$3 trillion per year to 2050 to reduce CO2 from the historic 7,000 PPM according to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen

healthmyths

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
30,059
Reaction score
11,509
Points
1,400
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century


NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source...
read the above link and if you have an 8.5 seconds attention span here is a summary!
Squirrel! Why attention spans seem to be shrinking and what we can do about it

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels


Finally those of you that believe that a 1.5° C increase will destroy our world and it is caused by increasing CO2 parts per million PPM of 422.04 ppm daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
So what caused this?
"Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. "
 
How does that work when the U.S. is already the ONE major country to bring down its CO2 , all while countries like China and India are raising their CO2?

Its not going to work and she knows it.
 
Guess everyone will have to pay their fair share, including the bottom 48%-ish that pay no income taxes.
 
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century


NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source...
read the above link and if you have an 8.5 seconds attention span here is a summary!
Squirrel! Why attention spans seem to be shrinking and what we can do about it

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels


Finally those of you that believe that a 1.5° C increase will destroy our world and it is caused by increasing CO2 parts per million PPM of 422.04 ppm daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
So what caused this?
"Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. "
$3 trillion a year to fight global warming?

And to think, I would have done it for a cool $2 trillion.
 
$3 trillion a year to fight global warming?

And to think, I would have done it for a cool $2 trillion.


You could keep the other trillion as a bonus
 
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century


NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source...
read the above link and if you have an 8.5 seconds attention span here is a summary!
Squirrel! Why attention spans seem to be shrinking and what we can do about it

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels


Finally those of you that believe that a 1.5° C increase will destroy our world and it is caused by increasing CO2 parts per million PPM of 422.04 ppm daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
So what caused this?
"Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. "
BASIC
INTERMEDIATE
ADVANCED
 
So I take it you don't believe that the current 422 PPM of CO2 is worth maintaining at nearly $78 trillion expenses
over next 26 years?
 
So I take it you don't believe that the current 422 PPM of CO2 is worth maintaining at nearly $78 trillion expenses
over next 26 years?
I am absolutely convinced that NOT dealing with it now will cost us CONSIDERABLY more in the future.
 
I am absolutely convinced that NOT dealing with it now will cost us CONSIDERABLY more in the future.
Then what is causing your concerns regarding "Climate change" i.e. CO2 at 422 PPM increasing,
when 500 million years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide.
 
Then what is causing your concerns regarding "Climate change" i.e. CO2 at 422 PPM increasing,
when 500 million years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide.
500 million years ago the first land plants would not appear for another 25 million years. There were all manner of life in the oceans but nothing on dry land. And of the many species in that ocean, not one lives today. Are you sure you want to use that as an example of a human-friendly environment?
 
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century


NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source...
read the above link and if you have an 8.5 seconds attention span here is a summary!
Squirrel! Why attention spans seem to be shrinking and what we can do about it

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels


Finally those of you that believe that a 1.5° C increase will destroy our world and it is caused by increasing CO2 parts per million PPM of 422.04 ppm daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
So what caused this?
"Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. "
Our current 442ppm is the highest recorded in 3 million years.

And any self-respecting climate scientist that denies a human caused CO2 rise isn't the catalyst for our current warming should have head examined.
 
Our current 442ppm is the highest recorded in 3 million years.

And any self-respecting climate scientist that denies a human caused CO2 rise isn't the catalyst for our current warming should have head examined.
The last time it was that high the planet cooled. :rofl:
 
Our current 442ppm is the highest recorded in 3 million years.

And any self-respecting climate scientist that denies a human caused CO2 rise isn't the catalyst for our current warming should have head examined.
Obviously you DIDN"T read the substantiation! I didn't make this up! Blame Yale university ok?

People evidently MORE informed than you researched this and now I'll share with you again FACTS. With a link!
hen what is causing your concerns regarding "Climate change" i.e. CO2 at 422 PPM increasing,
when 500 million years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. Earth was very different back then: the Sun was cooler, our planet was in a different phase of its orbital cycles, and the continents were lumped together differently, changing ocean currents and the amount of ice on land. The planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today, which might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas; with so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn’t always easy to see.
So dummies like you explain how life existed at 7,000 ppm if we are so concerned about a ppm rate that is less than 6% of 7,000 PPM?
 
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Saturday that the global transition to a low-carbon economy requires $3 trillion in new capital each year through 2050, far above current annual financing, but that filling the gap is the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century


NEW PEER REVIEWED STUDY: CO2 HAS ZERO IMPACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Once again... those of you that continue to believe that the BIASED MSM is your source...
read the above link and if you have an 8.5 seconds attention span here is a summary!
Squirrel! Why attention spans seem to be shrinking and what we can do about it

A powerful peer-reviewed scientific study delivers substantial evidence that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the atmosphere have zero impact on the Earth’s global temperatures.
The study concludes that even though most publications attempt to depict a catastrophic future for our planet due to an increase in CO2, there is serious doubt that this is, in fact, the case.

Instead, the study authors deduced that their research unequivocally means that the officially presented narrative that human activity is causing a detrimental CO2 increase on Earth’s climate is merely a hypothesis rather than a substantiated reality.
The study also confirms what climatologist Dr. Judith Curry has stated, which is that the “manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers” regarding climate change is all a ruse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change. She insists that “Earth has survived far bigger insults that what human beings are doing.”
According to Curry, the most significant danger is if “we do really stupid stuff like destroy our energy infrastructure before we have something better to replace it with.” She believes the biggest climate risk right now is a so-called transition risk, the risk of rapidly getting rid of fossil fuels


Finally those of you that believe that a 1.5° C increase will destroy our world and it is caused by increasing CO2 parts per million PPM of 422.04 ppm daily average reading for atmospheric CO2 on the planet.
So what caused this?
"Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. "
You claim Yale university put out FAKE NEWS????
 
Obviously you DIDN"T read the substantiation! I didn't make this up! Blame Yale university ok?

People evidently MORE informed than you researched this and now I'll share with you again FACTS. With a link!
hen what is causing your concerns regarding "Climate change" i.e. CO2 at 422 PPM increasing,
when 500 million years ago CO2 was 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide?
Some 500 million years ago, when the number of living things in the oceans exploded and creatures first stepped on land, the ancient atmosphere happened to be rich with about 7,000 ppm of carbon dioxide. Earth was very different back then: the Sun was cooler, our planet was in a different phase of its orbital cycles, and the continents were lumped together differently, changing ocean currents and the amount of ice on land. The planet was maybe as much as 10 degrees C (18°F) warmer than today, which might seem surprisingly cool for that level of greenhouse gas; with so many factors at play, the link between CO2 and temperature isn’t always easy to see.
So dummies like you explain how life existed at 7,000 ppm if we are so concerned about a ppm rate that is less than 6% of 7,000 PPM?
Will we be able to survive at 7000ppm with our current planetary status.

Also, how would the state of our earth 500 million years ago inform us of our current rapid warming caused by 442ppm?
 
Also, how would the state of our earth 500 million years ago inform us of our current rapid warming caused by 442ppm?
That the majority of the warming is natural and not caused by an incremental 120 ppm of atmospheric CO2.
 
Money is just a measure of time. Is there anything more important than time spent to ensure that our earth continues to stay livable?
 
Back
Top Bottom