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/ …
-
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
With the argument from before (we're adapted to the last 100 years of temp), any large temperature change (up or down) would imply costs, simply because we'd need to change infrastructure
-
-
Less cost that fighting climate change
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
What infrastructure? Beach houses because of 5 inches of sea level rise in the next 80 years? How are you so sure that these minimal % changes in HUMAN CO2 output 100% turn down the fictional climate control knob by fractions of a degree? Why if losses are not growing?
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
As a Scandinavian remind yourself and
@GretaThunberg on the costs of having the Baltic regularly covered in ice for months at a time...Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.