the reason that action to curb the devastating effects of air pollutants have been neglected. While you now are starting to get a better understanding on their negative impact.

"For decades, pollution and its harmful effects on people’s health, the environment, and the planet have been neglected both by Governments and the international development agenda. Yet, pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and death in the world today, responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health addresses the full health and economic costs of air, water, and soil pollution. Through analyses of existing and emerging data, the Commission reveals pollution’s severe and underreported contribution to the Global Burden of Disease. It uncovers the economic costs of pollution to low-income and middle-income countries. The Commission will inform key decision makers around the world about the burden that pollution places on health and economic development, and about available cost-effective pollution control solutions and strategies."

https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/pollution-and-health

While you can also combine action to combat manmade global warming and toxic pollutants with a strong economy. For example Sweden that is one of the most sustainable countries in the world that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995.

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

While at the same being on second place on Forbes best country for business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

Bergslagstroll · Jan 5, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
I have no problems with the concept of clean energy for the sake of reducing pollution where we can. However my point still holds. The suggestion that man is causing the climate to change is hysterical nonsense and has become a cultish hoax. And as pollution goes, the real problem is third world nations like India as well as China. And they are getting a pass on the silly climate agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Air pollutions is far worse in developing countries while toxic pollutants is still a huge problem in developed countries. For example that 52 percent of children in high income countries breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk.

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...-world’s-children-breathe-toxic-air-every-day

Also that fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world and have spent a lot of time and money trying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. For example that gas companies spend 100 million Euros, roughly the same in dollars, during 2016 to influence European policies to keep EU dependent on fossil fuels.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Fossil fuel companies have also implemented massive disinformation campaigns for many decades about the realities of climate change.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W81x53szaUk

So the fossil fuel companies could easily have disproven manmade global warming if it was “hysterical nonsense”. Instead their own studies show that manmade global warming is real and will have devastating effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Developing countries are also taking part in the transition away from fossil fuels. For example that India plans nearly 60 percent of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

India's C02 emissions is also less than half of that of USA even if they have a much larger population.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi.../each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.XDCAp1xKjIU

jamesrage · Jan 5, 2019

Moderate71 said:
A group of Climate Scientists that agree with the concerns skeptics have regarding frantic alarmism have been doing extensive research, looking at the issue more moderately and objectively, and are predicting that there may be a significant reduction of the Polar Ice caps by 2300 if we don't act quickly. Given the trends regarding greenhouse gas emissions, the first signs may start appearing as early as 2150. However, the wheels will be set inevitably in motion very quickly if we don't do something soon. It will simply take longer to start happening than previously thought. This is the kind of objective research we need to get behind and fund while there is still time.

https://theconversation.com/why-sci...limate-change-right-up-to-the-year-2300-92236

So they are making predictions that no one alive today will be able to see. Usually man made global warming fairy tale believers like to make claims of disasters in the near future which gets disproved in a decade or so.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty...lobal-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ts-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/

Tim the plumber · Jan 5, 2019

SonOfDaedalus said:
Let's analyze the possibilities:

One of these two has to be true:

1. If we reduce pollution now we can prevent a climate change disaster

2. If we reduce pollution now it won't change anything because there was no eminent disaster or there's nothing we can do about it.

If #1 is true and we do nothing the results are catastrophic to the entire human race.

If #2 is true and we do listen to scientists then what is the great harm? We lost some fossil fuel jobs sooner than we needed to? We transitioned to renewable energies sooner than we had to? We cleaned up the air more than we had to?

In other words, you don't have much to lose if you work to reduce pollution but you have a lot to lose if you ignore avoidable climate change.

