Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As you can see from our illegal immigration problem, rising CO2 levels, over 600,000 American deaths in foreign wars, terrorist attacks on American, a defense budget of 600 billion dollars, and our dependence on imports from other countries, what happens in the rest of the world has a major impact on America and that impact will continue to increase throughout this century.America led the world in emissions for decades. Fact.There is no Paris accord without the US paying to clean up India and China. Maybe you can get some of your friends together and sell poppies on the corner to make up for the money Trump wisely withheld. Do your part, man.Your AC bill will go up & you might need a larger capacity system to handle more days of hotter temps.
Longer hotter drier will not help your garden in July August & September.
India & China are addressed in the Paris Accord.
Nope. I realize how fucking ignorant you are but other countries were chipping in to hep poorer countries. Not just the USA.
The US along with other industrialized countries put us where we are today. You thinks the other countries should suffer because of that.
The first one to chime in this morning from the Blame America First crowd.
Fact, we do more to clean up our messes than anybody else in the world too.
That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?LOL...
Our jobs?
Yep. When it becomes cheaper to make stuff out of this country and ship it in, companies move out and take the jobs with them. The greener we get, the more expensive it is to produce products here.
LOL...
Oh, I see. So now your new dopey line is that American jobs moved offshore due to climate regulations.
When you have to make shit up in an attempt to remain relevant, you've already lost.
You're better off just sticking to the sibject at hand.
No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out. Even if the business has nothing to do with the environment, they still have to pay electric and natural gas costs. Then when unions were big, that was a factor, plus we once had the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.
As a driver, I know the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars my boss has to pay out thanks to environmental costs every year, and we are a very small company. It started during the Bush administration where they made a maximum sulfur content for diesel fuel. Since then, the price of diesel fuel accelerated way beyond gasoline, whereas before, it was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than gasoline.
Because of all the pollution gadgets on a truck, they are much more expensive to purchase or lease. And nearly every time a truck experiences a problem, it usually has something to do with those gadgets. As you mentioned, DEF is another one. My employer has a tote for the stuff just so he can get it a little cheaper. We go through gallons of it every week.
So this all costs money, and we have to pass on those costs to our customers. Our customers manufacture products you and I buy all the time. However when it's made cheaper overseas, then the business has to close up and move overseas themselves.
According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.
Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.
That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?Yep. When it becomes cheaper to make stuff out of this country and ship it in, companies move out and take the jobs with them. The greener we get, the more expensive it is to produce products here.
LOL...
Oh, I see. So now your new dopey line is that American jobs moved offshore due to climate regulations.
When you have to make shit up in an attempt to remain relevant, you've already lost.
You're better off just sticking to the sibject at hand.
No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out. Even if the business has nothing to do with the environment, they still have to pay electric and natural gas costs. Then when unions were big, that was a factor, plus we once had the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.
As a driver, I know the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars my boss has to pay out thanks to environmental costs every year, and we are a very small company. It started during the Bush administration where they made a maximum sulfur content for diesel fuel. Since then, the price of diesel fuel accelerated way beyond gasoline, whereas before, it was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than gasoline.
Because of all the pollution gadgets on a truck, they are much more expensive to purchase or lease. And nearly every time a truck experiences a problem, it usually has something to do with those gadgets. As you mentioned, DEF is another one. My employer has a tote for the stuff just so he can get it a little cheaper. We go through gallons of it every week.
So this all costs money, and we have to pass on those costs to our customers. Our customers manufacture products you and I buy all the time. However when it's made cheaper overseas, then the business has to close up and move overseas themselves.
According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.
Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.
As you can see from our illegal immigration problem, rising CO2 levels, over 600,000 American deaths in foreign wars, terrorist attacks on American, a defense budget of 600 billion dollars, and our dependence on imports from other countries, what happens in the rest of the world has a major impact on America and that impact will continue to increase throughout this century.America led the world in emissions for decades. Fact.There is no Paris accord without the US paying to clean up India and China. Maybe you can get some of your friends together and sell poppies on the corner to make up for the money Trump wisely withheld. Do your part, man.
