Biden rejoining the Paris agreement will solve very little at a high cost. Even if all nations live up to all their Paris promises, they will reduce global temperature by less than 0.09°F (0.05°C) by 2100. We need a smarter way to tackle climate change:https://nypost.com/2021/01/15/joe-bidens-climate-change-plans-will-burn-billions/ …
-
Bjorn, why do you believe that global warming is a "problem"? What global average temperature is optimal for life on Earth?
Given society's infrastructure everywhere been built to historical climate, it is likely that any substantial change would lead to mismatched infrastructure and costs That's why economic models show some, but not exorbitant, costs for changes beyond 1°C https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520304157 …pic.twitter.com/OByxIdxQkP
-
-
But the most affected parts of the world are among those currently least densely populated, do they factor in that?pic.twitter.com/MKsn7jqwWA
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Also, do they factor is those areas with a net benefit from, e.g. increased precipitation in the semi-arid regions?pic.twitter.com/jRP7n9HwQh
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Thanks. I disagree strongly that the effects of warming are "mostly negative". In the 1970s, there was talk of fossil energy use causing global cooling, which was a bad thing, to be remedied by..wait for it.."outlawing the internal combustion engine"! http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html …pic.twitter.com/TZFsQG3HeL
-
If there was significant warming, imagine how much less energy would be used for home heating
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.