This catastrophy;

Can you tell me what the bad thing is? I would like to discuss some particular place on the earth so we can look at the detail and just how bad it is likely to be.

bluesmoke · Jan 5, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
I have no problems with the concept of clean energy for the sake of reducing pollution where we can. However my point still holds. The suggestion that man is causing the climate to change is hysterical nonsense and has become a cultish hoax. And as pollution goes, the real problem is third world nations like India as well as China. And they are getting a pass on the silly climate agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

You contradict yourself. You say that man causing climate change (global warming) is “hysterical nonsense.” Then, you say the real problem, as pollution goes, is third world nations. Well, why are nations like India and China a greater pollution problem? The answer is they are creating more pollution that contributes to global warming because they have more man-made factories of such pollution. And that they are “getting a pass on silly climate agreements”. Well, how is it “getting a pass” on something that is non-consequential? The US is “getting a pass” by having pulled-out of the Paris Accord. You should be in agreement with third world countries getting a pass.

LetsGoBrandon · Jan 5, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
Air pollutions is far worse in developing countries while toxic pollutants is still a huge problem in developed countries. For example that 52 percent of children in high income countries breathe air that is so polluted it puts their health and development at serious risk.

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...-world’s-children-breathe-toxic-air-every-day

Also that fossil fuel companies are amongst the most profitable companies in the world and have spent a lot of time and money trying to delay the transition away from fossil fuels. For example that gas companies spend 100 million Euros, roughly the same in dollars, during 2016 to influence European policies to keep EU dependent on fossil fuels.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-in-to-fossil-fuels-for-decades-a8028056.html

Fossil fuel companies have also implemented massive disinformation campaigns for many decades about the realities of climate change.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...siers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos#.W81x53szaUk

So the fossil fuel companies could easily have disproven manmade global warming if it was “hysterical nonsense”. Instead their own studies show that manmade global warming is real and will have devastating effect.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...d-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings

Developing countries are also taking part in the transition away from fossil fuels. For example that India plans nearly 60 percent of electricity capacity from non-fossil fuels by 2027.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/21/india-renewable-energy-paris-climate-summit-target

India's C02 emissions is also less than half of that of USA even if they have a much larger population.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi.../each-countrys-share-of-co2.html#.XDCAp1xKjIU

I am sorry, but you lose me when you cherry pick for politicized organizations like the "Union of Concerned scientists". Your other articles are a mix of truth and fable.

eohrnberger · Jan 5, 2019

Or maybe not.

In her latest paper, Ms. Curry found that the current rising sea levels are not abnormal, nor can they be pinned on human-caused climate change, arguing that the oceans have been on a “slow creep” for the last 150 years — before the post-1950 climb in carbon-dioxide emissions.

“There are numerous reasons to think that projections of 21st-century sea level rise from human-caused global warming are too high, and some of the worst-case scenarios strain credulity,” the 80-page report found.

Her Nov. 25 report, “Sea Level and Climate Change,” which has been submitted for publication, also found that sea levels were actually higher in some regions during the Holocene Climate Optimum — about 5,000 to 7,000 years ago.

“After several centuries of sea level decline following the Medieval Warm Period, sea levels began to rise in the mid-19th century,” the report concluded. “Rates of global mean sea level rise between 1920 and 1950 were comparable to recent rates. It is concluded that recent change is within the range of natural sea-level variability over the past several thousand years.”
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/judith-curry-sea-level-study-disputes-climate-disa/

Charles Krauthammer: The myth of ‘settled science’

Follow the (Climate Change) Money

LetsGoBrandon · Jan 5, 2019

bluesmoke said:
You contradict yourself. You say that man causing climate change (global warming) is “hysterical nonsense.” Then, you say the real problem, as pollution goes, is third world nations. Well, why are nations like India and China a greater pollution problem? The answer is they are creating more pollution that contributes to global warming because they have more man-made factories of such pollution. And that they are “getting a pass on silly climate agreements”. Well, how is it “getting a pass” on something that is non-consequential? The US is “getting a pass” by having pulled-out of the Paris Accord. You should be in agreement with third world countries getting a pass.

