Slashdot Mirror
Forecasting the Economic Impact of a Changing Climate (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Academic research has been busily trying to pin down how a changing climate will affect our planet over the long- and short-term. But a new study in the journal Nature attempts to forecast not the changes in weather, but the changes in our economy as a result of climate change. "The study (abstract) finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro and micro level observations." Notably, the paper provides evidence that regional economies can be linked to global climate effects. "This modeling allowed them to examine whether country-specific deviations from growth trends were related to country-specific differences in temperature and precipitation trends, while accounting for any global shifts that would be experienced to affect all countries."
ExonMobil's internal memos specifically cite global warming caused by burning fossil fuels as the key to making arctic drilling profitable.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
How can one ignore one the greatest propaganda artists on the side that everyone keeps pointing to, until it becomes an Inconvenient Truth?
Here's the part that gets me. People love to spout off the incredible claims this guy makes, and then like a defunct prophet, discards him until it is convenient to call upon his name again.
This isn't science, it is religion. Pure Religion. They use scientific sounding terms and make bold predictions that have failed repeatedly, only to have the next round of prophets waiting in the wings with a better interpretation of their holy book!
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
African Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Physical Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Society
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Science Foundation
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
InterAcademy Council as the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
United States National Research Council
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
American Society of Agronomy (ASA),
Crop Science Society of America (CSSA),
Soil Science Society of America (SSSA)
Well, the list goes on and on... It would be much easier to list dissenting organizations: NONE - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
CAGW extremists are well known to lie consistently on wikipedia. Just like Cook's 97% consensus, they include anyone and anything that mentions humans and climate.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-percent-consensus.html
C02 is neither poisonous nor a pollutant since without it (or if it drops below 150 ppm), all plant life would die followed by the rest of us all.
That is a specious argument. Almost any substance, in sufficient concentration, can be poisonous or a pollutant. That holds for CO2. It even holds for O2.
That said, nobody in the AGW crowd is saying that human-driven levels of CO2 are poisonous in the sense of being toxic. But human-produced CO2 is a pollutant, insofar as it has an environmental impact. Specifically, it increases the Earth's temperature through the greenhouse effect.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.