"In the meantime, global emissions are projected to rise, mostly from improving standards of living in China and India. In fact, China’s emissions growth from 2017 to 2018 was 1.7 times more than what New York plans to cut over three decades.
The effect on global average temperature? Virtually nothing.
Global average temperature would only be reduced 0.14 degrees Celsius by 2100 if the entire U.S. immediately stopped emitting greenhouse gases, according to a government climate model. In other words, New York’s plan would have a negligible effect on global average temperature by the end of the century."
metmike: And this is if you believe the much too warm models that exaggerate the affects of CO2 and believe the Climate Accord.
Following this plan, is a 100% guarantee of economic and energy use disaster, that would cause the worst depression in history. How can these politicians not know this? There is no data or evidence that suggests anything but the disaster..........except for words to manufacture a fake reality that could never exist on this planet............unless some currently, completely unknown, extraordinarily more efficient energy source were to suddenly be discovered and used. And there is nothing like that with regards to the latest science/technology.
Fossil fuels represent millions of years of concentrated stored solar energy.
A days worth of solar energy today is only worth a days worth(of sunshine on the solar panels)..........when the sun is shining.
A days worth of wind energy today is only worth a days worth(of wind blowing the turbines) ..............when the wind is blowing.
Plans like this can't defy the laws of physics and biology which is what they would have to do in order to replace fossil fuels.
This is just political bs to justify using CO2 to enrich the governments, politicians and others proposing green energy scams to disingenuously appear as if they are saving the planet.
Renewable energy is wonderful...........and should be maximized as we go forward but pretending that it can replace close to half of fossil fuels in its present form by 2030 is delusional. To replace half of it by 2050 would require a society and economy that has to pull way back on our use and pay way more for it...........in order to accomplish what? The climate crisis is made up. The Green new deal is like a corn seed dealer promising a farmer that his corn will make record yields with a total of 1 inch of rain and no irrigation during the entire growing season.
We already saved the planet............from dangerously LOW CO2 levels, when they were at a level that was starving plants when they were just 280 parts per million.
Why do you think the planet if massively greening up?
The planet is screaming out that it wants MORE CO2 while the human hucksters make up stuff about CO2 to convince us that greatly beneficial CO2 is actually pollution............that needs to be taxed and regulated and needs billions of scientific research and funding.
We're having a climate optimum, not a climate crisis!!!!!!
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
The graphic symbol of the environmental movement is the emaciated polar bear – ostensibly in that state because of global warming. Critics of the vivid photographs claim that the pictures are taken of old, sick or diseased bears.
A controversial report has been released by the Canadian government claiming the polar bear populations are growing and a threat to native Inuit populations.
“Wildlife experts often use images of emaciated polar bears to show how habitats are coming under threat due to ice shrinking and sea levels rising.
Wildlife experts said that the photos showed how the polar bears' habitat is coming under threat due to human-induced global warming.
However, a new report, drafted by the Nunavut government, completely contradicts these widely-held claims about declining populations,” reports The Daily Mail.
“Inuit believe there are now so many bears that public safety has become a major concern,” reports the Windsor Star. “Public safety concerns, combined with the effects of polar bears on other species, suggest that in many Nunavut communities, the polar bear may have exceeded the co-existence threshold.”
https://order-order.com/2019/02/27/polar-bear-numbers-reach-new-highs/
"Numbers are so high that Inuit leaders have been pleading with he Canadian government for more polar bear population control as violent attacks against native populations have dramatically risen in recent years."
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/02/State-of-the-polar-bear2018.pdf
"Focus on Flawed Climate Science"
Started by metmike - June 25, 2019, 1:44 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/33234/
"The CNN video ridicules Trump for saying that global warming is “an expensive hoax.” We should respond by outlining the costs involved. Over one billion dollars a day worldwide is now spent on “climate finance,” according to the San Francisco-based Climate Policy Initiative, yet we see no impact on climate. In 2017, Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, explained that if the UN Paris Agreement targets for 2030 were met and sustained through the rest of the century, there would be 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit less warming in 2100, if the models relied upon by the UN were correct(and they are too warm). He explains that the cost of the Paris pact would be $1 – 2 trillion every year. So clearly, CNN’s criticism tells Trump that he should continue calling it “an expensive hoax,” and cite the cost estimates and forecast results to illustrate his point."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47bNzLj5E_Q&feature=youtu.be&t=146