Well I am sorry that you cannot comprehend the difference in acknowledging that pollution exists and defending my point that man is not the cause of climate change. Man certainly can pollute and poison the planet. I lived in the Los Angeles Area long enough to work that out. The smog was horrible. That smog certainly does cause breathing issues and the weather at hand, however it's not changing the climate. Climate change is a natural occurrence and has been going on since the planet was formed. Climate change effecting Earth is primarily related to solar activity(solar storms, sunspots, etc, on that great big round yellow object that heats the planet in the first place. It is also related to changing elyptical ordits as well as lunar influences.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 6, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
I am sorry, but you lose me when you cherry pick for politicized organizations like the "Union of Concerned scientists". Your other articles are a mix of truth and fable.

I can provide a lot of direct links if you for some reason doesn’t believe my sources. For example these federal reports during Trump’s presidency that warns about manmade global warming and its devastating effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

The evidence for manmade global warming are also so overwhelming that even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge it on their homepages.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

You can also read on NIPSCO own homepage how that energy company in Indiana, a Republican coal states plan to reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy

code1211 · Jan 6, 2019

lwf said:
And a third problem is that C02 producing energy companies spend an enormous amount of money lobbying against anything that might threaten their profits.

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was lower 8000 years ago and was also lower at the temperature peak of all preceding interglacials over the last half million years.

In each case at these points in the record, the temperatures were higher than today.

IF there is a direct causal effect between the concentration of CO2 and the level of the Global Temperature, this is impossible and yet, it occurred.

Which is incorrect? Science that presents these results or politics that departs from science to make dire predictions?

climate4you welcome
<snip>
The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
<snip>

code1211 · Jan 6, 2019

Diving Mullah said:
Your analogy is like Dr telling, you have cancer and you should get treatment, and your response...I feel fine and you said that to me that few months ago and I still am alive...so I simply don’t find it credible!

However by the time you do actually feel sick, no amount of treatment will help you and you will win the Darwin Award!

Climate prediction are very complicated, far more than weather predictions, however the prediction are correct, average summer by summer is getting hotter, weather has become more erratic, storms are more frequent and more massive, the problem is at some point it will be too late to do anything.

and like cancer you can begin treatment early and it may or may not help but chances are much higher that it could help, or do nothing and die.

you and many like you have opted to do nothing, except unlike cancer, your ignorance and apathy will affect everybody on the planet.

Diving Mullah

Temperatures have been changing over the period of this interglacial with constancy. Sometimes the change is up and sometimes the change is down.

We are currently warming from about the coldest point in this interglacial over the last 9000 or so years.

This is normal climate variation. Correlation to the change in the CO2 concentration is very likely only a correlation, not a causation.

The prescription for saving the planet is to kill 7 billion people as we return to a world free of fossil fuels.

Killing the race is an interesting approach to saving the race.

code1211 · Jan 6, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
The ten worst climate-linked disasters in 2018 caused at least $84.8 billion worth of damage.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...018-caused-85-billion-in-damage-idUSKCN1OQ11T

There we now also are starting to run out of time in limiting the devastating effects of manmade global warming.

https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...fossil-fuels-greenhouse-gas-co2-a8574731.html

Even if there are still hope for example that over 150 of the world’s most influential companies have committed to source 100 percent renewable electricity. While the price of renewables have dropped so much that even oil companies invests in renewable energy.

Exxon knows renewables are cheaper, even if Trump doesn't

Even if we sadly still have politicians like Donald Trump that wants to spend billions of dollars propping up coal plans instead of taking action to combat manmade global warming.

https://www.economist.com/graphic-d...save-americas-failing-coal-fired-power-plants

Trump also for example wants to see new regulation that makes it possible for cars to emit more pollution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/climate/cafe-emissions-rollback-oil-industry.html

Just to be clear, are you saying that these are the first examples of climate disasters ever experienced on this planet?

code1211 · Jan 6, 2019

D_NATURED said:
For me, I guess it comes down to faith. I have faith that money has not corrupted the scientific community as much as I KNOW it's corrupted politics and capitalism. Besides, if I had to guess, I'd say it's probably too late to alter the course of what's begun. This isn't about spending your money on things I like, though. That's a very juvenile, albeit typically conservative, way of looking at climate change, from a fiscal butthurt perspective. This is about preserving something beautiful, like many of the species that now inhabit Earth.

