Opinions on man made Climate Change

You do understand you're basically trying to make the argument "Your possibly lying scientists that are in someone's back pocket is larger than my possibly lying scientists that re in someone's backpocket" right? Going by your logic we're both potentially right or wrong since according to you both sides are being funded. However I will humour you since I'd like to see you actually do some research for once, who is funding the thousands of scientists that I've posted and are merely disagreeing with the current theory of Global Warming?
That's why I said I don't believe in either as conspiracy theory. Dude, this is hardly special as far as research and science goes that is touching on such a complicated matter. Even today SOME people still believe in the theory of
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck instead of Darwinian evolution. The quesiton is, who is making the best predictions, this is one of the pillars in science. The thing that you have to keep in mind here, is that one side makes predictions and claiming that humans might have a role in it, where as the other side says, nuhu! Yo wrong, mate! But they are not making really predictions on their own. If they think they have a better theory, than they should provide it, making some predictions and share those with the scientific community.
 
What I'm saying is I'm not clicking on a breitbart link or any of those other "sources" lol.
Great, so you admit you're not actually trying to have a discussion and look at what I've posted.
And also fyi I wasn't even referring to those, I was referring to the other documents I posted earlier in the thread which I'm guessing you haven't bothered to look at either.
Please do elaborate.
I promise either in this thread later or in a PM I will happily debate all about Tyson background but right now I'd prefer to stay on the topic at hand. I will admit my snarky side comment led to a bit of a divergence in discussion but I would prefer keeping things on track.
That's why I said I don't believe in either as conspiracy theory.
So now your saying that nobody is getting any money? NASA is a well known government organization so it's proof of funding is there but when you bring up that my side is just as corrupt you have no evidence and drop the notion of funding altogether? Hmm.
Even today SOME people still believe in the theory of
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck instead of Darwinian evolution.
False analogy. Lemarck's theory of evolution has been very clearly debunked 100% with no room for doubt. Not every theory is the same, some are easier to disprove with very basic tests than others. Lemarck's idea that say, giraffe's got that way because in 1 lifetime the giraffe stretched it's neck to get that way is very easy to prove false.
The quesiton is, who is making the best predictions, this is one of the pillars in science.
Yes, and the predictions of the pro "Global Warming is the man made disaster that's gonna kill us all" have been wrong.
evans_figure3.png

evans_figure4.png

evans_figure6.png

evans_figure7.png

Graphs like this also showcase another very big issue I have with this treatment of NASA as being 100% with what they say. How come all of their stats show the reverse of the things that they're promoting? Why do these graphs that use NASA data go against what NASA is saying? And as some of my sources show, there is evidence of these things starting to be falsified due to more people looking at the numbers and realizing that things aren't adding up.
the other side says, nuhu! Yo wrong, mate!
Strawman. They're using evidence to back their claims.
But they are not making really predictions on their own. If they think they have a better theory, than they should provide it, making some predictions and share those with the scientific community.
Not only have they done so but they don't really need to make any predictions to prove that what the current theory is saying is wrong. They don't have to say "things are going to be this way in the future" to be able to look at the current trends and say "things aren't going to be the way you're saying they're going to be.
 
Great, so you admit you're not actually trying to have a discussion and look at what I've posted.

.
None of those links are from reputable sources. Those websites have long since done away with any credibility and most people don't even click on their links anymore. If you want to be taken seriously in a science discussion, I suggest using reputable science sources.
I promise either in this thread later or in a PM I will happily debate all about Tyson background but right now I'd prefer to stay on the topic at hand. I will admit my snarky side comment led to a bit of a divergence in discussion but I would prefer keeping things on track.
Please don't PM me anything.

You said his validity as a scientist is "questionable" lol. Like I said, no one is going to take you seriously when you say things like that AND post breitbart links in a science discussion. If you actually are trying to convince people of your side of a science argument, try using reputable science sources.

