Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies

So your take on this is to believe everything that the gov tells you on global warming without question despite no proof of any reduction in global average temperature from your so called consensus of the scientific community ?? Do and think as your told, ask no questions, and pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain. So again, what effect will US energy policies have on global average temperature one hundred years from now ??

 

When have I ever said these things? Holy cow none of what you said is true. Question everything. That is the mantra of good science. The mantra of good public policy is follow the scientific consensus especially in areas that can affect the lives of millions of people. And we have consensus on AGW. Here is the answer to your last question based on the scientific consensus. A positive one.

 

Great - then what is the answer to the question about the magnitude of the effect of the Obama/Clinton global warming policies on the global average temperature 100 years from now ?? The answer is zero. Please provide a reference that quantifies the effects. There are none btw.

 

The answer is it will be positive. Now please give the exact dollar amount of any damage these policies will cause. To the dollar please. Lol

 

Again no quantification and again the answer is zero. There is plenty of information on the economic costs of the Obama global warming policies - not surprisingly you've not taken the initiative nor had the curiosity to investigate:

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...mpact-and-cost-of-obama-s-climate-action-plan

 

I'm sorry I don't see a dollar amount. To the dollar please

 

Really ?? Try reading more closely:

 

Heritage institute? Are you kidding?

 

Lets be clear. We are looking for scientific consensus. You would NEVER accept AGW based on one study from a clearly biased source. So I will accept this number if you can back it up with repeated studies from independent studies. You would not want us the base major policy off one study....would you?

 

If you honestly believed we are on the verge of severe and calamitous Florida swallowing climate change you would not give a rats ass about economic impact if having fewer children, after all who would want to bring kids into a planet in such turmoil. Obviously you don't believe your own alarmist rhetoric

 

For the forth time. ....forget it....you won't take yes for an answer

 

Western greenies aren't the ones having too many children, though. It's the nutbar religious types, and people in the poorest countries.

 

Yes is not an answer it's a dodge. You said if people stopped having children it would have too big an economic impact but if it would stop global warming and if you believed Florida is on the verge of going underwater the economic impact of not having kids would not even be on your radar. Once again I have painted you into a corner and once again you are climbing out the window. No economic impact could be bigger than a rise in sea levels that swallowed up coastal cities, countries and states so if you truly believe your rhetoric call on your fellow cult members to pledge no more children. Do it now and take a stand or you are empty rhetoric

 

No country is going to stop having children. But it is fact that countries that have a good economy have less children. Poor countries have no program for old age. One reason poor people have more children is in the hope that enough will survive to keep them fed in their old age.

 

I'm not sure how you summarized my text to that. You can summarize my point by answering a question:

which business would you rather invest in, one with lower or higher operating costs?

 

You said you kill kittens on the weekends. You are making up things now. I guess I can too.

- - - Updated - - -

Eliminate all pollution controls and that business will have lower operating costs.....right?

 

And we see the genetic fallacy in action ^^

 

I see you can not cite another source. Science wins again

 

Which business would you rather invest in, one with higher or lower operating costs?

 

Lower.....so get rid of all pollution and environmental controls....right?

 

Ok. Cool.

Your question:

It depends on what you mean by pollution and environmental controls. We have many including benchmarks and tort law. I would never get rid of those.

What is your definition of pollution and environmental controls?

 

Anything that cost the company money. If that is your only measure then that should be all that matters. right?

 

Absolutely I would. The cause and effects are well documented although the dollar amounts might be different for different analyses. Which cause and effect of the Obama coal energy policies do you dispute ?? The effect of those policies on coal industry jobs lost ??

And I do accept AGW.

 

'anything that costs the company money'

Technology costs money. I would not get rid of that.

Please elaborate on 'anything that costs the company money'.

 

You demand an exact assessment of the impact. So do I. The effects of AGW are well documented. Far more than any effects you can cite