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

[Stryder50]

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.

Versus how many tons total of the whole atmosphere.
(Or percentage of the whole atmosphere.)

Meanwhile, basic Life Sciences - 99+% of biomass/living things on this planet are Flora and they need CO2. Why are you against Life and want to destroy this planet's biomass/lifeforms ???

As usual, major distortion and misinformation typical of the political agenda of you pro-ACC/AGW advocates, whom don't personally practice what you preach. Hypocrites.

Here's an easier question: what does ACC - as in "pro-ACC/AGW advocates" - stand for?

Means you deny that there has been greater natural caused climate change during the past four billion plus year history of this planet and also deny that the current brief warming sparing us from another lunge into another ice age is all and solely due to human activity.

ACC = Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change
AGW = Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming

Anthropogenic as opposed to "Natural" which has been happening for four plus billion years ever since Earth was formed and acquired a hydrosphere ~ making a biosphere possible.

One of the many profiles for the disinformation agenda of the pro-ACC/pro-AGW advocates is to avoid using a pre-qualifier of either "natural" or "anthropogenic" to clarify which version they are discussing. This allows a lot of debate wiggle-room and back-tracking since their ambiguity and lack of precise language allows them to weasel about.

One of the first rules of science is to be precise in dialogue and not using the pre-qualifiers of "natural" or "anthropogenic" displays either ignorance or intent to deceive.

Meanwhile you remain active on the internet, as shown here, hence you are using the product of the evil "fossil fuels" and have failed to 100% end you part of CO2 emissions.


Meanwhile you have yet to cease by 100% your own CO2 emissions.

 

[ding]

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

JP Morgan commits to spend $2.5 Trillion

Lend, not spend.

But, so many of you have said that spending trillions fighting AGW would destroy the US economy.

Nah, wasting money on more expensive, less reliable energy won't destroy the economy.
It's just a waste.

Lending it? Or creating debt out of thin air and banking the interest?

They don't care if it loses money. Privatized profits and socialized losses.

Lending it?

Yes.

They don't care if it loses money.

Baloney.

Privatized profits and socialized losses.

How does that work?

You are correct they'd rather it be paid back but they will be bailed out if it doesn't

 

[ding]

So it's your belief that they have $2.5 T in reserve to loan out?

They need that to make loans over the next 10 years?

When you deposit cash in a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. Similarly, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. However, due to accounting conventions, the latter action results in net money creation, while the former action does not. (Although these conventions are weird, they make sense: currency in circulation is a good measure with real implications for economic activity, and currency in circulation is genuinely increased when banks loan money.)

Atte Juvonen - Banks create money out of thin air, but it's less impressive than it sounds

Atte Juvonen

www.attejuvonen.fi

.

 

[ding]

Seriously Crick how does this graph not scream for 600 ppm?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

JP Morgan commits to spend $2.5 Trillion

Lend, not spend.

But, so many of you have said that spending trillions fighting AGW would destroy the US economy.

Nah, wasting money on more expensive, less reliable energy won't destroy the economy.
It's just a waste.

Lending it? Or creating debt out of thin air and banking the interest?

They don't care if it loses money. Privatized profits and socialized losses.

Lending it?

Yes.

They don't care if it loses money.

Baloney.

Privatized profits and socialized losses.

How does that work?

You are correct they'd rather it be paid back but they will be bailed out if it doesn't

Nobody is going to give them their money back if a loan defaults.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So it's your belief that they have $2.5 T in reserve to loan out?

They need that to make loans over the next 10 years?

When you deposit cash in a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. Similarly, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. However, due to accounting conventions, the latter action results in net money creation, while the former action does not. (Although these conventions are weird, they make sense: currency in circulation is a good measure with real implications for economic activity, and currency in circulation is genuinely increased when banks loan money.)

Atte Juvonen - Banks create money out of thin air, but it's less impressive than it sounds

Atte Juvonen

www.attejuvonen.fi

.

Similarly, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air.

Yes, every loan is fully funded.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

You don't understand finance. JPM isn't "spending" a fucking nickel! They are making loans, probably all guaranteed by US Taxpayers and half the loan proceeds will go to fund democrat politicians

 

[Crick]

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.

Versus how many tons total of the whole atmosphere.
(Or percentage of the whole atmosphere.)

Meanwhile, basic Life Sciences - 99+% of biomass/living things on this planet are Flora and they need CO2. Why are you against Life and want to destroy this planet's biomass/lifeforms ???

As usual, major distortion and misinformation typical of the political agenda of you pro-ACC/AGW advocates, whom don't personally practice what you preach. Hypocrites.

Here's an easier question: what does ACC - as in "pro-ACC/AGW advocates" - stand for?

Means you deny that there has been greater natural caused climate change during the past four billion plus year history of this planet and also deny that the current brief warming sparing us from another lunge into another ice age is all and solely due to human activity.

ACC = Anthropogenic (human caused) Climate Change
AGW = Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming

Anthropogenic as opposed to "Natural" which has been happening for four plus billion years ever since Earth was formed and acquired a hydrosphere ~ making a biosphere possible.

One of the many profiles for the disinformation agenda of the pro-ACC/pro-AGW advocates is to avoid using a pre-qualifier of either "natural" or "anthropogenic" to clarify which version they are discussing. This allows a lot of debate wiggle-room and back-tracking since their ambiguity and lack of precise language allows them to weasel about.

One of the first rules of science is to be precise in dialogue and not using the pre-qualifiers of "natural" or "anthropogenic" displays either ignorance or intent to deceive.