Either way I have a distaste for political discussion only furthered by threads like this so I will be leaving the discussion now. Good luck with the discussion with the others in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Vergil, you know you can throw around fancy graphs and data around all you want, let us assume that I did the same right now with the NASA sources, because you know, that I know that you know that you won't see those as credible anyway. And we both don't understand those anyway or how to actually to read or interpret those data, so let us not pretend like we would know even something about what happens up there. That's the whole reason why we fall back on experts anyway. That way I can save my self a lot of trouble posting stuff, and you don't have to type a long response to it.

You're still missing the point that I wanted to make. That this isn't about conspiracies or what ever. I don't understand why you think that the government is so evil here. Even if the NASA guys are looking for funding. Why would that be a bad thing? Those people have science and research as their job. That's what they do. For a living. And that is what they get money for. So their motivation probably, is to make the best and most accurate research and science that is possible. Imagine if they would get caught for fraud or lobbying, and I mean some serious and heavy shit here. That would be the death of the NASA. So they most probably check and double check their sources, the scientists and their research. That still doesn't mean that it is fail proof, but I think they have a very high interest to remain a credible source.
 
That is also graph manipulation, showing a few decades at the time when fluctuation is to be expected

Ironically, even WITH that fluctuation, an increase in temperature can be deduced, so, lol.

Here's a similar graph, also from NASA, but handling 200 years instead of 20.
Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg


But... eh... yeah, it still doesn't go to say wether or not it is man-made, but there is the change. See the change? ^

Hey, everyone except vergil - take some responsability and educate vergil.
 
Yeah well, I guess the earth has to become the next Venus before people like Vergil accept the facts. But who knows, maybe not even temperatures of 400°, on a bad day, will convince them ... but at that point it won't matter anymore anyway.
 
Yeah well, I guess the earth has to become the next Venus before people like Vergil accept the facts. But who knows, maybe not even temperatures of 400°, on a bad day, will convince them ... but at that point it won't matter anymore anyway.

Also, like Mutantscalper says, people in certain places notice climate change right now.
Me too, I can assure you, rainy green christmases are NOT norm in Norway...

One of the most annoying factors of climate-change-denial is this "local-ism" or whatever I can call it, first they behave as if any world outside of their back yard do not exist, like that douche who brought a snow-ball from home, to "prove once and for all" there was no climate change.
"I found a snowball. I did! ME! Therefore - proof!" disregarding the rest of the world. It makes sense. That politician is not depending on the rest of the world for reelection or whatever the stupid. It's all local concern.
Then it is applying the fast fluctuation of the recent ice-ages, to the entirety of the history of our planet - always saying "There has always been ice ages on and off!"
Always, is it?
"Yes always!"
So, always as in the whole Cenozoic, all the Mesozoic, all of - "NO STUPID! I meant always as in the exact time-period ice-ages have existed! The past half a million years or so. That's always-enough for me!"

In other words, cherry-picking.
Which is bad science.
 
None of those links are from reputable sources. Those websites have long since done away with any credibility and most people don't even click on their links anymore. If you want to be taken seriously I suggest using reputable science sources lol.
post breitbart links in a science discussion.
If you actually are trying to convince people of your side of a science argument, try using reputable science sources.
Do you have some kind of selective amnesia? I've already told you multiple times that the rebuttals to what you've posted was in sources completely separate to those links so your excuse doesn't work. If you want to reply to some one's post, try actually reading them first.
Either way I have a distaste for political discussion only furthered by threads like this so I will be leaving the discussion now.
Well bye, you certainly added a lot to it.
You know you can throw around fancy graphs and data all you want, let us assume that I did the same right now with the NASA sources, because I know that you know that you won't see those as credible anyway.
You mean exactly what you did by linking to NASA's website?
You're still missing the point that I wanted to make. That this isn't about conspiracies or what ever. I don't understand why you think that the government is so evil here.
So what is your point exactly? That I should trust the government more? Because I can tell you right now that's going to be very hard.
Imagine if they would get caught for fraud or lobbying, and I mean some serious and heavy shit here. That would be the death of the NASA.
Yet they have been caught doing such a thing multiple times and yet not a thing has been done and everyone still spouts off stuff like the "97% consensus" and spreads around pictures of zoomed in graphs to prove their point. The truth doesn't always reach the people unfortunately.
Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg


