JP Morgan commits to spend $2.5 Trillion in the next decade fighting global warming.

[MisterBeale]

"JP Morgan commits to spend $2.5 Trillion in the next decade fighting global warming."


Well? I guess that is it. If anyone needed to know that this whole thing is a hoax to make a buck, this should be it, eh?

. . . and anyone pushing this paradigm? You should be suspicious as hell of.

Bankers are much more powerful than oil companies.

 

[harmonica]

humans can't control the weather/climate/etc

We can affect it. All we had to do was add about 2,600,000,000,000 tons of CO2 to the atmosphere over the last 260 years. Our current rate is over 43 billion tons/year and accelerating.

no proof that caused it

There is overwhelming evidence. There is NEVER "proof" in the natural sciences. But that evidence is enough to have convinced better than 99% of the world's climate scientists and EVERY single national science organization on the planet that it caused it.

hahhahahahah--funny
hahahahahahah
no--no proof

 

[Stryder50]

They must be hooked in to all those green companies. But, so many of you have said that spending trillions fighting AGW would destroy the US economy. How can JP Morgan do well if the economy is destroyed. Why aren't they rejecting this whole global warming thing like the rest of you skeptics? They must have consulted experts out the wazoo. Didn't the experts tell them it was all a left wing lie? I don't get it. But I'm sure some of you will explain it to me.

"JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is putting serious firepower behind the fight against climate change. The bank on Thursday said it would finance or facilitate investments of $2.5 trillion over 10 years to support initiatives that focus on combating climate change and enhancing sustainable development. Some of the efforts will center around renewable energy, new clean technology, waste management and conservation. The announcement is the latest addition to a long list of environment-focused pledges from financial institutions, but it's believed to be the largest of its kind by a major bank."

The realities of climate change are pushing big businesses to focus on sustainability

A consensus appears to be taking root in Corporate America: What's good for the environment can also be good for business.

www.cnn.com

Note the source is CNN ...
EXCERPT:
...
Chester on CNN’s plans to use “fear” to promote the network’s agenda on climate:

• “I think there’s a COVID fatigue. So, like whenever a new story comes up, they’re [CNN’s] going to latch onto it. They’ve already announced in our office that once the public is — will be open to it — we’re going to start focusing mainly on climate.”
• “I have a feeling that it’s going to be like, constantly showing videos of decline in ice, and weather warming up, and like the effects it’s having on the economy—”
• Climate change is the next “pandemic-like story that we’ll beat to death, but that one’s got longevity. You know what I mean? Like there’s a definitive ending to the pandemic. It’ll taper off to a point that it’s not a problem anymore. Climate change can take years, so they’ll [CNN will] probably be able to milk that quite a bit.”
• “Be prepared, it’s coming. Climate change is going to be the next COVID thing for CNN.”
• When asked if CNN was going to use “fear” to push their agenda, Chester said, “Yeah. Fear sells.”

Chester on CNN reporters allegedly manipulating interview subjects into saying what the reporters want them to say:
...

WATCH: CNN’s Brian Stelter Confronted Over Explosive Videos Released By Project Veritas | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

CNN only reported on this. They did not conduct or pay to conduct this poll.

The article you linked in your OP wasn't a poll, rather a biased and subjective hit piece from CNN, which as I showed with my link in the response, is something which CNN admits to being their agenda. In simpler terms you might be able to understand, CNN is not an objective news source, but rather just another propaganda org with an agenda.

 

[Stryder50]

The plant life on this planet did just fine with the 280 PPM they had since before the appearance of homo sapiens up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The portion of the CO2 put there by humans is the difference between the 280 ppm pre-industrial value and the 420 ppm we have now. (420-280)/280 = 1.5, so we have made a 50% increase in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Pretty impressive considering (off the top of my head) that probably 90% of that was put there in the last 50 years

FIRST, there remains no linkage or proof that CO2 levels have any effect upon global AVERAGE temperatures, now, or at any time in the past millions to billions of years. What we have is some recent coincidence, but only over the past couple-few hundred years. Following charts will illustrate this;

Charts taken from this search page results;

charts of temperature versus CO2 over past billions of years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

NOTE; That for most of Earth's history there has been CO2 levels several times higher than present and often average global temperatures have not match the levels of CO2, hence no linkage of CO2 causing higher temperatures. However there is a better case for higher temps causing higher levels of CO2.