Meanwhile you remain active on the internet, as shown here, hence you are using the product of the evil "fossil fuels" and have failed to 100% end you part of CO2 emissions.


Meanwhile you have yet to cease by 100% your own CO2 emissions.

You need to stop talking as if you know me. You do not. I have never denied that there have been large climatic changes in the Earth's history. Almost all of those changes, however, took place at a far, far slower pace than the changes we have been seeing over the last 50 years in CO2, temperature, sea level, ocean acidity, etc, etc, etc. This allowed far more time for species and natural processes to adapt to changes. For instance, large CO2 changes in the past that have taken place over thousands of years allow time for buffering by the dissolution of calcium chloride in acidic rain. That avoided the carbonate solubility problem that now faces every carbonate-fixing species (coral, molluscs, echinoderms, annelids, zooplankton, etc), in modern oceans. Life forms can use the time allowed to evolve modified mechanisms to deal with altered ocean chemistry and/or migrate in search of food sources or better conditions. Changes taking place now are happening far too quickly for any of those processes to help life on this planet. It has never been the fact that we are changing the Earth. It has always been that we are changing it too quickly to adapt.

I use the term anthropogenic when it is needed. If you are ever uncertain what I mean, feel free to ask. I appreciate that in the midst of our occasionally heated debate, you cordially answered my question about ACC. None of us will move forward if we don't all communicate - surely it's why we're here. On the other hand, while people in internet forums such as this may not always speak with the precision the topic demands, that is not something you will find in the actual practices of the hard sciences. No one there is looking for "wiggle room".

And speaking of wiggle room, your suggestion that my being here indicates I lack sufficient dedication to my cause is nothing more than a poor joke. I strongly suggest we address each other's arguments and not each other.

 

[jackflash]

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

JPM needs to put some of that $$$$$ into combating global warming on the planet Mars as well as the rest of the planets that are warming up in our solar system.

Global warming on Mars, ice caps melting

<p>Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming.</p>

skepticalscience.com

NASA - A Gloomy Mars Warms Up

For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.

www.nasa.gov

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

Mars is emerging from an ice age, a finding that could shed light on the past and future climates of both Mars and Earth, researchers say.

www.space.com

 

[Turtlesoup]

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

Is that a joke question? corrupt world bankers which Chase is now---have done quit well bankrupting countries for centuries now.

 

[jackflash]

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

You don't understand finance. JPM isn't "spending" a fucking nickel! They are making loans, probably all guaranteed by US Taxpayers and half the loan proceeds will go to fund democrat politicians

@ CrusaderFrank: that answer of yours just landed you a homerun with the bases loaded!!!!!

 

[Crick]

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

You don't understand finance. JPM isn't "spending" a fucking nickel! They are making loans, probably all guaranteed by US Taxpayers and half the loan proceeds will go to fund democrat politicians

@ CrusaderFrank: that answer of yours just landed you a homerun with the bases loaded!!!!!

Then you don't have to actually have and commit money to make a loan? Then you could loan me a million dollars. And since that won't cost you a nickel, you can loan my wife another million at the same time. And my kids could really use a million to. One each will do. I don't want to be greedy. Wow, what amazing things are Frank's Financial Fundamentals. This is obviously the cure to poverty. We can all just loan the poor whatever they need and it won't cost us a nickel. Man, I wish someone had thought of this sooner. You financial wizzes are REALLY impressive. I'm not worthy!

 

[TNHarley]

Fight natural earth evolution?

 

[Crick]

Fight natural earth evolution?

No. Fight anthropogenic global warming.

 

[TNHarley]

Fight natural earth evolution?

No. Fight anthropogenic global warming.

So, fight something they cant even prove actually exists. Thats even worse!

 

[Crick]

I haven't had to use this point in a great while but here goes: there is no such thing as proof in the natural sciences. There is only evidence. The evidence in support of AGW is overwhelming to the point of absurdity. It is enough to fully convince very close to 100% of the climate scientists on this planet. It has greater acceptance among them then a lot of things you probably hold to be proven facts. If you believe it doesn't exist, you are either ignorant or lying. There are really no other options.

 

[TNHarley]

It is enough to fully convince very close to 100% of the climate scientists on this planet

Not true, of course.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is enough to fully convince very close to 100% of the climate scientists on this planet

Not true, of course.

75/77 is very convincing!!!

 

[Sunsettommy]

Fight natural earth evolution?

No. Fight anthropogenic global warming.

It is a wasted fight since CO2 by itself doesn't that kind of warm forcing power to fulfill your warming delusions, it temperature sensitivity is LOW which means it has little effect from additional CO2 in the air at the 425 ppm level.

How come you keep ignoring the second part of the AGW hysteria?

The Positive feedback never show up after years of predicting it would be seen in the "hot spot" region of the Tropics?

You never seem to understand that the AGW conjecture comes in two main sections.

 

[ding]

So it's your belief that they have $2.5 T in reserve to loan out?

They need that to make loans over the next 10 years?

When you deposit cash in a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. Similarly, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air. However, due to accounting conventions, the latter action results in net money creation, while the former action does not. (Although these conventions are weird, they make sense: currency in circulation is a good measure with real implications for economic activity, and currency in circulation is genuinely increased when banks loan money.)

Atte Juvonen - Banks create money out of thin air, but it's less impressive than it sounds

Atte Juvonen

www.attejuvonen.fi

.

Similarly, when you take a loan out of a bank, the bank creates an IOU out of thin air.

Yes, every loan is fully funded.

That's not exactly what that is saying.