Day Traders Lounge.

Actually we have had some incidents, but they have not been highlighted as much. There were riots in UP a few months before the elections, there was the attack on the cantonment in Pathankot, then the Uri incident, the Pulwama incident .... What got more highlighted was our reaction to them. But it does not reduce the severity of these incidents.
Yeah, and last year there was the Gujar andolan which threw trains out of whack for more than 15 days last year (on Mumbai-Delhi route, including Radhani !!)
SIr, you are equating terrorists and andlonkari's :p
 
Some days ago we had some posts about the climate change and the economic impact thereof.

Here is more on it.

https://www.business-standard.com/a...-have-70tn-climate-impact-119042300833_1.html

Melting Arctic permafrost will have $70tn climate impact
IANS | London Last Updated at April 23, 2019 16:26 IST

The release of methane and carbon dioxide from thawing permafrost will accelerate global warming and add up to $70 trillion to the worlds climate bill, according to the most advanced study yet of the economic consequences of a melting Arctic.

If countries fail to improve on their Paris agreement commitments, this feedback mechanism, combined with a loss of heat-deflecting white ice, will cause a near 5 per cent amplification of global warming and its associated costs, the Guardian quoted the study as saying which was published on Tuesday in Nature Communications.

The authors said that their study is the first to calculate the economic impact of permafrost melt and reduced albedo - a measure of how much light that hits a surface is reflected without being absorbed - based on the most advanced computer models of what is likely to happen in the Arctic as temperatures rise.

It shows how destabilised natural systems will worsen the problem caused by man-made emissions, making it more difficult and expensive to solve.

They assessed known stocks of frozen organic matter in the ground up to three metres deep at multiple points across the Arctic.

These were run through the world's most advanced simulation software in the US and at the UK Met Office to predict how much gas will be released at different levels of warming.

On the current trajectory of at least 3 Celsius of warming by the end of the century, melting permafrost is expected to discharge up to 280 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide and 3 gigatonnes of methane, which has a climate effect that is 10 to 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide.

This would increase the global climate-driven impacts by by $70 trillion between now and 2300.

"It's disheartening that we have this in front of us," said Dmitry Yumashev of Lancaster University.

"Even at 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, there are impacts and costs due to thawing permafrost. But they are considerably lower for these scenarios compared to business as usual. We have the technology and policy instruments to limit the warming but we are not moving fast enough."
--IANS
 
We have to remember that almost everyone driving big news has an agenda. The idea that we can accurately measure human impact on temperatures (even though there might be some) is a bit facetious because there are so many factors that go into making climate/weather what it is that it's not realistically feasible for us to quantify them all, so all we get is funding-hungry weather scientists, rabid environmental purists & tax-hungry politicians driving the news about climate change.
For instance, how many times in the past couple of decades have you heard about global temperatures dropping in a year? You almost never hear about it because that's not in line with their agenda, even though that does happen. Then, there's a lot of lying about & hiding of contradictory evidence, which makes you wonder too - https://www.investors.com/politics/...ange-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/

Hiding The Evidence
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.

Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."

Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsvilleshowing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.

How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?


This following article is great read for everyone as it breaks down all of the typical climate-change arguments. I can't post the text here because it's more than the character-limit permitted on Traderji.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12...tures-demonstrate-ipcc-claims-are-impossible/

The media reported on front pages all over the world the IPCC 2001 Report that drove the world into warming hysteria because they said temperatures rose 0.6°C in approximately 120 years – an increase not possible without human CO2. Why aren’t they reporting with equal vigor that in just two years from February 2016 to February 2018 the global average temperatures fell by 0.56°C? If the IPCC claim about the dominant role of CO2 post-1950 is correct, then that warming simply cannot happen.