You realize, don't you, that change is not synonymous with loss. New markets and new ways of screwing people will be created by alternative energy technology and fighting climate change. Therefore, my conservative brothers can find a promise of opportunities inherent in this effort. Will some of today's oil barons and Saudi royalty be challenged to find a new job? Yes, but so what? The idea that we should sacrifice our planet to maintain job security for entitled asshats is, to me, ridiculous. It is only the politicians in their pockets who have anything to fear from a shifting economy. For the rest of us, it's a reason to be hopeful.

The population of the world has increased from about less than a billion to about more than 7 Billion people due to the use of fossil fuels.

Please name the 7 Billion or so folks you would like to see dead to pursue your goals.

LetsGoBrandon · Jan 6, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
I can provide a lot of direct links if you for some reason doesn’t believe my sources. For example these federal reports during Trump’s presidency that warns about manmade global warming and its devastating effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

The evidence for manmade global warming are also so overwhelming that even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge it on their homepages.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

You can also read on NIPSCO own homepage how that energy company in Indiana, a Republican coal states plan to reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy

The reports mean nothing to me or rank and file Americans. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that climate change occurs, however it is natural. Climate is never in a permanent static state with or without man industrializing the planet. Man has somehow managed to survive and thrive in previous climate change cycles and will do so in the next one. Most of us do not buy into the "Chicken Little...The sky is falling" scenarios.

Tim the plumber · Jan 6, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
I can provide a lot of direct links if you for some reason doesn’t believe my sources. For example these federal reports during Trump’s presidency that warns about manmade global warming and its devastating effects.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

The evidence for manmade global warming are also so overwhelming that even the fossil fuel companies acknowledge it on their homepages.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...ose-fossil-fuels-challenging-price/485210002/

You can also read on NIPSCO own homepage how that energy company in Indiana, a Republican coal states plan to reduce carbon emissions by more than 90 percent by 2028 by investing in renewable.

https://www.nipsco.com/your-energy

You provide all sorts of links but will not look at any place in detail....

Bergslagstroll · Jan 8, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
The reports mean nothing to me or rank and file Americans. Pretty much everyone acknowledges that climate change occurs, however it is natural. Climate is never in a permanent static state with or without man industrializing the planet. Man has somehow managed to survive and thrive in previous climate change cycles and will do so in the next one. Most of us do not buy into the "Chicken Little...The sky is falling" scenarios.

You can’t just ignore the overwhelming evidence of manmade global warming. There you also for example have 31 leading American scientific societies acknowledging the urgent need for action to combat manmade global warming.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/06282016.pdf

That if you for some reason doesn’t believe all those scientists you should be able to provide alternative theories. There both Bush, Trump and Republicans in congress could have directed government funds to find evidence against man made global warming if any such evidence existed. Instead for example NASA continue their research and presentation of the devastating effects of manmade global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Fossil fuel companies have also great financial motivation to disprove manmade global warming. While also being amongst the wealthiest companies in the world. There the result is that fossil fuel haven't been able to find any evidence against climate change from C02. Instead the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming that the fossil fuel compaies have to acknowledge it on their websites.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

Also that two thirds of Americans give priority to developing renewables over fossil fuel. It was also two thirds of Americans that wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Bergslagstroll · Jan 8, 2019

code1211 said:
Temperatures have been changing over the period of this interglacial with constancy. Sometimes the change is up and sometimes the change is down.

We are currently warming from about the coldest point in this interglacial over the last 9000 or so years.

This is normal climate variation. Correlation to the change in the CO2 concentration is very likely only a correlation, not a causation.

The prescription for saving the planet is to kill 7 billion people as we return to a world free of fossil fuels.

Killing the race is an interesting approach to saving the race.

