Bruce,
What science? How many people will die from AGW if nothing is done and what specific cause???
Crop failure? Crop production has been increasing faster than the population both in the US and worldwide.
Sea level rise? At 1 inch per 8 years, perhaps the people who are too slow to escape this should be taken out of the gene pool.
Extreme weather? OK what extreme weather, because it is hard to nail down any as having increased.
They are talking about spending 2% of global produciton from now until 2030 or about 48 trillion dollars!!!! That is TRILLION with a T. How many people can we save with 1 million? Take that number and multiply it by 48 million and you will have a good estimate of how many lives we need to save to make the measures proposed by warmers even reasonable.
How about it? 48 Million lives saved from action. Can you show this? You say this is science, so please present the scientific data that would suggest 48 million lives saved. If you cannot, then perhaps other options, such as the options I have suggested are more justifiable than taking all those resources from locations where they are needed.
Once again, you claim to have science behind you, so feel free to present your case...
But you and I both know that you cannot. You cannot, because you are not talking about science.
Yup. There are some hypocrites out there.
Does that change the science?
Changes in climate will probably adversely affect crop yields in parts of the world where people are not able to compensate. Crop yields went up because of many factors, unrelated to the mild changes in temperature, so far.
Any net costs must be balanced against the cost of doing nothing.
As for science, start with wikipedia. Read the references.
Look up AGW skeptics on wikipedia, and read the papers written by the skeptics.
On balance, IPCC is correct. Maybe a bit biased, but closer to the truth than WUWT.
Read skeptical science.
That's funny. When I had lunch with Fred Singer a few years ago, and drove him around, something similar happened. When he gave a talk, the only questions he could hear were the ones his friends asked him. When asked more difficult questions he would shake his head and act like he couldn't hear them, then move on to another question from a friend.
Of course, Fred Singer is SUPPOSED to be a scientist, while Leonard DiCaprio is an actor. If I were on the denial side, I'd be more worried about why my scientists are pretending they can't hear questions.
Another ad hom for your portfolio.
Raisin Caine
When did Bruce say anything about crop failure or sea level rise?
And if sea level rises faster than that, give it a speeding ticket
http://driverstest.info/test/pics/tc_pol...
And because the Almighty Dollar is involved, realists have to prove that human lives are endangered, rather than you denialists having to prove that they are not. That's where your priorities lie. And you denialists accuse realists of being anti-human.
At least Sagebrush is scientifically illiterate. What's your excuse?
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=10273