But... eh... yeah, it still doesn't go to say wether or not it is man-made, but there is the change. See the change? ^
Again, zoomed in graph that stops at a very convenient point and also doesn't explain why there was a dip in 1950 before major environmental policies or why there were points of heating up in the past (even bigger ones too if you pulled that graph back more, I'll try to find the full sized one for you).
Hey, everyone except Vergil - take some responsability and educate Vergil.
Simply epic. My ass has just been roasted alive.
Yeah well, I guess the earth has to become the next Venus before people like Vergil accept the facts. But who knows, maybe not even temperatures of 400°, on a bad day, will convince them ... but at that point it won't matter anymore anyway.
Sadly I don't think you'll ever come to accept the facts. Of all the debates we've had everytime you walk out of them having apparently taken nothing from them.
Also do you have some kind of background in farming? You seem to really know your way around strawmen.
 
Yeah well, I guess the earth has to become the next Venus before people like Vergil accept the facts. But who knows, maybe not even temperatures of 400°, on a bad day, will convince them ... but at that point it won't matter anymore anyway.

Venice and London will be drowned and they'll still deny it.
 
Vergil, YOUR graph was zoomed in. It showed a very condensed measure of time.
My graph was the opposite, zoomed out, showing a large expanse of time.

In the zoomed in version, fluctuations look like solid changes - they even point at the most recent temperature drop - as if it means something.

Can I stop laughing yet, it's beginning to hurt.
 
You mean exactly what you did by linking to NASA's website?
Yes and no. I didn't linked you to graphs, I linked you to a the opinion of the NASA. I didn't knew that you think they are just shills and government puppets with the only intention to rip you off.

So what is your point exactly? That I should trust the government more? Because I can tell you right now that's going to be very hard.
This might come as a shock to you ... but you're not the only one who is very sceptic about the government. But Obama =/= government. You understand that we are talking about thousands of people and hundrets of institutions here. Do you distrust evertyhing and everyone just because they are either employed or working for the government? Fuck it man, those pesky firefighters ... I am sure they are just out there to kill you. Or the guy who's responsible for clean water. Or the people and offices behind the infrastructure.
There is scepticism, and there is irrationality, and I don't mean this as offense. We are just humans, there are lot of things where I can be quite irrational too.

Yet they have been caught doing such a thing multiple times and yet not a thing has been done and everyone still spouts off stuff like the "97% consensus" and spreads around pictures of zoomed in graphs to prove their point. The truth doesn't always reach the people unfortunately.
Times where the NASA has been caught in clear fraud? Please tell! I would like to know about those examples. I didn't said they never made mistakes, the NASA lost rockets, people too even! It's human nature. We make errors. Even Einstein was not always correct. But in the true fashion of a scientist, he acknowledged his errors and moved on. But fraud would mean some malicious intend. A systematic lieing to the public for years, decades even? Just to get funding for a relatively small branch? NASA isn't just climate change you know. I would say finding something like that within the NASA, will be very hard. Because they would simply jeopardize their funding as WHOLE. So you're basically saying, they are doing a shitty job because you don't believe in the government. While the other side is perfectly reasonable, of course, out of pure altruism.

Sadly I don't think you'll ever come to accept the facts. Of all the debates we've had everytime you walk out of them having apparently taken nothing from them.
That's because we always reach a point where we are not talking TO each other, but PAST each other. And I find such discussions very frustrating. Point is, I don't remember that I chickened out. Sure, I can mutate into a pretty silly asshole, but simply leaving? Not really my style. Anyway, I will simply quote:

"A man may well bring a horse to the water / But he cannot make him drink without he will."

