No. It is a simple process. I'll assume global warming is real, and assume it is even man made. I then determine how much mitigating the effects of global warming is going to cost. I then project the number of lives and the amount of property I am going to save. Is it worth the effort? Is it worth the damage to the economy? If it is, and we decide to tax carbon or do cap and trade, or whatever is spending the money raised to fight global warming the most effective way to save lives and property? Could we do something cheaper and save more lives? See how that works. That doesn't make it meaningful to the economic decisions.
global warming is like top a 50 concern, at best. of course this assumes we actually care about saving lives, which we definitely dont (and shouldnt).
Big story about a year ago, scientist(s) got caught cooking the books, emails back and forth about how the science wasn't proving any warming so they "made" it support their claim. You are the research expert I'm sure you can find it.
I have said it before and this is what I believe: 1) the earth has had hundreds if not thousands of ice ages and will have hundreds if not thousands more. 2) the earth has had times where it was ice free and will be ice free again 3) nothing man can do will change the NORMAL ebb and flow of the cycles of climate change that are an absolutly natural part of the nature of this planet 4) man may be a contributing factor in this but it doesn't matter. The world will continue it's normal cycle of climate change weather we spend ourselves into bankruptcy trying to stop it or not. Where am I wrong on any of these statements? Educate me on this matter if you feel I have come to an ignorant conclusion.
Oversimplification. Some mitigation is easy, simple and cheap and there is no reason not to do it. Others are pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams. Most fall somewhere in between and some sort of cost/benefit analysis must be made obviously. But I think you will be surprised at how many are feasible and effective. What a ridiculous statement. Understanding the science is the only way to conduct a cost/benefit analysis. If the science is ignored to make the economic decisions, then it is only a political decision and doomed to fail.
Who? First of all it was talk in emails between two scientists and not included in a single one of their published papers. Not one. But what is ludicrous is the notion that this somehow debunks their published results and also debunks all the published results of all the rest of the climatologists in the world. :lol: That ain't the way science works, amigo. That's the way the tabloids work. I know all about it. It is you that does not. You don't even know their names or the significance of their work in the total scheme of things. The IPCC report constitutes the consensus of the worlds experts and it still stands and has been reaffirmed.
You are correct on 1 and 2 but it must be remembered that many species have become extinct because of these cycles. Man was not here then, but we are now and we don't want to become extinct. You are partially correct on 3. Man cannot reverse or engineeer global climate change patterns, but collectively over time we do surely affect them. You are incorrect on 4. It is not normal cycles that are the problem here. It is the temperature spike caused by humankind in our time that has become a serious issue to the future of all species on the planet. It is only the human-caused pollution that needs to be addressed. We cannot prevent our ultimate extinction from natural events. But we can try to keep from killing ourselves by dying by our own pollution.
