“Climate change has caused ocean temperatures to steadily rise, which, experts warned senators Wednesday, could significantly harm the fishing industry”
“Deloitte has projected that if we do nothing about climate change, the cost [to] global GDP would be $178 trillion negative, that if we hit net-zero by 2050, that will create $43 trillion in added GDP globally for a $220 trillion swing between getting this right and getting this wrong,”
Whoever imagines air temperature drives ocean temperatures cannot be described as an ‘expert’. Ignoramus would be a more accurate designation. Try heating a cold bath by turning up the central heating.
If you hit net zero by 2050,
you literally need to destroy energy supply.
If you destroy energy supply – how can you add 43 trillion in GDP.
Where are those supposed to come when energy is being missed in all places and not even enough to run basic stuff.
North Korea and Cuba are pretty close to Net Zero (except that Cuba has tons of more evil warming and is therefore liveable somehow),
and they do not have any significant growth as result of low energy output.
The only way to reach the 43 trillion is when the US Dollar goes the way of the Zimbabwe Dollar.
Nice from her btw to give us the hint that the fishing industry is also being targeted
by the warming Agenda (probably the only way to convince people to eat Bill Gates artificial shitmeat)
So it seems the lamestream media can’t read or doesn’t possess a research department, because more and more peer reviewed papers show CO2 is not the driver. Such as this one:
https://notrickszone.com/2024/01/25/new-study-concludes-co2-can-have-no-measurable-effect-on-ocean-temperatures/
“A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.” — (not?) Everett Dirksen
Throwing ‘trillions’ around like it actually exists.
Arn is correct: net-zero means zero economy. There won’t be trillions. Or even billions. A billion people in the West will die. Net Zero means no food for London, NY, DC, LA, etc.
‘Dutton said that most current data estimating climate change impact is underestimated’
Wut? How could she know that? Actually, it is an admission that they are wrong.
And I can’t figure out how data estimates. Uhh . . . underestimates.
According to my estimates (using the only relevant metric that is totally exposed to and completely dependent on climate = food production)
the climate change impact is either irrelevant or beneficial.
It is indeed so inexistent that the oligarchs themselves are targeting food production as climate change is as impactful as sea level rise.
Indeed. By “food security,” they mean government control of agriculture and distribution of food.
Billions will die.
Evidently the Tarot cards give a more accurate estimate.
The megaloManniacal tyrants are not happy with 2050. They want to step up their destruction of the global economy, based on perceived dire need – the globalist Climate Scam.
Why 2030 is the New 2050 after the Leaders Climate Summit and What President Biden’s Accelerated Transition to a Sustainable Economy Means for Renewables Developers, Investors and Corporates
https://www.mwe.com/insights/why-2030-is-the-new-2050-after-the-leaders-climate-summit-and-what-president-bidens-accelerated-transition-to-a-sustainable-economy-means-for-renewables-developers-investors-and-corporates/
Fortunately, Mama Gaia isn’t on board with them – nature continues calling their myriad bluffs. But it also appears the globalists have enough of our money and the power to keep this scam going for as long as they want – until you and I are enslaved. Something has to give. This is war.
Sustainability= Grift
Ayup. Everything about Climate Change™ is fiction based on bad science – and continues only by fraud and the money paid for the fraud to continue the fiction.
I’ve played this game of playing with numbers by increments until you get something that, under scrutiny by not the sharpest minds, looks realistic. I think this practice is way more pervasive than we would ever want to believe.
On to another point:
When you look at that chart of temperature v CO2 over 500 million years, you see:
1. That Atmospheric CO2 is reducing radically. this makes sense because living organisms are busy sequestering CO2 like crazy.
2. That CO2 and average temperature are totally unrelated over the long haul.
3. That the mode average temperature is around 77F regardless of what level of CO2 is in the air.
In the end, it seems like 77F may be an equilibrium point for the planet. Under most conditions, it seems to keep bobbing back up to that. In which case, there isn’t anything you can do to stop it, and life keeps evolving in different ways, with different dominant species, to exist at that equilibrium point.
“Climate change has caused ocean temperatures to steadily rise”
That’s might be worriesome if the empirical evidence did not show that CO2 follows the rise in temperature and therefore is not the cause for increased temperature (Humlum et al, 2013).