What could I possibly say that might convince you of global warming and the role humans play in to it? Serious question, what kind of evidence would someone has to provide that it might change your opinion? I mean if you don't trust the NASA ...

Venice and London will be drowned and they'll still deny it.
They will simply blame it on the EU or immigrants.
 
Last edited:
Also, you know, just to have someone come out and say it

This isn't about we're all doomed, Venice will be under water by Day After Tomorrow, if it was, we'd be idiots.

It IS about taking responsability. Pollution and overconsumption IS a problem, and it is tied directly with tremendously successful businesses who have no intention of slowing down (because that would mean losing money), I know I'm veering into "pinko territory" here, but that doesn't make it any less real

It's not about scare-mongering people into buying more green stuff, or sorting their garbage. In fact, I piss on sorted garbage - I want to see real responsibility taken by those who actually owe it. The acknowledgement of the fact that IF we are contributing - if only a percentage - then we have the responsability to see that percentage dealt with, instead of drudging on, because it fits us.
 
Vergil, YOUR graph was zoomed in. It showed a very condensed measure of time.
My graph was the opposite, zoomed out, showing a large expanse of time.

Can I stop laughing yet, it's beginning to hurt.
Yet it stopped before it got to the most damaging piece of evidence against man made climate change.
climate-change-medieval-warm-period-and-little-ice-age.jpg

The Medieval Warm Period. Kinda hard to blame this one on human since we were still running around with sounds, carriages and no factories.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
This might come as a shock to you ... but you're not the only one who is very sceptic about the government. But Obama =/= government. You understand that we are talking about thousands of people and hundrets of institutions here. Do you distrust evertyhing and everyone just because they are either employed or working for the government?
No, but I do distrust the one that is propagating information that makes the government billions in tax payer money and is being funded by that very same government.
Fuck it man, those pesky firefighters ... I am sure they are just out there to kill you. Or the guy who's responsible for clean water. Or the people and offices behind the infrastructure.
False equivalencies.
Y
Times where the NASA has been caught in clear fraud? Please tell! I would like to know about those examples. I didn't said they never made mistakes, the NASA lost rockets, people too even! It's human nature. We make errors. Even Einstein was not always correct. But in the true fashion of a scientist, he acknowledged his errors and moved on. But fraud would mean some malicious intend. A systematic lieing to the public for years, decades even?
Just look at the evidence I provided in my previous posts. Not to mention how the statistics that I've shown go against what NASA is saying so they're either lying or just incredibly incompetent.
Just to get funding for a relatively small branch? NASA isn't just climate change you know. I would say finding something like that within the NASA, will be very hard. Because they would simply jeopardize their funding as WHOLE.
No it wouldn't. They get their funding from the government and if the government tells them to do one thing they have to do it or get fired/defunded. It would do the opposite of jeopardize their funding, they're following the orders of the people in charge of their funding.
So you're basically saying, they are doing a shitty job because you don't believe in the government.
No, I'm saying they're doing a good job but lying about their findings because the government stands to gain from them doing that.
While the other side is perfectly reasonable, of course, out of pure altruism.
.....did you just say that it's perfectly resonable to think that NASA and the government are doing what they do out of pure altruism? Are you really suggesting that money has nothing to do with it and that everyone at NASA is just doing their job out of the goodness of their hearts? And that's something perfectly resonable to believe?
.........
Oh honey
Can I stop laughing yet, it's beginning to hurt.
That's because we always reach a point where we are not talking TO each other, but PAST each other. And I find such discussions very frustrating.
What do you mean "past eachother"?
Point is, I don't remember that I chickened out. Sure, I can mutate into a pretty silly asshole, but simply leaving? Not really my style.
I mean it more metaphorically. Trust me, I'm very aware of your "style".
"A man may well bring a horse to the water / But he cannot make him drink without he will."
How ironic that you are telling me that.
What could I possibly say that might convince you of global warming and the role humans play in to it? Serious question, what kind of evidence would someone has to provide that it might change your opinion? I mean if you don't trust the NASA ...
Proof from a source that does not rely on government backed research to make it's claim. Basically just effectively refute my claim. So far all I've gotton are things that are wrong though so good luck with that.
They will simply blame it on the EU or immigrants.
Only if everyone else blames it on UKIP.
 
