Not exact matches
Let's see... We're No. 1 in property taxes nationwide; No. 1 in
overall taxes; we're ranked as the state with the
worst economic outlook in America by the American Legislative Exchange Council; we have the most corrupt state government in America, according to the University of Illinois; we're losing more citizens to other states than any other state; we're 48th in business
climate, according to the Tax Foundation; we have the second - highest electric rates in the country; we rank as the
worst state in America in which to retire, and the list goes on.
But late Tuesday, Bali time, the United States bluntly refused to consider language — even in the nonbinding preamble — that included any specific numbers for how much
overall emissions from wealthy countries would need to be cut to have a chance of avoiding the
worst climate dangers.
Stephen H. Schneider, the Stanford climatologist I've been interviewing since 1988 on this issue, has long favored pursuing
climate policies that reflect the
overall reality that the risk of
bad outcomes rises with gas concentrations:
In other words: Increased fertilizer use alone would likely mean that either of those projects would increase greenhouse gas emissions
overall and thus make
climate change even
worse.
On the other side of the fence there are many who recognize the reality of
climate engineering, but unfortunately are in total denial in regard to the unfolding planetary meltdown (that is being made exponentially
worse overall by
climate intervention programs).
There are many agendas behind the ongoing geoengineering insanity, attempting to hide the damage already done to the
climate by engineering cool - downs like the one documented above (while making the situation even
worse overall in the process) is one of the primary goals.
However, in the U.S., most types of weather extremes were
worse in the 1930's and even in the 1950's than in the current
climate, while the weather was
overall more benign in the 1970's.
Although the countries of Africa have some of the lowest
overall and per capita global warming emissions on the planet, they are also likely to suffer from some of the
worst consequences of
climate change.
As we have seen, there are
bad climate scientists who rig the computer models representing a huge rise in the Earth's
overall average temperature and there are good
climate scientists who have waged a long and increasingly successful effort to debunk the greatest hoax of the modern era.
Climate engineering can create short term surface cool - downs at the cost of an even
worse overall planetary warming.
The primary driver of Earth's hydrological cycle is more evaporation from a warming planet and warming seas (which
climate engineering is making
worse overall, not better).
«It is premature even to attempt to guess how strong the
overall carbon cycle feedback on
climate change might be, but my hunch is that, in the
worst case scenario, the carbon cycle feedback might eventually release as much CO2 as humans do, a sort of «matching funds» arrangement.
Though the ongoing
climate engineering insanity can and does create short term highly toxic cool - doens, these weather anomalies come at the cost of an even
worse overall planetary meltdown.
No - I also don't doubt that ACO2 will warm the
climate if all other conditions remain unchanged (which is highly unlikely to happen in the actual system), but am uncertain about the magnitude / timing of the effect in the real
climate system and whether any change will lead to conditions that are better or
worse for the US or the planet
overall.
Every engineered cool - down that is carried out by the
climate engineers comes at the cost of an even
worse overall planetary warming.
Many of us became skeptics not because we didn't believe that
climate change was happening, but because the theories, effects, and predictions were so
badly exaggerated that the
overall fabric being woven became more untrue than true.
Are you confident that AGW will result in
worse rather than better
overall climate for the USA?
Develop a risk assessment of
overall investments if the best - and
worst - case scenarios for
climate change play out in terms of potential financial losses.
These methane releases may soon determine our collective fate,
climate intervention programs are making the methane releases
worse overall, not better.
Bottom line - You and others simply BELIEVE that the «
climate» will be
worse overall for the USA and the world as a result of more CO2.
The paradox is this, every
climate intervention that the
climate engineers carry out makes the
overall warming of the planet
worse, not better.
Climate engineering is making an already horrific anthropogenic warming scenario far
worse overall.