https://www.newsy.com/stories/pollution-may-be-more-deadly-than-smoking-war-or-hunger/ associated press . certainly sounds bad doesn't it? lancet respected medical journal.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32345-0/fulltext that was the bullet points here is full text if interested.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...ion-dead/ar-AAtKgXH?li=AA4Zjn&ocid=spartandhp Bloomberg does a nice job in an abbreviated article about the economics of pollution vs. productivity with citation of the lancet article here
Denny believes that all bad news about the environment is Fake News and a conspiracy theory put about by Big Solar and Antifa-backed vegans.
Denny believes there is a serious issue with "Science" and the environment. Fixed it for you. The link I posted is typical of what I see from the environmentalists. Just utter whackiness.
The oceans may well be rising. I think they've been rising for most of the last 10,000 years, though. For this reason, we'd certainly be better off spending our effort and money moving people away from where the water will encroach, versus spending much more massive amounts of money on policies that won't accomplish a thing.
The islands of Maui, Lanai, Molokai, and Koohalawe were all once joined by land. The oceans rose and turned them into separate islands.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/ Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change In the 20th century, the human toll of disasters decreased dramatically, with a 92 percent reduction in deaths from the 1930s to the 2000s worldwide. Yet when the Boxing Day Tsunami struck Southeast Asia in 2004, more than 225,000 people died. So the frequency of disasters still matters, and especially in countries that are ill-prepared for them. After 41 people died in two volcanic eruptions in Indonesia last month, a government official explained the high stakes: “We have 100 million people living in places that are prone to disasters, including volcanoes, earthquakes and floods. It’s a big challenge for the local and central governments.” When you next hear someone tell you that worthy and useful efforts to mitigate climate change will lead to fewer natural disasters, remember these numbers and instead focus on what we can control. There is some good news to be found in the ever-mounting toll of disaster losses. As countries become richer, they are better able to deal with disasters — meaning more people are protected and fewer lose their lives. Increased property losses, it turns out, are a price worth paying.
Something doesn't hang together here. If all the glaciers melt, say between 30N and 30S which includes the sources of nearly all the large river systems on earth, and the these rivers essentially dry, depriving the oceans of the input to flow and warm the subpolar regions. What will happen? Logic suggest a beginning of a new Ice-age it seems to me.
