Did you watch the videos? That is where that number came from.
Internet data
Climate Shocks May Cost U.S. $1 Billion a Day – Bloomberg
That is just in the USA alone in a decade.
Hidden Costs of Climate Change Running Hundreds of Billions a Year – National Geographic
Has cost the U.S. economy at least $240 billion a year over the past ten years, a new report has found. Now add the rest of the world and there’s a billion a day.
Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day - Breitbart
Jan 9, 2018 - The Cost Of Weather-Climate Disasters In 2017 Was $306 Billion – What Could … and I have not even focused on the more day-to-day economic impacts of weather. … Extreme weather events are also due to climate change.
Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?
Climate Change: The Hoax That Costs Us $4 Billion a Day - Breitbart
That also includes the climate change consulting market, which a recent report by the journal estimates at $1.9 billion worldwide and $890 million in the U.S.
I’m not going to click on Brietbart. That explains why you can’t reason your way out of a paper bag.
The others are about the cost that the change will cause, not spending on the science. One seems to be about the potential for businesses like solar power, but I’m not going to bother trying to figure out what your evidence means for you. What case are you trying to make?
Maybe I watched the wrong videos. The first one says that the climate is indeed warming and gives the reasons for it. The second one also admits that the climate is warming, just not as fast as predicted.
I’m not clear on this “Hoax that costs us $1 billion day” thing. You don’t provide links to where those figures come from. I followed the link to Breitbart, but couldn’t find the article. The link to Forbes seems to be talking about the cost of all these “extreme weather events” we’ve been having lately. But if warming is a hoax, the weather has nothing to do with it. What am I missing?
Yes, the climate is warming. If the climate is not warming, then it is cooling. It is in cycles. The sea levels can move up and down 400 feet in one cycle. But so far, the cycles have never taken the full reach of the movement before changing direction.
This is called Mother Nature. Mankind has affected weather too. And this is called Climate Change. Mother Nature causes billions of dollars of damage to man’s efforts to change or combated Mother Nature.
As a skeptic I think that the billions of dollars of Mother Nature damage are normal. Except for the 3% that mankind is doing to the weather.
The Alarmist are saying that consensual validation science agree that the weather today is mostly caused by mankind. Therefore, the damage is caused by Climate Change.
Forbes taking about “extreme weather” is what the Alarmist are claiming Climate Change is creating.
The point is not the billion dollars. I don’t care if it is a thousand dollars. The point is you have the points of view of the alarmists and skeptics. The news reports have always followed the Alarmists. Spreading fear. And all the Alarmist have is a consensual hypothesis. No proven theory. Yet it is a theory that Mother Nature has caused extreme weather repeatedly.
So, why are the people following a hypothesis when they have a proven theory? Where is the science in that?
The first video shows the hypothesis and the second video explains why the people are following the hypothesis and that there is fraud involved.
You’re glib, shallow and deliberately grossly ill-informed.
You toss out cycle, sans and ground up description of which cycle. You refuse to accept that had anthropogenic CO2 production not stepped in sea levels would be dropping because Earth would be slipping another glaciation (like contrarian idiots have been telling us is just around the corner)
Dr. Michael’s is introduced as “EXPERT ON ALL THINGS CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT AS FAR AS I’M CONCERNED.”
Yup, if he says what you want to hear he’s an expert. That’s how they do it over there.
Straight out of the gate, he says there hasn’t been enough CO2 added to atmosphere to cause current warming. Based on what!? Words? Show us some reference! We’ve seen over 40% increase in past century!
The real big issue of concern is the level of CO2. As shown on the green line in the middle, it has fluctuated between about 180 – 280 ppm (parts per million) over this period of time. It very closely moves with temperature. Now the level has shot up like a rocket to 400 ppm, a 40% increase. This correlates with our emissions from burning fossil fuels, reduction of forest cover, and other factors.
Then he mentions the global warming slow down??? What the fuk??? There was no global warming slow down! Our planet and its climate system is warming at a rate dictated by our atmospheric insulation - where all that heat gets moved to is difficult but pretending that surface temperature that account for ~10% of our climate engines heat content, tell us what "global’ temperatures are doing.
learn about the facts,
STOP CALLING SURFACE “COOLING” GLOBAL COOLING ! ! !
Patrick is another mind fuk, twisting fact desperately focused on deceiving people who desperately want to be deceived into believe that’s nothing wrong with using the atmosphere as a trash can and nothing needs to change.
Why start these pointless discussions Mike? You aren’t changing anybody’s mind.
I generally agree about alarmism, but you need a different angle. Comparing videos from Fox News and some milquetoast science YouTuber is what they expect you to do. It was worn out 5 years ago.