SECOND, if you were familiar with greenhouse agriculture methods , you would know that most operate at levels more around 800ppm to 1200ppm and with no detriment to the humans working in those greenhouses.

THIRD: If you were competent at math you'd know that at 280ppm, where most plants are just barely surviving, the ratio of CO2 to other elements of the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.; is about 1 to 3,570. At 400ppm(+/-) that ratio is now 1 to 2,500. If you were competent at basic science, especially chemistry and physics, you'd know that one part(molecule) retaining a slight temperature increase can not pass that same amount of heat retention onto 2,499 other molecules.

BTW, by comparison, oxygen is at 210,000 ppm, but about four billion years ago it was near zero. It took nearly two billion years of activity by those first lifeforms,
Stromatolite

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... transforming the carbon of CO2 into growth expansion and releasing O2(oxygen) into the atmosphere before the first of fauna(animal life) could appear. Along with other forms of flora - plant lifes. The rest is planetary/natural history.

FINALLY, science is not based upon consensus of opinion of "scientists", but on facts and data along with resulting hypothesis that can be replicated to prove the conclusions. If you know of valid lab tests that have shown one part of CO2 causing a temperature rise in the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, please present. Science can and does have proofs. Doubt it, ... try denying gravity by stepping off of a forty story rooftop.

 

[Crick]

The plant life on this planet did just fine with the 280 PPM they had since before the appearance of homo sapiens up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The portion of the CO2 put there by humans is the difference between the 280 ppm pre-industrial value and the 420 ppm we have now. (420-280)/280 = 1.5, so we have made a 50% increase in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Pretty impressive considering (off the top of my head) that probably 90% of that was put there in the last 50 years

FIRST, there remains no linkage or proof that CO2 levels have any effect upon global AVERAGE temperatures, now, or at any time in the past millions to billions of years. What we have is some recent coincidence, but only over the past couple-few hundred years. Following charts will illustrate this;

Charts taken from this search page results;

charts of temperature versus CO2 over past billions of years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

NOTE; That for most of Earth's history there has been CO2 levels several times higher than present and often average global temperatures have not match the levels of CO2, hence no linkage of CO2 causing higher temperatures. However there is a better case for higher temps causing higher levels of CO2.

SECOND, if you were familiar with greenhouse agriculture methods , you would know that most operate at levels more around 800ppm to 1200ppm and with no detriment to the humans working in those greenhouses.

THIRD: If you were competent at math you'd know that at 280ppm, where most plants are just barely surviving, the ratio of CO2 to other elements of the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.; is about 1 to 3,570. At 400ppm(+/-) that ratio is now 1 to 2,500. If you were competent at basic science, especially chemistry and physics, you'd know that one part(molecule) retaining a slight temperature increase can not pass that same amount of heat retention onto 2,499 other molecules.

BTW, by comparison, oxygen is at 210,000 ppm, but about four billion years ago it was near zero. It took nearly two billion years of activity by those first lifeforms,
Stromatolite

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... transforming the carbon of CO2 into growth expansion and releasing O2(oxygen) into the atmosphere before the first of fauna(animal life) could appear. Along with other forms of flora - plant lifes. The rest is planetary/natural history.

FINALLY, science is not based upon consensus of opinion of "scientists", but on facts and data along with resulting hypothesis that can be replicated to prove the conclusions. If you know of valid lab tests that have shown one part of CO2 causing a temperature rise in the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, please present. Science can and does have proofs. Doubt it, ... try denying gravity by stepping off of a forty story rooftop.

So, you reject the greenhouse effect.

And, you do not understand how science works.

