Goldman Sachs analysis of the impact of climate change. The result are terrifying

[dmlfarmer]

Time will tell

Wow strong hypothesis. I guess one way to never be wrong is to never back up your theories is any predictions of outcomes.

[dmlfarmer]

Well AOC didnt says this wasnt a possible solution so I assume chuck endorses it as well.



You know I can deal with radicals like the Taliban or Al Queada. They hunker together in other countries. No biggies. But we have millions of home grown woke radicals among the general population right here and thats terrifying. Not only are they violent and unreasonable, they are working into our govt and institutions.

Just wondering who you believe are the radicals seeing the screaming woman calling for eating babies in the video was actually a Trump supporter and climate change denier and the entire spectacle was a stunt put together by a right wing group intent on trolling AOC. The group behind it has documented the publicity stunt on their website and twitter. LaRouchePAC trolls AOC LaRouchePAC trolls AOC So since it was in support of Trump, I assume you support her position and the eating of babies too. Am I right Jazz, seeing as when you thought it was a left wing policy you used it to attack Chuck

[furrowtickler]

Wow strong hypothesis. I guess one way to never be wrong is to never back up your theories is any predictions of outcomes.

Not my theory at all lol . Just that it may oppose the climate catastrophe club lol ..
It has been proven throughout a millennium, low sun spot activity does cool the average temp on earth . How much , well , time will . Each event is different as proven by ice core samples that go beck hundreds of thousands of years .

[furrowtickler]

One thing not proven , is that the theory that all the ice is going to melt and going to flood all coastal regions ....that is a theory. And one the is simply being used as a scare tactic..... the new world boogie man .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Wow strong hypothesis. I guess one way to never be wrong is to never back up your theories is any predictions of outcomes.

Another way to never be wrong is to keep changing the theory, from global warming, to global cooling, back to global warming, to climate change, to climate crisis, the latter two being a catch all for what used to be known as weather, and are being used to justify, warm, cold, dry, wet, storms, lack of storms, snow storms, el nino's, variability, lack of variability and on and on. Which is an absolutely brilliant strategy, because when the theory is so flexible and all-encompassing, it will always be right, regardless of the outcome.

[chuckChuck]

Good catch Chuck, while the rest of the article was scary predictions of what is going to happen some time in the future, like all good global warming horror stories, they did manage to find this one in real time.

But be careful of stats that sound really bullet proof. You might have missed it, but Australia had an unprecedented housing boom during that same period they are comparing. The first stat I found is that aussie housing is up 412% in the past 25 years. But it is inflation adjusted you say, Meanwhile inflation in the preceding 20 years was a cumulative total of 68%. So I am shocked that insurance claims are ONLY double, given the fact that housing prices outpaced inflation by such a rate during the period in question. Not quite apples and apples to the period they reference, but a good approximation.

Feel free to work out the exact numbers for the decades mentioned, the info is all available online.

In the last 10 years Australian house price have risen about 61% while the cost of claims has doubled (100%) even with adjustments for inflation which would account for some of the housing price rise.

Houses are only a portion of the insured assets in Australia and I doubt that rural houses or other assets would have risen as much as all housing.

https://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Pacific/Australia/price-change-10-years

The Australian Central Bank obviously has more resources to correctly assess the risk of climate change and insurance claims than you or I do. They have cited the increasing costs and risks of climate change as real.

But don't let that stop you from disagreeing with every world class scientific organization and central banks that has evidence that the costs and threat from climate change are real. LOL

As an engineer who believes that carbon is only soot, I don't think anyone should give much credibility to your arm chair analysis.

[fjlip]

Why the hell is CARBON always used when the crazies are actually demonizing CO2? A tiny percentage of our atmosphere, not every solid part of everything on earth, carbon. Because you can't see, smell or taste it. Nobody would fear it! How the f ck do you weigh a GAS? How big a volume is a MEGATONNE of CO2? Mind boggling!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

By being proactive we Canada and the US did stop the problem of acid rain in Eastern Canada. Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain after consulting with Canadian David Schindler shut down the coal operated electricity and ended their acid rain problem.

Became of the scientific knowledge the world banned DDT, Dieldrin and Alderins. On our farm we once used a herbicide TOK RM which was later banned because it was a carcinogenic substance, Furidan was also banned because of toxicity and impact on the environment. The EPA recently banned Lorsban only to have it reinstated by executive order by Donald Trump.

David Schindlers work on phosphates in laundry detergents (now largely removed) and the pollution of the Great lakes was greatly reduced. Schindlers good science was the main reason these algae producing phosphates were removed. Schindler revealed he was followed around by the detergent companies so called experts who denied phosphates were a problem.

