Ch4 last night

[EternalOptimist]

Global warming thread

'The UK will spend £22 billion each and every year, till the end of the century, in order to reduce temperatures by 1/200th of 1 degree c'

Alarmists response - they did not dispute that figure


catch up here

[DimPrawn]

I blame Thatcher.

Global Warming loon she was.

[pjclarke]

We can predict spending 87 years ahead now? I guess that nobody disputed the numbers cos they're meaningless BS. I look forward to:

- A breakdown of what is included in the £22bn - which is equivalent to about half the defence budget.

- The reduction in the rate of change in global temperatures if all countries reduced emission by the same proportion and

- The financial benefits of stabilising temperatures, the costs of doing nothing.


Bit of a Straw Man no? The costs of the Montreal Protocols for each country were large in proportion to the reductions in CFCs per country, but nobody attempted that calculation to my knowledge, as it doesn't really mean anything.

[d000hg]

- A breakdown of what is included in the £22bn - which is equivalent to about half the defence budget.

Are you suggesting that because it's only half the defense budget, it's not a lot of money?!

- The financial benefits of stabilising temperatures, the costs of doing nothing.

None and none?

[EternalOptimist]

at pj


apparently we can't predict spending 87 years out but we CAN predict the climate. ???whaaat.


In my world, we can see what we have committed to in financial terms, and we can see that temperatures are flat lining.
i.e. we are spending all that money for NOTHING.

[pjclarke]

Au contraire, I am suggesting it IS a lot of money thus I want to know how the number was conjured up ... deniers have a habit of chucking in all the costs they can think (e.g. the entire NASA satellie budget as 'global warming' spending) of while ignoring the benefits. But I don't expect an answer, that would require research beyond Google and YouTube.

The WHO estimates 300K deaths/year from climate change already, every economic study (Stern, Garnaut, Yohe et al) concludes that benefits outweigh costs by around 4:1.

HTH.

[DodgyAgent]

Au contraire, I am suggesting it IS a lot of money thus I want to know how the number was conjured up ... deniers have a habit of chucking in all the costs they can think (e.g. the entire NASA satellie budget as 'global warming' spending) of while ignoring the benefits. But I don't expect an answer, that would require research beyond Google and YouTube.

The WHO estimates 300K deaths/year from climate change already, every economic study (Stern, Garnaut, Yohe et al) concludes that benefits outweigh costs by around 4:1.

HTH.

How do you measure whether a death is due to climate change?

Furthermore with the world becoming more crowded is this not natures way of correcting problems?

[EternalOptimist]

I did not ignore the benefits. I was quite clear. Categoric in fact

1/200 th of one degree centigrade by the end of the century.


bargain!

[EternalOptimist]

How do you measure whether a death is due to climate change?

Furthermore with the world becoming more crowded is this not natures way of correcting problems?

we had 30,000 excess deaths due to the cold this winter (up 5,000)

and these eejits want to cool us down even more

[Paddy]

I watched a video of Al Gore being cross-examined by Congress. He admitted being involved in Enron and Goldmansacs to organise the possibility of carbon trading prior to making hockey stick seminar.