No surprises there.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The plant life on this planet did just fine with the 280 PPM they had since before the appearance of homo sapiens up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The portion of the CO2 put there by humans is the difference between the 280 ppm pre-industrial value and the 420 ppm we have now. (420-280)/280 = 1.5, so we have made a 50% increase in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Pretty impressive considering (off the top of my head) that probably 90% of that was put there in the last 50 years

FIRST, there remains no linkage or proof that CO2 levels have any effect upon global AVERAGE temperatures, now, or at any time in the past millions to billions of years. What we have is some recent coincidence, but only over the past couple-few hundred years. Following charts will illustrate this;

Charts taken from this search page results;

charts of temperature versus CO2 over past billions of years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

NOTE; That for most of Earth's history there has been CO2 levels several times higher than present and often average global temperatures have not match the levels of CO2, hence no linkage of CO2 causing higher temperatures. However there is a better case for higher temps causing higher levels of CO2.

SECOND, if you were familiar with greenhouse agriculture methods , you would know that most operate at levels more around 800ppm to 1200ppm and with no detriment to the humans working in those greenhouses.

THIRD: If you were competent at math you'd know that at 280ppm, where most plants are just barely surviving, the ratio of CO2 to other elements of the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.; is about 1 to 3,570. At 400ppm(+/-) that ratio is now 1 to 2,500. If you were competent at basic science, especially chemistry and physics, you'd know that one part(molecule) retaining a slight temperature increase can not pass that same amount of heat retention onto 2,499 other molecules.

BTW, by comparison, oxygen is at 210,000 ppm, but about four billion years ago it was near zero. It took nearly two billion years of activity by those first lifeforms,
Stromatolite

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... transforming the carbon of CO2 into growth expansion and releasing O2(oxygen) into the atmosphere before the first of fauna(animal life) could appear. Along with other forms of flora - plant lifes. The rest is planetary/natural history.

FINALLY, science is not based upon consensus of opinion of "scientists", but on facts and data along with resulting hypothesis that can be replicated to prove the conclusions. If you know of valid lab tests that have shown one part of CO2 causing a temperature rise in the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, please present. Science can and does have proofs. Doubt it, ... try denying gravity by stepping off of a forty story rooftop.

So, you reject the greenhouse effect.

And, you do not understand how science works.

No surprises there.

$76 trillion

 

[skookerasbil]

The JP Morgan $$ wont to dick.........theres a country out there called China. Crick never heard of it!

 

[Stryder50]

The plant life on this planet did just fine with the 280 PPM they had since before the appearance of homo sapiens up to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The portion of the CO2 put there by humans is the difference between the 280 ppm pre-industrial value and the 420 ppm we have now. (420-280)/280 = 1.5, so we have made a 50% increase in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. Pretty impressive considering (off the top of my head) that probably 90% of that was put there in the last 50 years

FIRST, there remains no linkage or proof that CO2 levels have any effect upon global AVERAGE temperatures, now, or at any time in the past millions to billions of years. What we have is some recent coincidence, but only over the past couple-few hundred years. Following charts will illustrate this;

Charts taken from this search page results;

charts of temperature versus CO2 over past billions of years at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

NOTE; That for most of Earth's history there has been CO2 levels several times higher than present and often average global temperatures have not match the levels of CO2, hence no linkage of CO2 causing higher temperatures. However there is a better case for higher temps causing higher levels of CO2.

SECOND, if you were familiar with greenhouse agriculture methods , you would know that most operate at levels more around 800ppm to 1200ppm and with no detriment to the humans working in those greenhouses.

THIRD: If you were competent at math you'd know that at 280ppm, where most plants are just barely surviving, the ratio of CO2 to other elements of the atmosphere; nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc.; is about 1 to 3,570. At 400ppm(+/-) that ratio is now 1 to 2,500. If you were competent at basic science, especially chemistry and physics, you'd know that one part(molecule) retaining a slight temperature increase can not pass that same amount of heat retention onto 2,499 other molecules.

BTW, by comparison, oxygen is at 210,000 ppm, but about four billion years ago it was near zero. It took nearly two billion years of activity by those first lifeforms,
Stromatolite

Stromatolite - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

... transforming the carbon of CO2 into growth expansion and releasing O2(oxygen) into the atmosphere before the first of fauna(animal life) could appear. Along with other forms of flora - plant lifes. The rest is planetary/natural history.