Nope. I realize how fucking ignorant you are but other countries were chipping in to hep poorer countries. Not just the USA.
The US along with other industrialized countries put us where we are today. You thinks the other countries should suffer because of that.
The first one to chime in this morning from the Blame America First crowd.
Fact, we do more to clean up our messes than anybody else in the world too.
wowAs you can see from our illegal immigration problem, rising CO2 levels, over 600,000 American deaths in foreign wars, terrorist attacks on American, a defense budget of 600 billion dollars, and our dependence on imports from other countries, what happens in the rest of the world has a major impact on America and that impact will continue to increase throughout this century.America led the world in emissions for decades. Fact.Nope. I realize how fucking ignorant you are but other countries were chipping in to hep poorer countries. Not just the USA.
The US along with other industrialized countries put us where we are today. You thinks the other countries should suffer because of that.
The first one to chime in this morning from the Blame America First crowd.
Fact, we do more to clean up our messes than anybody else in the world too.
So WTF do wars, imports, and illegal immigration have to do with us spending trillions on green?
It's an odd claim. Let's say for the sake of argument that what she said is true.
Then the earth has lived through previous periods like this. So why worry about it?
Her claim undercuts her own apocolyptic arguments
Ummm what? The claim was that CO2 levels haven’t been this high in the history of ... read this slowly... humans.
The fact that they may have been higher at some time when humans didn’t exist is meaningless .
The point is that CO 2 levels this high affect human life in ways we are not going to like
Uhm educate yourself...
NASA’s carbon-monitoring OCO-2 satellite confirms that El Nino weather boosts CO2
NASA’s carbon-monitoring OCO-2 satellite confirms that El Nino weather boosts CO2
Readings from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 have confirmed that the El Niño weather pattern of 2015-2016 was behind the biggest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in millennia.
View attachment 261347
Ummm what? The claim was that CO2 levels haven’t been this high in the history of ... read this slowly... humans.
The fact that they may have been higher at some time when humans didn’t exist is meaningless .
The point is that CO 2 levels this high affect human life in ways we are not going to like
Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?LOL...
Oh, I see. So now your new dopey line is that American jobs moved offshore due to climate regulations.
When you have to make shit up in an attempt to remain relevant, you've already lost.
You're better off just sticking to the sibject at hand.
No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out. Even if the business has nothing to do with the environment, they still have to pay electric and natural gas costs. Then when unions were big, that was a factor, plus we once had the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.
As a driver, I know the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars my boss has to pay out thanks to environmental costs every year, and we are a very small company. It started during the Bush administration where they made a maximum sulfur content for diesel fuel. Since then, the price of diesel fuel accelerated way beyond gasoline, whereas before, it was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than gasoline.
Because of all the pollution gadgets on a truck, they are much more expensive to purchase or lease. And nearly every time a truck experiences a problem, it usually has something to do with those gadgets. As you mentioned, DEF is another one. My employer has a tote for the stuff just so he can get it a little cheaper. We go through gallons of it every week.
So this all costs money, and we have to pass on those costs to our customers. Our customers manufacture products you and I buy all the time. However when it's made cheaper overseas, then the business has to close up and move overseas themselves.
According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.
Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.
Oh right, that must be it.
View attachment 261496
Considering the climate problems that can result due to CO2 increases, we are doing a terrible job of limiting CO2. I doubt we every be able to control climate. We may be able influence it but not really control it.That's right we do a lousy job of controlling the CO2 level.So we should allow more SO2 emissions to make diesel cheaper.?No, what I said is environmental regulations add costs to businesses, and that's why they move out. Even if the business has nothing to do with the environment, they still have to pay electric and natural gas costs. Then when unions were big, that was a factor, plus we once had the highest corporate taxes in the industrialized world.
