Climatist hysteria attacked by Schiller Institute conference

[Donnadogsoth]

"Does the real climate validate the virtual climate models?" asked Professor Gervais at the onset of his presentation. This question is key, not the least, because the World Bank has estimated that it would cost a total of $89 trillion, between now and 2030, to limit the warming of the planet due to greenhouse emissions to 2 degrees Celsius!"

 

Rebuilding the World in the BRICS Era

http://schillerinstitute.org/conf-iclc/2015/0614-paris/pr3.html

 

Notice the boldfaced text.  $89 trillion is the potential "cost" of the climatist threat?  And what does that "cost" mean?  Does it mean that the climate will rain down and destroy $89 trillion in dollar bills?  Or, perhaps, the climate will change the atomic structure of the metals and destroy $89 trillion in gold bullion?  Or, is it that if we "limit the warming of the planet due to greenhouse emissions..." someone will pocket $89 trillion whether corporately or individually?  Can we imagine the vacuum forces pulling in opportunistic bureaucrats and corporate "allies"?  This will make the Y2K swindle look like nothing in comparison.

[A4E]

Using the plant food alarmist logic, it is probably the cost of building an air conditioning unit in every square mile of the planet.

[labmath2]

While i am not very educated in climate science, some reports suggest it is already having effect. Those who live on shore lines who will have to move is cost. Farmers who will have to relocate is cost. Potential changes in patters of natural phenomenons like hurricanes or tornado is cost. These are just a few cost associated with changes that are rather obvious, what about increase in use of air conditioner which consumes oil that could go to more productive use?

[green banana]

Does this mean that LaRouche advocates Maglev trains powered by Diesel generators? What will happen to the pebble reactors? Will they be replaced by steam powered engines?