Who gets rich off climate

[Bob]

Is it big oil? Could be since they back man made climate change.

Windmills, Solar? Sure

Why do the eco-nuts despise the no carbon dioxide nuclear plants?

Anyway, let's get this into the open

[Redrose]

Al Gore

[Private Pickle]

Well no one really which is what boggles my mind.

There are scientists out there that will sell out their actual scientific credibility for the sake of a grant that has an agenda. While they may make more money then their scientific counterparts, they are doing so at the expense of truth.

Enjoy humans.

[Rufus]

The rich get richer off of it.

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd tells Granny to wait until evenin' when it's cooler to mow the lawn...

Climate Change Up Close: Southern, Poor US Counties to Suffer
June 29, 2017 - Poor and southern U.S. counties will get hit hardest by global warming, according to a first-of-its-kind detailed projection of potential climate change effects at the local level.

The study, published Thursday in the journal Science, calculates probable economic harms and benefits for the more than 3,100 counties in the United States under different possible scenarios for worldwide emissions of heat-trapping gases. It looks at agriculture, energy costs, labor costs, coastal damage from rising seas, crime and deaths, then estimates the effect on average local income by the end of the century.

Texas State Park police officer Thomas Bigham walks across the cracked lake bed of O.C. Fisher Lake, in San Angelo, Texas

Researchers computed the possible effects of 15 types of impacts for each county across 29,000 simulations. "The south gets hammered and the north can actually benefit," said study lead author Solomon Hsiang, a University of California economist. "The south gets hammered primarily because it's super-hot already. It just so happens that the south is also poorer." The southern part of the nation's heartland — such as Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kentucky and southern Illinois — also feels the heat hard, he said. Michigan, Minnesota, the far northeast, the northwest and mountainous areas benefit the most.

Counties hit hardest

The county hit hardest if greenhouse gas emissions continue unabated is tiny and impoverished Union County in Florida, where median income would take a 28 percent hit. And among counties with at least 500,000 people, Polk County in central Florida would suffer the most, with damages of more than 17 percent of income. Seven of the 10 counties with the highest percentage of projected county income losses from climate change are in Florida, along with two in Texas and one in Georgia. Half of these are among the poorest counties in the country.

A woman wipes her face with a cold wet towel to cool off while working outside in Las Vegas

Five of the 10 counties that would benefit the most from global warming are in Michigan. The others are in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada and the mountainous region of North Carolina. Mineral County in Nevada would see a 13 percent increase in income, while Tacoma, Washington's Pierce County would benefit by about 2 percent, the most among counties with a population of more than 500,000. "You're going to see this transfer of wealth from the southeast to the parts of the country that are less exposed to risk," said study co-author Robert Kopp, a Rutgers University climate scientist. "On average both in this country and on this planet just poorer people are in hotter areas." The whole nation's gross domestic product would shrink by 0.7 percent for every degree Fahrenheit temperatures go up, the study calculates, but that masks just how uneven the damage could be. On average, the poorest counties would suffer a drop of 13.1 percent of income if carbon pollution continues unabated, while the richest counties would fall 1.1 percent.

Rise in fatalities

[waltky]

Granny says he must know what he talkin' `bout - he's a scientist...

Neil deGrasse Tyson Destroys Climate Change Deniers' Favorite Argument In 1 Tweet
September 11, 2017 - A go-to argument from science deniers was absolutely crushed by one of the world’s most famous scientists.

Some believe one reason for the consensus that human activity has caused climate change is that scientists are in cahoots with each other. But Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysicist, author and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, highlighted the biggest flaw in that logic in a tweet he fired off on Sunday:

Neil deGrasse Tyson
✔
@neiltyson

Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference.
10:54 AM - Sep 10, 2017

1,698 1,698 Replies
31,693 31,693 Retweets
134,977

Tyson has tackled the issue before. Just last month, he said that no one denied the solar eclipse, which was predicted by science. “I don’t see people objecting to it. I don’t see people in denial of it. Yet methods and tools of science predict it,” he said on “The Daily Show.” “So when methods and tools of science predict other things, to have people turn around and say ’I deny what you say,’ there’s something wrong in our world when that happens.” Earlier this year, Tyson also warned that America’s growing rejection of science was “the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.” He said:

“I’m so disappointed that the country that I grew up in ― that put men on the moon, that developed the internet, that invented personal computers and smartphones ― that people are debating what is and what is not scientifically true.”

A 2013 analysis of climate research found that that 97 percent of peer-reviewed papers that took a position on the issue endorsed the consensus view that human activity was causing climate change.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/neil-degr...064416605.html

[Peter1469]

The question is how much. So far as climate models go, the ones on the very low end seem to be correct.