You're not raining on anyone's parade, you keep examplifying what I am saying - showing examples of ice-age related fluctuation that nobody ever denied, unless you are under the delusion that the scientific community are ignorant about the ice ages

Sigh...

This is circular though, and you are running right wing errands, which is more psychological/religious than rational/scientific. There is no winning against you

So: You win. Go have some cake.
 
The Medieval Warm Period. Kinda hard to blame this one on human since we were still running around with sounds, carriages and no factories.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
No one's denying natural climate change, they're saying that modern climate change is being egged on by human pollution.
.....did you just say that it's perfectly reasonable to think that NASA and the government are doing what they do out of pure altruism? Are you really suggesting that money has nothing to do with it and that everyone at NASA is just doing their job out of the goodness of their hearts? And that's something perfectly reasonable to believe?
.........
Oh honey
I don't know how you misread Crni's post so thoroughly, you should probably go back and read it again, he's saying that your side isn't doing it out of altruism but because they're basically made up of industrial interests which would be harmed by climate change laws. Admittedly, Crni's grasp of English grammar doesn't help much.
What do you mean "past each other"?
I imagine he means your arguments end up lacking actual discussion, instead they turn into the argumentative equivalent of "Nuh-uh." "Yuh-huh." "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" etc.

About the PDF you posted with those thousands of dissenting scientists:

In 2009 the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee published a report listing more than 700 scientist-skeptics expressing a spectrum of dissenting views, many questioning the role of anthropogenic emissions in climate change, although a few are quoted denying climate change altogether. James Inhofe (R–OK), ranking minority member of the committee that produced the report, represents the extreme right wing of his party and has received nearly a million dollars in donations from oil and coal companies since 2000.

The list was compiled by Inhofe’s staff without prior consent by the scientists themselves; Parkinson says some have requested to be taken off the list. Moreover, only 15% of the scientists listed had published in the refereed literature on subjects related to climate science
 
Last edited:
No one's denying natural climate change, they're saying that modern climate change is being egged on by human pollution.
I know. What I'm debating is that man made pollution isn't leading us into this end of days scenario that justifies increased government power and taxes.
I don't know how you misread Crni's post so thoroughly, you should probably go back and read it again, he's saying that your side isn't doing it out of altruism but because they're basically made up of industrial interests which would be harmed by climate change laws. Admittedly, Crni's grasp of English grammar doesn't help much.
Ah, I see. My with what I read my understanding what that he was referring to his side/argument when he said that the "other side is doing it out of altruism". I suspect the language barrier was probably at fault there.
I imagine he means your arguments end up lacking actual discussion, instead they turn into the argumental equivalent of "Nuh-uh." "Yuh-huh." "Nuh-uh!" "Yuh-huh!" etc.
Well they wouldn't have to end up that way if I didn't have to repeat myself on points that I already addressed but now we're starting to get into the meta of arguments on completely different topics from weeks and weeks ago.
Well, this is certainly something new I haven't seen before. While this certainly doesn't give me any more faith in the government backed scientists and their agenda it does raise some interesting questions. I'll certainly be looking a little more careful in the future when posting sources from certain climate change skeptics.
 
One of the study authors that is criticized in some of those links that dispute the 97% number, has answered some question in my previously posted reddit "ask me anything" discusions. Here is his answer to the criticism by the said sources:

Thanks for this (lengthy) comment. It neatly encapsulates the key flaw of criticisms of Cook et al. (2013) - the unwillingness of critics to consider the self-rating survey that replicated the 97% consensus. To my knowledge, every criticism of our research has studiously avoided the self-rating replication.