As a driver, I know the hundreds of thousands of additional dollars my boss has to pay out thanks to environmental costs every year, and we are a very small company. It started during the Bush administration where they made a maximum sulfur content for diesel fuel. Since then, the price of diesel fuel accelerated way beyond gasoline, whereas before, it was about a dollar a gallon cheaper than gasoline.
Because of all the pollution gadgets on a truck, they are much more expensive to purchase or lease. And nearly every time a truck experiences a problem, it usually has something to do with those gadgets. As you mentioned, DEF is another one. My employer has a tote for the stuff just so he can get it a little cheaper. We go through gallons of it every week.
So this all costs money, and we have to pass on those costs to our customers. Our customers manufacture products you and I buy all the time. However when it's made cheaper overseas, then the business has to close up and move overseas themselves.
According to you and others, it did absolutely no good. We've had lower sulfur diesel fuel for over 10 years now. You and your ilk are saying it's worse now than ever. So we spent Lord knows how many hundreds of billions to make environmentalists happy, and it didn't work. In fact, you say it did just the opposite.
Therefore the only conclusion that a reasonable person can come to is the fact we don't control CO2 or the climate.
Oh right, that must be it.
View attachment 261496
Hey, we'll just print more money, right? That's the left's response to everything that costs money.unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market."Follow the money!", you say?Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.
Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).
Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.
Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?
Let's do just that.
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
...
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.
Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet
Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.
EVs can save you money.
Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.
So your plan is more expensive.
No, I want everyone born because I value life.You mean the ones they don't abort?I think you will find that most people are concerned about global warming because, unlike you morons, they care about their children & grandchildren.The planet doesn't care.What is the proper temperature of the planet?
If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.
People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.
But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!
".....the planet"
A huge % of the public isnt hysterical about "the planet"
Like I've said s0n.....you need some real responsibilities in life. When that happens, trust me, you dont spend time worrying about st00pid stuff.
Nobody is sitting home worrying about sea rise 25 years from now because they know that's a Hail Mary pass guess. They've seen climate science be wrong scores of times.
And let's face it....progressive solutions are beyond retarded. Particularly with China building 1-2 coal plants/month. Doy....most of the public can connect the dots on this stuff.....progressives.....not so much.
When we aren't seeing snow storms all across the country in mid-May, maybe people might pay attention.
Because only liberals have abortions. I get it. You want every fetus to be born so you can deny them food stamps, healthvp0care & doom them to a more difficuly future because you are yoo fucking stupid to grasp AGW.
I've never seen any plan to mitigate climate change that is projected to have more than a few hundredths of a degree C effect, at a cost of trillions of dollars.unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market."Follow the money!", you say?Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).
Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.
Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?
Let's do just that.
I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
...
How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.
That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.
Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.
Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet
Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.
EVs can save you money.
Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.
So your plan is more expensive.
Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions
Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?
How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion
Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?
What is the cost to ignore AGW?
Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."
Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100
Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?
Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.
Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?
How about water for the droughts?
So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.
You people are dumber than shit.
Oh, you mean the Medieval Warm Period...which the climate cult erased from history.The planet doesn't care.
If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.
People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.
But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!
Why is that monumentally stupid question so difficult to answer? The right temperature of the planet is the one we had during the last 10,000 years or so. It's the temperature under which our ecosystems (upon which we depend for our survival) developed, and thrived, which allowed humankind to thrive. Whether these ecosystems still work at +2°C is uncertain, at best. Whether it's even possible to stop warming at +2°C is uncertain, at best.
And yes, the howling about "shoshialism" is hilarious, given the context.
Yes, that's your cult's dogma.Nonsense written by and for retards and liars. The money is in fossil fuels.You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.
God damn asshole I made threads on it here
I am putting this one in politics this is where climate change funding money goes... To anything but real science.
Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant
Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant
Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, whose district stretches from San Antonio north into Austin, recently pressed an official about the government bankrolling a musical
Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, listed six National Science Foundation grants as questionable--including, Smith said at the panel’s March 26, 2014, hearing, a "climate change musical that was prepared for Broadway but I’m not sure ever was actually produced, $700,000."
