Politicians alway say nonsensical talking points. BUT, this fully outlines my problem with the alarmism taking place.

So how many people are going to die from AGW??? I ask this question and get either silence or absurdly idiotic predictions that are in no way defensible.

Example?

Millions will die from droughts and the ensuing starvation from crop losses.

Problem?

Crop production is increasing faster than the population globally. Indeed we evidently have SOO many crops that we can use 4.9 billion bushels of corn a year for ethanol. That is 274 BILLION pounds of shelled corn. The equivalent of almost 3 pounds of shelled corn for every person in the US a day.

And droughts? Droughts have not increased globally for the last 60 years. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v49...

This is the biggest fear from AGW. The number of supposed deaths from AGW via other causes are small. For example heat-related deaths may increase, but presumably cold-related deaths would decrease. Extreme weather may cause deaths, BUT our ability to deal with extreme weather has consistently improved.

http://www.jpands.org/vol14no4/goklany.p...

So what, right??? I mean if AGW is going to cause any deaths or problems, we should work to solve it, right???

Absolutely. BUT, our solutions need to cause less problems than the problems we are trying to address.

FACT: 4.3 million people a year die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air pollution caused by the inefficient use of solid fuels (2012 data).

Why is this fact true?

Because 1.6 billion people live without electricity.

So when you make AGW out to be this apocalyptic nightmare, what do the solutions become???

Consider not allowing these third world countries to develop coal power plants??? (Note the World Bank does not give loans to 3rd world countries to make coal power plants, and they are generally not trusted with nuclear power plants.)

So what do they have? Solar power they can't afford? Hydro-power that is not available and even if it were, the enviros would protest this?

SO if (for fear of AGW) we institute policies that in effect kill say 1 million a year, is it going to prevent 2 million AGW deaths a year??? Because I have yet to see evidence of 1 million AGW deaths altogether, let alone in one year. And the >$1 trillion per year money that we "need" to avoid "too much" warming. How many can be saved with $1 trillion, let alone $1 trillion a year??? Spending a million to save one person, puts this at 1 million saved. Once again I ask, Are there going to be a million deaths from AGW???

This is the problem with the gross negligence of the alarmists. They do not know all of the effects of their lies and exaggerations. They want their voice heard, so they scream louder and exaggerate, but I don't think they understand the bigger picture.

We need smart solutions that are NOT worse than the problem, and that is not going to come from acting like Chicken Little and pretending the sky is falling.

Edit:

And don't just thumbs down me. If you disagree with my numbers then provide data showing "better numbers". If you disagree with my logic, show better logic. We are talking about "solutions" that greatly affect the lives of billions. You don't get the "out" of calling me a denier and anti-science.

John Kerry voted against the Kyoto Protocol and that was the last time he exhibited realism on this issue. Now he is acknowledging the obvious that you cannot eliminate CO2 with a few countries, or even all of Europe and the US and China and India. However, he is the wrong messenger as he is simply too haughty to say it nicely.

Yea sure we became wealthy off all this CO2, we hear you, but you got to cut back now, because global warming.

John Kerry should roll back free trade, and use the IMF to try and push developing countries to adopt policies that hold back their growth. Islamicization might help, though some of the leading emitters are Middle East oil rich countries. He might consider starting some wars to keep the carbon emissions down, this would also add aerosols to reverse global warming.

I think Kerry has just become aware of what we in the UK call the bleedin' obvious.

If you implement any system or process where one side does all the work and the other gets all the benefit it leads to lots of meetings where one side is always complaining that the other is not doing enough. The way you overcome this is to ensure that the beneficiaries have to do something towards implementing the desired result.

Then a whole new set of rules kick in. Suddenly it becomes OK to be resource-constrained. Conversations change from "Gimme, gimme, gimme" to "OK, we won't be able to collect our handout until next week" and so on.

By making them work for their handouts their demands will automatically reduce.