Yes temperature have changed in the past while the evidence is overwhelming that the warming we see now is because of manmade global warming from C02.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-2/

Also that our human societies are very vulnerable to climate changes and extreme weather. For example the 10 worst climate driven disasters during 2018 cost 85 billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davide...ters-of-2018-cost-us-85-billion/#5c9f6a412680

There manmade global warming will lead to climate driven disasters become more common and costlier. There you also will have a lot of other negative effects from manmade global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-17/

While you can also combine action to combat manmade global warming and toxic pollutants with a strong economy. For example Sweden is one of the most sustainable countries in the world that implemented a carbon tax as early as 1995.

How Sweden Became the World?s Most Sustainable Country: Top 5 Reasons

While also ranking second on Forbes best country for Business list.

https://www.forbes.com/best-countries-for-business/list/

Also having countries, communinities, corporation and individuals leading the way in the transition away from fossil fuels have drastically reduced the cost of renewables. So that even Republican politcians are on a local level starting to see the benefits of renewable energy.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshua...n-leaders-love-renewable-energy/#631e530f3da7

Tim the plumber · Jan 8, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
You can’t just ignore the overwhelming evidence of manmade global warming. There you also for example have 31 leading American scientific societies acknowledging the urgent need for action to combat manmade global warming.

But it apparently completely OK to ignore my challenge to explain how any of it is ever going to be bad at any location in the world at all.

Bergslagstroll · Jan 8, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
But it apparently completely OK to ignore my challenge to explain how any of it is ever going to be bad at any location in the world at all.

As I wrote in my previous post, human societies are very vulnerable to climate changes and extreme weather. For example the 10 worst climate driven disasters during 2018 cost 85 billion dollars.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davide...ters-of-2018-cost-us-85-billion/#735b167c2680

There for example NASA have showed how extreme weathers will be more common because of climate change and you will also have a lot of other devasting effects. With this regional effects for the US.

"Northeast. Heat waves, heavy downpours and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning.

Northwest. Changes in the timing of streamflow reduce water supplies for competing demands. Sea level rise, erosion, inundation, risks to infrastructure and increasing ocean acidity pose major threats. Increasing wildfire, insect outbreaks and tree diseases are causing widespread tree die-off.

Southeast. Sea level rise poses widespread and continuing threats to the region’s economy and environment. Extreme heat will affect health, energy, agriculture and more. Decreased water availability will have economic and environmental impacts.

Midwest. Extreme heat, heavy downpours and flooding will affect infrastructure, health, agriculture, forestry, transportation, air and water quality, and more. Climate change will also exacerbate a range of risks to the Great Lakes.

Southwest. Increased heat, drought and insect outbreaks, all linked to climate change, have increased wildfires. Declining water supplies, reduced agricultural yields, health impacts in cities due to heat, and flooding and erosion in coastal areas are additional concerns."

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

While Meeting the Paris Agreement could save a millions lives per year globally just by reducing air pollutions.

“Meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement could save about a million lives a year worldwide by 2050 through reductions in air pollution alone. The latest estimates from leading experts also indicate that the value of health gains from climate action would be approximately double the cost of mitigation policies at global level, and the benefit-to-cost ratio is even higher in countries such as China and India.”

https://www.who.int/news-room/detai...fl5F8cSRCxSxRYf2GXMmdDi4CwzZI8heXVwFv2zfvJ3dA

Tim the plumber · Jan 8, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
As I wrote in my previous post, human societies are very vulnerable to climate changes and extreme weather. For example the 10 worst climate driven disasters during 2018 cost 85 billion dollars.

But phobic about actually looking at any particular polace and seeing exactly what will be the impact there.

Hand waving about the globe is a way of evading the fact that there is no real problem when you drill down into it.

