Only I never said any such thing. :insane: Yes, that is true. You don't know much about it. Neither does the prudent man ignore incontrovertible existing knowledge because of a paranoid fear of the future. I have answered them in many threads. Go back and read them. Or come up with something new.
right, you say you favor cap and trade until asked about it, at which point you remember you hate answering questions. not a fear of the future. awareness of now and what is actually important. take every dollar you propose spending on carbon minimizing, and i can save minimum 100X as many people with simple technologies available today to fight poverty and disease.
Asked and aswered in at least three threads. I won't be baited into another pointless argument you. All you do is deny, you never bother to convince. You are a perfect republican. Easy to say, Superman. Hard to convince anybody with . . . nuthin'.
The science behind this doesn't matter. The cost benefit and the measurable results to justify the cost do not exist in fighting climate change. If we are going to spend money lets spend in a manner where we can measure the results. Here is how it stands up. Al Gore spends a billion dollars and claims he prevented the ocean from rising a 16th of an inch. I spend a billion dollars and provide malaria vaccinations to the entire third world. Whose money was better spent?
yes i know i just said that. you dont answer when asked if you favor cap and trade. you like to say you have answered, but not actually answer. it is fun to watch. in fact, lets do it right now: yes or no, you favor obama's cap and trade plans? let me guess, no answer. hehe, dont ever change, red.
Yes it does. That is what is being questioned constantly by martin. He claims he doesn't understand, therefore no one understands, which is nonsense. Who says that we can't? People who think the science "isn't important?" Many carbon-fighting measures are cost effective and make good sense, others are far-fetched and make no economic sense. A proper balance between cost and benefits is what I've always said needs to be sought here. Neither of you have spent a dime doing either of those things. Want to come up with a real-world example to discuss?
this overwhelmingly and universally refused as a point by alarmists. it reveals their true motives are not related to helping people.
What martin objects to is of little importance to me. What I have said is unless you can show me how the billions we are going to spend to fight this boogey man can save lives and quantify the amount of suffering we are going to spare man kind then the science does not matter. The opportunity cost of fighting global warming is too great considering that we could spend the same billions of dollars and immediately see the results by providing food and water and medicine to the third world. So what are the benefits of reducing carbon? Are the cost effective measures like scrubbers going to do enough to save us? If not why bother? Lets spend the money on things that can save people or not spend it and let industry continue to flourish in which case the poor of the third world still get a better shake. Actually we have both have spent and raised lots of money for those causes. The only difference is Al Gore benefits personally from his actions and my efforts result in children I'll never see getting life saving vaccines.
