Look, a carbon reduction of x% anywhere on the globe is a global reduction of x%. You have not established that addressing global warming is going to hurt the global economy. We addressed acid rain and it did not hurt the economy. We addressed the dust bowl of the 1930's and it didn't hurt the economy. It's bullshit rhetoric that you cannot prove. As usual.
are you trying to be unsophisticated? cutting carbon here, means more carbon elsewhere. if there is an industry that uses lots of energy, and energy is more expensive, they just send that industry to china. the market for whatever still exists just as much as before. manufacturing creates lots of carbon. that just gets sent to bangladesh and they manufacture with more pollution than we do. and then if they get developed like us and pass similar laws, the manufacturing goes to nigeria and namibia, and is even worse. and that is ok because they need jobs, but if the goal is reduction of emissions isnt gonna happen. you will probably increase emissions.
tell me your solution to warming and i will explain to you exactly why it is a net negative for humankind. let me know when you finally have a plan.
Judith Curry's article about the IPCC consensus: http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/#more-10322
this is a human nature problem i have explained many times. global warming hysteria is explained by a study of humans, not the environment.
Haven't you been paying attention? Red favors the most reasonable plan. The one that is the best. He has never said what it entails, but rest assured. It is the best plan.
wait a second. hold everything. is this best plan better than a pretty good plan or a not good at all plan? holy shit this is exactly what we need. plans that are not good are in fact not good. what we need is a plan that describes itself as a plan that works.
I have given it to you in detail, ad nauseum in several threads already. Go look it up. El Stupido can probably quote them for you. There is no point is wasting my time when you just bring it up again in another thread. I will not be baited again by someone who will not even attempt to back up his claims with evidence. http://www.tigerfan.com/threads/new...l-warming-alarmism.99748/page-23#post-1162466 http://www.tigerfan.com/threads/maj...e-in-global-warming.93209/page-4#post-1042876 http://www.tigerfan.com/threads/pavlov-lemmings-bs-strawberries.79746/page-24#post-892127 http://www.tigerfan.com/threads/pavlov-lemmings-bs-strawberries.79746/page-4 http://www.tigerfan.com/threads/pavlov-lemmings-bs-strawberries.79746/page-10 It goes the same fucking way each time. You say that AGW is bullshit, so I prove that it exists. Then you say that there is nothing that can be done about it, so I prove that there are things. Then you mourn that the third world will suffer if we waste money on doing something about it, and I prove that the money would never have gone to help the third world anyway, but just up the smokestack at increasing expense. Then you start making the really bizarre claims . . . Been there, done that. Even 123 doesn't keep repeating the same old mantras, he comes up with new arguments for me to shoot down. He pisses me off a lot but he does not try to bore me to death with last years arguments.