There was a large hole in the ozone layer that threatens people with skin cancer and that problem with world action the hole in the ozone layer is vastly diminished. The world action to remove the substances causing the hole in the ozone layer was based on science as well.

The ice caps in the Arctic and Antarctic are melting as is the ice pack on Greenland and this is not debatable. It is happening.

So the world did address climate disasters and came up with solutions. This was based on good science.

Anyone who farms in Canada knows the extremes in weather they are experiencing (high humidity, torrential rainfalls, heat and droughts)

Yes we have climate change and the vast majority of scientists are right.

That is a great post Integrity Farmer, very...,



very carefully worded, is the best way to describe it. Chuck would be well advised to pay attention and take notes on how it is done by a professional.

You very carefully stated a lot of facts which thanks to some intentionally omitted key words, are not debatable. Not once did you state anything about CO2, or human caused climate change, even though it was obviously implied by the context. This makes the statements true, and undebatable. Who would argue with you that the climate is changing, and scientists agree about that. It sounds like such a certain and affirmative statement, yet it says absolutely nothing without a qualifier about the cause. And of course, you didn't mention anything about the positions of scientists who are right. Making it a statement that can be construed as anything to anyone.

Same with melting glaciers, everyone knows that it is happening, nothing controversial at all about your statement, but without any context, such as causes, extent, when it started, how unprecedented it is or isn't, it is once again just a scary sounding sound bite with no meaning.

Same with telling us farmers that we are aware of the weather we are dealing with. Again, the statement lacks any point of reference or claims about the cause, you explicitly don't even try to claim that it is unprecedented, or human caused, but to the biased reader, such as Chuck, that would be construed as a statement claiming CAGW is responsible for "weather".

But prior to that, you have used the age old salesman method of setting the stage with a long list of examples of genuine issues( in your case, environmental problems humanity has solved), then transitioning to the sales pitch for your own product or message at the end, conflating two completely unrelated topics, while the reader is still fixated on the first actual examples. Complete with examples of industry attempting to confuse the issue, with the obvious intention( but unmentioned, and completely unrelated or unwarranted) comparison to the current debate.

The only major slip up you made was using the word climate when you referred to the world solving the list of environmental disasters. The intention is obvious, to seamlessly tie the two completely unrelated issues together in the readers mind. It likely works with most low intelligence readers, but is much too contrived, and forced for anyone actually paying attention. Those were environmental issues( although some are still debated today), with solutions that were both possible and practical, and results that are quantifiable in human time scales. Nothing whatsoever to do with climate. The alarmist side loves to use those arguments because they are so effective, but you need to be more subtle in tying the two together, so you can't be accused of stating falsehoods.

But all in all, a very good example of how it is done, you could be quite successful in the advertising industry, a politician, or a salesman.

[A990]

Just wondering who you believe are the radicals seeing the screaming woman calling for eating babies in the video was actually a Trump supporter and climate change denier and the entire spectacle was a stunt put together by a right wing group intent on trolling AOC. The group behind it has documented the publicity stunt on their website and twitter. LaRouchePAC trolls AOC So since it was in support of Trump, I assume you support her position and the eating of babies too. Am I right Jazz, seeing as when you thought it was a left wing policy you used it to attack Chuck

eating human flesh to combat climate change has been proposed....and spoiler alert it wasn't Trump

https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html https://www.theepochtimes.com/swedish-researcher-pushes-human-flesh-eating-as-answer-to-future-climate-change-food-shortages_3068833.html

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Why the hell is CARBON always used when the crazies are actually demonizing CO2? A tiny percentage of our atmosphere, not every solid part of everything on earth, carbon. Because you can't see, smell or taste it. Nobody would fear it! How the f ck do you weigh a GAS? How big a volume is a MEGATONNE of CO2? Mind boggling!

They use Carbon as opposed to CO2 for the very reason that Chuck mentions above. The only real association most people have with elemental carbon is the dirty black soot which contaminated everything, stained buildings and statues, ruined peoples health, caused smog etc. typically resulting from incomplete combustion of coal, such as during the industrial revolution, or in developing nations today. It is easy to demonize such a nasty by-product.

Whereas a gas that no one can see ( except Greta), taste, smell or feel, and most of us have no instruments to even detect it's presence, has no negative attributes, and which for generations we have been taught that it is a vital molecule in photosynthesis; is much harder to demonize. Hence the purposeful confusion between CO2, and C.