Below is for information only. I stopped arguing with drongos around about man caused climate change around 1990. The science isn’t complex . I truly can’t understand the contrarians who deny the bleedin’ obvious, especially when it has been irrefutably established scientifically.
A report here; climate is warning at an unprecedented rate and MUCH faster than scientists have anticipated…It is also anticipated that over a million species will become extinct in the next 2 decades.
Imo climate change deniers are as ill informed as the anti vaxers, and have about the same credibility.
Here politicians have for years answered ecological concerns with political-economic ‘answers’. One of which was the [US?} invention of the bare faced lie of ‘clean coal’.
Doesn’t really matter much to me you understand; I’m 71 right now. My dad lived to 87 .(sans marbles for the last 5 years) My mum to 92. With those genes , and staying active, I reckon I could have another 10 to 15 years. By my calculations I should fall off my perch before climate change becomes a serious personal inconvenience, or I become too gaga to care…
Just one article, for your information. I will not argue on this matter. The article is worth reading.
“Based on their results, the team concluded that the average pre-human extinction rate was 0.1 extinction per million species per year. The current extinction rate is approximately 100 extinctions per million species per year, or 1,000 times higher than natural background rates. They also predict that future rates may be as much as 10,000 times higher.”
They deny because it would mean acknowledging the problems of capitalism and the need to change to a steady state non profit economy. Too much for some to accept
“They deny because it would mean acknowledging the problems of capitalism and the need to change to a steady state non profit economy. Too much for some to accept”
Really. How could you possibly know what any other person thinks? I’d be willing to bet that most people (including me) would not be thinking in terms of your naive Marxist position .
Your position seems to imply ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ . History has taught this concept is pure fantasy-it has romantic and unrealistic beliefs about human beings. We don’t like to share without compensation WE think appropriate.
People en masse don’t like change and we REALLY don’t like the unknown. Climate change will change the life of very human being on the planet, and there is really nothing much an ordinary person can do about it. It’s terrifying in some ways. I suspect people reject the very notion of climate change because it is something massive and outside of their control. It’s terrifying, so they don’t want to know.
In my experience there are very few people in my society who have ever actually read Marx**, let alone formed a coherent understanding of the nature of capitalism.
I’m a happy little capitalist, thank you very much. I don’t expect capitalism to collapse from climate change. I think the market will adapt, just it has begun to adapt with the increasing use of renewable energy.
** in my final year of a degree course, ‘Capital’ and a fascinating monograph by Marx called “The Factory”. The thing I best remember is what he wrote about child labour; Marx was a moral philosopher, and not just a brilliant analyser of nineteenth century European economic structure…
“You don’t seem to have come to terms with capitalisms driving force. It heart beat.”
What? Can your explain what you think that is, and your evidence for thinking so?
“Perpetual exponetial growth. Cannot be sustained and thats why everything will change”
Straw man fallacy: we are discussing climate change and your claims (not an established fact) that climate change deniers do not understand the contradictions of capitalism . OF COURSE capitalism will eventually fall, all systems do. However, that is not under discussion. The topic is climate change.
You have made the claim that capitalism will collapse and be replaced by a non profit system. Because of climate change. My response to that is ;bull dust. I think capitalism will survive climate change. As for a non profit system : Such a concept implies that human beings will work for the common good. Again bull dust, and show me your evidence.
I will gladly respond to any credible evidence for your claims. If you are not able to produce evidence, I have nothing more to say to you on this topic.
How will capitalism surviving climate change? Hmmm, interesting concept. I hate being the party pooper, but since you brought it up. How much do you know about today’s Earth’s trajectories* and how that compares with changes and consequences in Earth’s deep past? Guess I can understand no one wanting to acknowledge it, it really really does suck, but it’s what we’ve done. Only takes some sober honest historical perspective to recognize things have been slipping away, specially this past half century - but it’s been a historical trend for quite some time, avarice and the golden rule has made sure of that.
*(Atmospheric GHG gases, ocean acidification, ocean anoxic events, food chain disruption, weather intensification particularly the hydrological cycles, worse hurricanes, worse droughts, worse down pours, worse heat waves, sadly I could go on with silly things like insect population collapses, and so on. This isn’t make believe, these are consequences of our own actions and they are unfolding under our noses.)
I suspect that capitalism will ultimately fall only when/if it becomes unnecessary. The ravages of natural disasters, wars, climate change will more likely, I think, exacerbate the problems of price gouging profitized purveyors of unfettered exploitative capitalistic practices. This happens today, when there isn’t even disasters but simply people needing healthcare.
Well, let’s be more positive in our imagination. Maybe free energy technologies will emerge, humanistic ideals will evolve across human cultures, and the need for capitalism will subside. It happened in Star Trek.
