Discussion in 'Energy' started by Jessica123, Jun 1, 2018.
Have you falsified the green house gas theory?
The OP is correct, and the nay sayers are wrong and know it.
What is in it for them to nay say?
The assumptions in the OP's article are pure unadulterated bulshit, with made up benefits and grossly underestimated costs.
again, Thinkprogress, LOL
But InfoWars, ZeroHedge, ConservativeTree;etc, Yes!
You ever see me quote any of those?
Trump supporters aren't interested in facts and the truth.
Well Trump is trying to do his part to combat global warming with gas prices over $3 bucks..
My comment was not directed at any specific poster, but more so, a large group who insist in on using obvious short hyper partisan resources.
To answer your question. No, I can’t say I have ever seen you using crap resources.
OMFG that might the most retarded thing I've heard all year and there is PLENTY of competition. This thread receives the rare MEGA LAME rating.
Commissioned by the British government and led by economist Nicholas Stern, the massive report was the first of its kind to quantify the costs to address climate change and its impact on the global economy vs. what would happen if the world continued emitting carbon pollution unchecked.
It found that cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually, but ignoring climate change could cause economic damage on the order of up to 20 percent of the GDP. Translated into real world numbers, the Stern Review put a price of about $85 per ton of carbon pollution emitted today, well above the current rate used by the U.S. of $40 per ton.
It’s a stark finding — though one that has yet to inspire major action — that was both heralded as a breakthrough and hotly debated in the intervening decade.
10 Years on, Climate Economists Reflect on Stern Review
More to come
Separate names with a comma.