To give a quick overview of Cook et al. (2013) (freely available at http://sks.to/tcppaper), we first estimated the scientific consensus by categorising the abstracts of scientific papers about global warming. We identified ~4000 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming - amongst those abstracts, 97.1% endorsed the consensus.


Next, and here is the crucial part that every critic of our paper has conveniently ignored or avoided, we replicated our result by inviting the authors of the scientific papers to rate their own research. If we had mis-characterised a significant number of papers (e.g., rated them as endorsing AGW when they didn't), then there would've been a significant discrepancy between our abstract rating and the self-rating. 1200 scientists responded to our invitation, resulting in over 2000 papers receiving a self-rating. Amongst papers that were self-rated as stating a position on human-caused global warming, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.


However, when you dug deeper into the data, there was one significant discrepancy between self-ratings and our abstract ratings. More than half of the abstracts that we rated as "no position" were subsequently rated as "endorsing AGW" by the paper's own authors. So in contrast to this commenter's characterisation that we characterised papers as endorsing when they were not, quantitative analysis reveals we were actually much more likely to go the other way - characterising papers that did endorse AGW as expressing "no position" on AGW. However, the reason for this was relatively straightforward. Abstract ratings were based solely on the abstract text while self-ratings were based on the full paper, which were more likely to include an endorsement of AGW simply for space reasons.


The self-ratings also present another key statistic that I don't recall ever being mentioned by a critic of our study. Amongst papers that were self-rated as stating a position on whether humans were causing most of global warming, around 96% endorsed the consensus. So Cook et al. (2013) found that regardless of the definition used, there was overwhelming scientific agreement with the consensus position.


It's significant that critics of our study refuse to take a step back and look at the full study, with independent methods replicating the finding of an overwhelming consensus on climate change. Further, they refuse to take that extra step back and see how our finding of overwhelming consensus is replicated by a range of independent studies. That is the key result of the new "consensus on consensus" study - that the scientific consensus is robust and replicated across many studies. This new study is freely available at http://sks.to/coc


-- John Cook

Also an interesting thing to note from the meta-analysis study is that agreement on the consensus rises as the expertise in the field rises:

Figure 1 demonstrates that consensus estimates are highly sensitive to the expertise of the sampled group. An accurate estimate of scientific consensus reflects the level of agreement among experts in climate science; that is, scientists publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change. As shown in table 1, low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus.

L7xpRny.png
 
Last edited:
I am not trusting any of these graphs Vergil, which you seem to have cut and pasted off images, while everyone else cites graphs from NASA. In fact, here's a graph from NASA.

203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. ,Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.
Global warming is melting the Arctic and glaciers worldwide.
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
A link to the page where I got all that evidence: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Negatives of Global warming
  • Warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places it hasn’t been seen before.
  • Polar Melting: detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile ice hazards to shipping.
  • Ocean Acidification: this process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, and may have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.
  • Melting Glaciers: The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that many millions of people (one-sixth of the world’s population) depend on fresh water supplied each year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies – drinking water, agriculture – may fail.
  • Sea Level Rise: Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises. Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater is contaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers are becoming polluted.
  • Economic: The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economic distress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate change were far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCC AR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded. Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and finance, investment and insurance, would all wreak havoc on the stability of both developed and developing nations. Markets would endure increased volatility and institutional investors such as pension funds and insurance companies would experience considerable difficulty.
    Developing countries, some of which are already embroiled in military conflict, may be drawn into larger and more protracted disputes over water, energy supplies or food, all of which may disrupt economic growth at a time when developing countries are beset by more egregious manifestations of climate change. It is widely accepted that the detrimental effects of climate change will be visited largely on the countries least equipped to adapt, socially or economically.
  • A link to the article where I got that info: https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
God dammit I am fed up of debating people who think that Global Warming is a hoax because it snowed outside.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top