LetsGoBrandon · Jan 8, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
You can’t just ignore the overwhelming evidence of manmade global warming. There you also for example have 31 leading American scientific societies acknowledging the urgent need for action to combat manmade global warming.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/06282016.pdf

That if you for some reason doesn’t believe all those scientists you should be able to provide alternative theories. There both Bush, Trump and Republicans in congress could have directed government funds to find evidence against man made global warming if any such evidence existed. Instead for example NASA continue their research and presentation of the devastating effects of manmade global warming.

https://climate.nasa.gov/

Fossil fuel companies have also great financial motivation to disprove manmade global warming. While also being amongst the wealthiest companies in the world. There the result is that fossil fuel haven't been able to find any evidence against climate change from C02. Instead the evidence of manmade global warming is so overwhelming that the fossil fuel compaies have to acknowledge it on their websites.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

https://www.equinor.com/en/how-and-why/climate-change.html

Also that two thirds of Americans give priority to developing renewables over fossil fuel. It was also two thirds of Americans that wanted US to stay in the Paris accord.

Most in US say alternative energy takes priority over fossil fuels

https://www.theatlantic.com/science...upport-staying-in-the-paris-agreement/528663/

Once again, no matter how many cherry picked links you post, there is in fact no smoking gun evidence of man made global warming. I am still waiting on the so-called man made global cooling that scientists promised in the 1970s. They were just as sure of their predictions. These scare hoaxes have been going on since 1895.Okay?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Jack Hays · Jan 8, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
You can’t just ignore the overwhelming evidence of manmade global warming. There you also for example have 31 leading American scientific societies acknowledging the urgent need for action to combat manmade global warming. . . .

". . . I should also add that science is not a democracy. The majority is not necessarily right! You should also be careful and make the distinction between evidence for warming and evidence for warming by humans. There is in fact no evidence for the latter. Last, people may frighten you with secondary climate effects associated with global warming, on the sea level, cryosphere, droughts floods or economic effects. However, if the underlying climate model is fundamentally wrong, all the ensuing predictions are irrelevant. . . . "

My experience at the German Bundestag's Environment Committee in a pre-COP24 discussion

Bergslagstroll · Jan 10, 2019

ObamacareFail said:
Once again, no matter how many cherry picked links you post, there is in fact no smoking gun evidence of man made global warming. I am still waiting on the so-called man made global cooling that scientists promised in the 1970s. They were just as sure of their predictions. These scare hoaxes have been going on since 1895.Okay?

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I have provided links to reports published by the federal goverment under Donald Trump that statet that there are an urging need for action to combat manmade global warming. Can you provide any links to federal reports that state that manmade global warming isn't real? That Bush was president for eight years and Trump have been president for two years so they could have directed goverment funds to disprove manmade global warming if any evidence had existed.

I have also provided direct links to fossil fuel companies' websites there they states that manmade global warming is real. What reason can they have for doing that beside the overwhelming evidence for manmade global warming?

Bergslagstroll · Jan 10, 2019

Tim the plumber said:
But phobic about actually looking at any particular polace and seeing exactly what will be the impact there.

Hand waving about the globe is a way of evading the fact that there is no real problem when you drill down into it.

Three of costliest disasters was in the US. Hurricane Florence with a estimated cost of 17 billions dollars, Hurricane Michael with a cost between 15 and 25 billions of dollars and the Camp Fire in California with a cost estimated to 7,5-10 billion dollars.

There climate related disasters will become more frequent, deadlier and costlier both in the US and the rest of the world.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extrem...nsive-climate-driven-events-took-place-in-us/

Jack Hays · Jan 10, 2019

Bergslagstroll said:
Three of costliest disasters was in the US. Hurricane Florence with a estimated cost of 17 billions dollars, Hurricane Michael with a cost between 15 and 25 billions of dollars and the Camp Fire in California with a cost estimated to 7,5-10 billion dollars.

There climate related disasters will become more frequent, deadlier and costlier both in the US and the rest of the world.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/extrem...nsive-climate-driven-events-took-place-in-us/

None of the three was climate change-related.

Climate scientists give clear warning

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

jamesrage

Tim the plumber

bluesmoke

LetsGoBrandon

eohrnberger

LetsGoBrandon

Bergslagstroll

code1211

code1211

code1211

code1211

LetsGoBrandon

Tim the plumber

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

Tim the plumber

Bergslagstroll

Tim the plumber

LetsGoBrandon

Jack Hays

Traveler

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

Jack Hays

Traveler