- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
18 Jan 17
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/
Fighting ‘Climate Change’ Will Cost $100 Trillion to Cool Earth 3/10 of Degree
http://www.libertyheadlines.com/fighting-climate-change-will-cost-100-trillion-cool-earth-310-one-degree/
What do you think, sound like a great deal?
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou have a habit of cherry picking facts on issues you don't agree with. Allow me to fill in a few blank spaces for you:
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/
Fighting ‘Climate Change’ Will Cost $100 Trillion to Cool Earth 3/10 of Degree
http://www.libertyheadlines.com/ ...[text shortened]... will-cost-100-trillion-cool-earth-310-one-degree/
What do you think, sound like a great deal?
* 100 trillion is going to be spread out among many nations, much of it by China. The USA will bear only a small part of this.
* Even China understands the importance of this, that why they've been investing heavily in solar power in the last 3 years.
* Much of this 100 trillion would have to be paid in increased health care costs as a result of toxins in the air and water. So, you either clean up the environment, or pay the price in healthcare, either way, you pay!
* This 100 trillion figure is an estimate, as technology improves, that figure could drop significantly.
* Costs aside, dumping thousands of tons of toxic garbage into the air every few years cannot be sustained. Sooner or later lot's of people will start dying (and that can be rather costly as well.)
* The bottom line Mr. checkbaiter is this: Science is NOT a Liberal conspiracy! Conducting business in a way that does no poison our planet is smart, both morally and bottom line.
Originally posted by mchillScience, indeed, is not a conspiracy.
You have a habit of cherry picking facts on issues you don't agree with. Allow me to fill in a few blank spaces for you:
* 100 trillion is going to be spread out among many nations, much of it by China. The USA will bear only a small part of this.
* Much of this 100 trillion would have to be paid in increased health care costs as a result of toxins in t ...[text shortened]... ducting business in a way that does no poison our planet is smart, both morally and bottom line.
None of the mediums used to spread propaganda are, in and of themselves, conspiracies.
However, science has most definitely been used throughout man's history to sway, convince or in other fashion shape public opinion on sundry topics.
There are a plethora of renowned scientists whose disciplines include areas related to the weather, who otherwise insist climate change is emphatically a hoax.
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo there's not.
Science, indeed, is not a conspiracy.
None of the mediums used to spread propaganda are, in and of themselves, conspiracies.
However, science has most definitely been used throughout man's history to sway, convince or in other fashion shape public opinion on sundry topics.
There are a plethora of renowned [b]scientists whose disciplines include areas related to the weather, who otherwise insist climate change is emphatically a hoax.[/b]
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterMore bogus fear tactics.
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/
Fighting ‘Climate Change’ Will Cost $100 Trillion to Cool Earth 3/10 of Degree
http://www.libertyheadlines.com/ ...[text shortened]... will-cost-100-trillion-cool-earth-310-one-degree/
What do you think, sound like a great deal?
Do you even have any idea exactly how much $100 trillion IS?
How much of this is ineffective third-world "fixes"?
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHClimate change is more than just weather, moron.
Science, indeed, is not a conspiracy.
None of the mediums used to spread propaganda are, in and of themselves, conspiracies.
However, science has most definitely been used throughout man's history to sway, convince or in other fashion shape public opinion on sundry topics.
There are a plethora of renowned [b]scientists whose disciplines include areas related to the weather, who otherwise insist climate change is emphatically a hoax.[/b]
Originally posted by SuzianneDo tell, genius.
Climate change is more than just weather, moron.
Enlighten me.
But when you do, make sure you don't contradict the high priests of climate change at NASA:
"Climate change, therefore, is a change in the typical or average weather of a region or city. This could be a change in a region's average annual rainfall, for example. Or it could be a change in a city's average temperature for a given month or season."
Moron.
19 Jan 17
Originally posted by checkbaiterYep. Woopie!!!
Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100/
Fighting ‘Climate Change’ Will Cost $100 Trillion to Cool Earth 3/10 of Degree
http://www.libertyheadlines.com/ ...[text shortened]... will-cost-100-trillion-cool-earth-310-one-degree/
What do you think, sound like a great deal?
You had me at "statistician".