it is impossibly refreshing to see that supafan gets it and expresses it better than i do. what is the ultimate goal. why care about warming? for the future of our planet? no, for the future of the people on the planet. so lets understand that the goal is to lessen human death and suffering. lets assume for the sake of argument that is what we care about (it POSITIVELY isnt). if we care about humankind, how many peoepl can we save with however many trillion it costs to keep the temperature from changing one extra degree over the next hundred years? a million people? ten million people? now, give me that same trillion. i guarantee you i can make the world far better by growing the economy with that money, and by taking steps to end human suffering caused by poverty related issues. again, what you liberal morons need to realize is that the number on problem facing humankind right now, BY FAR, is the lack of economic development. so that is the problem you want to solve. when bangladesh is as rich as canada, then maybe we can take a look at carbon management. also the people that globwal warming supposedly hurts? not us here in america, we are loaded and can handle it, the peolpe it supposedly hurts are the poor in the developing nations. well guess what, they are already barely staying alive and dont give a damn about a degree of heat over 100 years. they want a bowl of millet and a job at a sweatshop.
If we could ban and/or limit politicians from speaking in public we could probably reduce the temperature by 1-2 degreess. There was a lot of hot air blowing last night and even more after the speech.
Well, you addressed a response I was making to martin in order to make a statement that science did not matter and that its results can't be measured, both of which are quite wrong. You can believe whatever hokum you wish. I have not advocated the spending of billions to alleviate suffering around the world in this thread or any other. You are manufacturing an issue and demanding that I prove it wrong. I have consistently defended the science behind climate change in many threads. I have nowhere promoted Al Gore or anyone else's politics of global warming. I like some ideas to address climate change and I dislike some. I think some are affordable and smart and others are absurd and expensive. I advocate seeking a balance between costs and benefits. I don't feel all that strongly about the politics of it, which will all be revised and negotiated over decades, but I will object when people try to use political ideology to dismiss science about the reality of climate change. Good for you, D'Artagnan! Make your case and back up this claim that you seem so eager to make with some numbers and perhaps I'll find something to dispute. Google "Greenhouse gases", we have covered this many times before. Who made this about improving the third world? We're talking about a global climate issue that will affect us as much or more than the third world. Forget about spending money to help the third world--that ain't the issue. We could have done that already if it were feasible and it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And who says it will keep industry from flourishing? That's an industry scare tactic that they can't back up. They said it when we used cap and trade successfully to reduce sulfur emissions, addressing the acid rain problem. Only it didn't bankrupt any industries. Trading sulfur credits allowed companies with old plants to keep working and not shut down even though they were dirtier than required. The sulfur credits that they bought from others allowed those companies to invest in newer, cleaner plants that were also more efficient and more profitable. Net gain for America with more modern plants replacing ancient ones and less air pollution and acid rain to live with . . . in a gradual and affordable way for the companies. They understand trading. There is no reason that carbon trading won't work the same way. It allows companies with existing plants to use them to the end of their service lives, giving them time to modernize in a fiscally responsible manner and enjoying some tax breaks. Meanwhile it fund new offshore wind farms producing clean, non-polluting energy and creates new jobs to replace those oilfield jobs that will decline as the oil industry does. I am neither a fan of Al Gore or an advocate for his policies. I urge you to recognize that the science of climate change and the political rhetoric on both sides are two different matters and that a person can accept the validity of the science without buying into the Al Gore vision. He's just another celebrity with an agenda, who really gives a damn? I rank him with Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck, and Limburger.
what does the science say about how many lives will be saved by your cap and trade plan? the one you dont favor and also do favor? then what do you propose to solve global warming? can and trade? yesno? noyes? cap and trade is terrible compared to other solutions: research into alternative energies:" is “absolutely better” than capping carbon emissions. Each dollar spent on energy R&D would bring $11 in benefits, his group figures; each dollar spent on traditional cap-and-trade plans brings about $0.90 in benefits." Bjorn Lomborg: Let’s Spend Smarter to Save the World - Environmental Capital - WSJ now you cant address that because you dont favor cap ands trade. you favor "balance" and "not answering". wrong. we are rich and most of the problems caused by global warming are easily manageable by rich folks like us in america. of course it is the issue. is your point that global warming is so bad that we in the first world need to worry about it wrecking our economy? when? based on what? "science"? what exactly do you think gobal warming will do to us and how will it hurt us? taxes dont benefit business, no matter how you slice it. he favors cap and trade, and you also ...well you favor it, i mean you oppose it. aww dangit why dont you just repeat the word "balance" 5 times and we will pretend that is a legit opinion.