FINALLY, science is not based upon consensus of opinion of "scientists", but on facts and data along with resulting hypothesis that can be replicated to prove the conclusions. If you know of valid lab tests that have shown one part of CO2 causing a temperature rise in the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere, please present. Science can and does have proofs. Doubt it, ... try denying gravity by stepping off of a forty story rooftop.

So, you reject the greenhouse effect.

And, you do not understand how science works.

No surprises there.

NO!
I "reject" that one part molecule(CO2) can retain enough heat to transfer to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Etc.) to cause them to heat up in an equal manner.

That is the basic science which you are at least ignorant of, and fail to understand. Or prove here.

After a couple plus decades as a Quality Assurance Inspector in aerospace production and then industrial production of Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system components; I think I have a better grasp on the science and technology than you and many others do.

Background of which I think shows I know and understand science far better than you have shown.

The "no surprises" is how you cling to an absurd, illogical, obtuse, and non-science position on a natural process of cyclic climate changes.

Combined with holding to an anthropogenic cause while still living a lifestyle that would perpetuate such per your false hypothesis. A.K.A. another hypocrite!

Per your hypocrisy ~ no surprise there!

 

[Crick]

Are you under the impression that you understand the greenhouse effect, the absorption and emission of IR photons by CO2 molecules better than the hundreds of thousands of PhD scientists who've been looking at it since Tyndall discovered it 162 years ago? Because that seems to be what you're saying. You think you're right and they're all wrong. Is that what you want us to believe? Does that seem like a reasonable proposition to you?

 

[Ringo]

"The head of JPMorgan apologized for his statements in which he predicted that his bank would outlive the Comunist Party of China. Mr. Dimon stated that he was just joking"

A landmark event. The uber-banker begs the сommunists to forgive him for his audacity...
Otherwise, it will lose billions of profits

 

[jc456]

"The head of JPMorgan apologized for his statements in which he predicted that his bank would outlive the Comunist Party of China. Mr. Dimon stated that he was just joking"

A landmark event. The uber-banker begs the сommunists to forgive him for his audacity...
Otherwise, it will lose billions of profits

Huh?

 

[Crick]

Are you [Stryder50] under the impression that you understand the greenhouse effect, the absorption and emission of IR photons by CO2 molecules better than the hundreds of thousands of PhD scientists who've been looking at it since Tyndall discovered it 162 years ago? Because that seems to be what you're saying. You think you're right and they're all wrong. Is that what you want us to believe? Does that seem like a reasonable proposition to you?

I will take your lack of response as an affirmative and, of course, reject it.

 

[jc456]

I will take your lack of response as an affirmative and, of course, reject it.

I know you don't, just like no one understands it. There are theories and observations, but no actual data. If there was, you could tell us how warm 120 PPM of CO2 was. ready go.

 

[Indeependent]

They must be hooked in to all those green companies. But, so many of you have said that spending trillions fighting AGW would destroy the US economy. How can JP Morgan do well if the economy is destroyed. Why aren't they rejecting this whole global warming thing like the rest of you skeptics? They must have consulted experts out the wazoo. Didn't the experts tell them it was all a left wing lie? I don't get it. But I'm sure some of you will explain it to me.

"JPMorgan Chase (JPM) is putting serious firepower behind the fight against climate change. The bank on Thursday said it would finance or facilitate investments of $2.5 trillion over 10 years to support initiatives that focus on combating climate change and enhancing sustainable development. Some of the efforts will center around renewable energy, new clean technology, waste management and conservation. The announcement is the latest addition to a long list of environment-focused pledges from financial institutions, but it's believed to be the largest of its kind by a major bank."

The realities of climate change are pushing big businesses to focus on sustainability

A consensus appears to be taking root in Corporate America: What's good for the environment can also be good for business.

www.cnn.com

With Other People’s Money.
Financial giants can’t lose.

 

[Crick]

It happens all the time

List of corporate collapses and scandals - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org