Smith then asked John Holdren, the White House science czar, if the foundation should justify such grants to the public, whose tax dollars fund them, the Texan reminded.
Holdren replied that the foundation, which is entrusted with promoting scientific progress, already justifies its grants in online posts.
Grant confirmed
To our inquiry, a foundation spokeswoman, Dana Topousis, said by email the grant was awarded in 2010, adding: "The Civilians, Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., theatre company, developed an innovative, out-of-the-box approach to exposing U.S. citizens to science. The project represents the unique cultural leverage of theater in its attempt to inspire the public’s imagination and curiosity about basic science and its relation to their everyday lives."
A grant to educate the public.
OMG OMG OMG OMG
The government should not try to make Americans smarter. Noooooooooooo.
Global Warming: Follow the Money
Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.
Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.
Global Warming: Follow the Money
Yep follow the money , it's all about man made climate change and not much funding for natural causes.
You can lay much of that at the feet of the climate cult and their incessant doomsday predictions.Nonsense written by and for retards and liars. The money is in fossil fuels.God damn asshole I made threads on it here
I am putting this one in politics this is where climate change funding money goes... To anything but real science.
Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant
Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant
Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, whose district stretches from San Antonio north into Austin, recently pressed an official about the government bankrolling a musical
Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, listed six National Science Foundation grants as questionable--including, Smith said at the panel’s March 26, 2014, hearing, a "climate change musical that was prepared for Broadway but I’m not sure ever was actually produced, $700,000."
Smith then asked John Holdren, the White House science czar, if the foundation should justify such grants to the public, whose tax dollars fund them, the Texan reminded.
Holdren replied that the foundation, which is entrusted with promoting scientific progress, already justifies its grants in online posts.
Grant confirmed
To our inquiry, a foundation spokeswoman, Dana Topousis, said by email the grant was awarded in 2010, adding: "The Civilians, Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., theatre company, developed an innovative, out-of-the-box approach to exposing U.S. citizens to science. The project represents the unique cultural leverage of theater in its attempt to inspire the public’s imagination and curiosity about basic science and its relation to their everyday lives."
A grant to educate the public.
OMG OMG OMG OMG
The government should not try to make Americans smarter. Noooooooooooo.
Global Warming: Follow the Money
Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.
But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, The government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.
Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense
Indeed, experts in the research community say that it is much more difficult for some of the top climate scientists — Soon, Roger Pielke Jr., the CATO Institute’s Patrick Michaels, MIT’s now-retired Richard Lindzen — to get funding for their work because they do not embrace the global-warming fearmongering favored by the government-funded climate establishment.
Global Warming: Follow the Money
Yep follow the money , it's all about man made climate change and not much funding for natural causes.
so you deny facts?
by the way...........
Climate change creating havoc on mental health
Well this explains the AGW cult.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.th...experts.html?client=ms-android-sprint-mvno-us
Our fast-changing climate has long been identified as a threat to physical health, but more psychologists are warning that the mental health impacts and the economic toll they take are real, likely to spread and need closer study.
Article Continued Below
“We may not currently be thinking about how heavy the toll on our psyche will be, but, before long, we will know only too well,” warned a 2012 report from the U.S. National Wildlife Federation.
It predicted that cases of mental and social disorders will rise steeply as the signs of climate change become clearer and more frequent, and as more people are directly affected by heat waves, drought and other extreme events that put pressure on clean water resources, food prices and public infrastructure.
“These will include depressive and anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders, substance abuse, suicides and widespread outbreaks of violence,” predicted the report. It singled out children, the poor, the elderly and those with existing mental health problems as those likely to be hardest hit.
“At roughly 150 million people, these groups represent about one half of the American public,” it calculated. In addition, the mental health profession is “not even close to being prepared” and the report warned the existing problem is likely being underestimated because most research is based on self-reporting.
