It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GAO: Climate change already costing US billions in losses

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorVonDoom




The U.S. military forks out a whopping $20.2billion a year on keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan cool, it has emerged.


www.dailymail.co.uk...

Had to check that 50 billion amount , still 20 billion is a lot . Had a quick look and thats roughly 2 thirds of Australia's defence budget
edit on 25-10-2017 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: DexterRiley



Its amazing, only the far left can believe in climate change. NOT. Why do over 90% of climate scientist all agree, that its happening and its real. I guess they all are far left, probably very uneducated scientist, who only have degrees in the field in question. Someone who maybe, lets say got a business degree would know far more about the climate than a climatologist.




90% of some 54 scientists is not a lot. Not when they had to move the goal posts and discard the opinions of 4,000+ other individuals.


Do you have a link for that?

And remember that the biggest disagreement I know of is not whether Climate Change is happening, but whether anthropogenic factors are the main forcing component.

-dex




“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”


www.forbes.com...

Sorry I took so long, had family business to take care of yesterday.



posted on Oct, 25 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley


While I haven't read the report, I would assume that their calculations are based on the added costs of climate change.

Correction, the added cost of some more severe storms in the states this year. Let alone the cost of growing expansion of US military around the world. Ask Syria and Iraq how destruction of their cities changes their 'climate'. But don't consider the cost of that to the accounting office back home.

Can't really can we, it has nothing to do with the climate agenda.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: DexterRiley

Wonder who wrote that article,Al gore?,didn't he also invent the internet,he said that too


I'm pretty sure Al Gore doesn't work for the GAO.

-dex



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
It's always amusing to me, that everyone Trust Scientists in every other area of life, but on this one thing, the scientists are wrong...all of them. But, some pesky right wing bloggers in the pockets of big oil have uncovered the truth somehow. ?



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: DonInHtown
Where do you get non partisan from?
One of the main reports was paid for by the same democrat that just spent $10,000,000 on anti Trump ads.
a reply to: DexterRiley

The General Accounting Office is referred to as "non-partisan" presumably because they are the auditing arm of the US Congress. Since Congress itself is a government body that consists of members of both parties, any institution that is associated with it should be considered non-partisan.

With respect to any science the GAO considered in producing their report, presumably they would be more interested in the validity of the science, and less interested in the politics involved in funding the research. In fact, even if the Koch Brothers funded some climate science research, if it is valid, real scientists would take it into consideration as well.

-dex



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: DexterRiley

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: DexterRiley



Its amazing, only the far left can believe in climate change. NOT. Why do over 90% of climate scientist all agree, that its happening and its real. I guess they all are far left, probably very uneducated scientist, who only have degrees in the field in question. Someone who maybe, lets say got a business degree would know far more about the climate than a climatologist.




90% of some 54 scientists is not a lot. Not when they had to move the goal posts and discard the opinions of 4,000+ other individuals.


Do you have a link for that?

And remember that the biggest disagreement I know of is not whether Climate Change is happening, but whether anthropogenic factors are the main forcing component.

-dex




“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,” Scafetta responded. “What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.”


www.forbes.com...

Sorry I took so long, had family business to take care of yesterday.


Excellent! Thank you. I bookmarked that for future reference.
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims

I found this paragraph to be very interesting:

“I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don't have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper," Shaviv added.

That really says a lot. And, I have to admit that this is not the first time I have come across this sentiment. In order for contrarian climate scientist to get their work published, they have to sanitize their conclusions such that the anthropogenic element is not as minimized as they actually feel that it should.

I must admit that I'm a follower of the Sol hypothesis as well. That's why I believe that addressing the effects of Client Change is the most important thing to do now. As the science becomes more mature, and dissenting opinions are not molded in the image of AGW, we may find that there are better solutions to address the cause. If there actually is a way of addressing the cause.

-dex



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
It's always amusing to me, that everyone Trust Scientists in every other area of life, but on this one thing, the scientists are wrong...all of them. But, some pesky right wing bloggers in the pockets of big oil have uncovered the truth somehow. ?



Neil deGrasse Tyson made a point of this recently when he mentioned that people across the nation, including the President of the United States, were more than happy to listen to scientists as they predicted the time and path of the solar eclipse. But they completely dismiss those same scientists when they discuss Climate Change.

-dex




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join