“People may, indeed, suffer from anxiety about climate change but not know it. They will have a vague unease about what is happening around them, the changes they see in nature, the weather events and the fact that records are being broken month after month. But they won’t be sufficiently aware of the source, and furthermore, we all conflate and layer one anxiety upon another.”
Humans live everywhere from the Antarctic to Death Valley.It's an odd claim. Let's say for the sake of argument that what she said is true.
Then the earth has lived through previous periods like this. So why worry about it?
Her claim undercuts her own apocolyptic arguments
Humans have never had to live through this. That's her point.
The Key Charade of the Paris AgreementYour AC bill will go up & you might need a larger capacity system to handle more days of hotter temps.My heating bill will go down, I'll be able to golf longer and my garden will be happy with a little extra temperature. If you cry babies want to address world pollution, you need to turn your attention to China and, India like Trump is doing..So you think nothing will change as our average global temperatures increase.And that's only the tip of the iceberg (that's going to melt too).
Climate Change Helped Fuel The Syrian Conflict, New Paper Finds | HuffPost
How Climate Change Helped ISIS | HuffPost
Study: Global warming will cause 180,000 more rapes by 2099
Type anything and get loads ... Like "climate change dogs"
NYC To Ban Hot Dogs and Processed Meats To Improve Climate | 106.7 Lite fm
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...of-dogs/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2a9d4871b766
Will insect-eating dogs help climate change?
Al Gore’s climate group warns that pets are now threatened by global warming
Longer hotter drier will not help your garden in July August & September.
India & China are addressed in the Paris Accord.
It's like I posted earlier. Global Warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the US couldn't fill it up. The more we spend on it, the worse the supposed problem gets, and the more they want.
The real problem in the US is consumers have no idea how much of their money goes towards green. That's why every product should have a label by law that states how much money goes towards green to produce that product. If Americans actually knew how much all this is costing them, they wouldn't be so anxious for more regulations and costs in the future.
They go out and ask people if they want a cleaner environment? Well duh, HTF do they think people will answer? Now go out and ask them if they'd like a cleaner environment if government sends them a bill for $1,000 a year and see what they say.
So anybody that tells you our country wants to be greener, tell them they are F.O.S.
Man, you are still looking in the rearview mirror, you better watch the road.
They want to get rid of the Electoral College so New York City can tell folks in Tennessee to put a windmill in their front yard and send them the juice.
Marxism 101
View attachment 261545It's like I posted earlier. Global Warming is a bottomless money pit. All the money in the US couldn't fill it up. The more we spend on it, the worse the supposed problem gets, and the more they want.
The real problem in the US is consumers have no idea how much of their money goes towards green. That's why every product should have a label by law that states how much money goes towards green to produce that product. If Americans actually knew how much all this is costing them, they wouldn't be so anxious for more regulations and costs in the future.
They go out and ask people if they want a cleaner environment? Well duh, HTF do they think people will answer? Now go out and ask them if they'd like a cleaner environment if government sends them a bill for $1,000 a year and see what they say.
So anybody that tells you our country wants to be greener, tell them they are F.O.S.
Man, you are still looking in the rearview mirror, you better watch the road.
They want to get rid of the Electoral College so New York City can tell folks in Tennessee to put a windmill in their front yard and send them the juice.
Marxism 101
You just told someone to kill himself. You need to shut the fuck up.LOL...Uhm educate yourself...
NASA’s carbon-monitoring OCO-2 satellite confirms that El Nino weather boosts CO2
NASA’s carbon-monitoring OCO-2 satellite confirms that El Nino weather boosts CO2
Readings from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 have confirmed that the El Niño weather pattern of 2015-2016 was behind the biggest annual increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in millennia.
View attachment 261347
Uhm educate yourself...
LOL...
Again?
I already schooled you on this, dope.
School who?
You were to stupid to comprehend what it said you stupid fuck
Tell us how living plants emit CO2, dope
didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?didnt you graduate from the 2nd grade yet?
^ This is a grown man. Uff.
