Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies

Wrong - anything that costs consumers money and adversely affects economic growth for no change in the global average temperature (still waiting for the number) should not be implemented.

- - - Updated - - -

Where is it documented ?? What will be the effects of the Obama global warming energy policies on the global average temperature 100 years from now ??

 

Any law that costs the company money. Any one at all. What is it you don't understand? Its all about companies being able to make money at any expense.....right?

- - - Updated - - -

I am still waiting for you to show consensus for YOUR economic effects. EXACT consensus please

 

Absolutely wrong.

And on the effects of the Obama global warming policies on the global average temperature in 100 years - crickets again. You claim extensive documentation and yet cannot produce anything. There is, however, wide consensus that coal miners have lost jobs due to the Obama EPA. You've not heard of this ??

 

The effects will be positive. Exactly how many coal miners and exactly where has it been shown that it ONLY happened because of the EPA. Please be exact.

 

And remember we need several studies all showing the EXACT same results for consensus. LOL

 

Every law costs a company money. Compliance is a cost. Lawyers are a cost. Your broadness is not helping the conversation, but I will answer the question.

No - I would not abandon any law that costs the company money. They all cost the company money.

 

I agree. And AGW compliance laws fit in there very well

 

And still crickets on the global temperature question ?? How can you advocate policies that cannot be shown to result in any effect on the future global average temperature ?? Strange days indeed.

It's upthread in the quote and link you obviously can't be bothered to read.

 

I require scientific consensus. Don't you? Do you think you presented scientific consensus?

 

More crickets ?? You apparently require no data just consensus on something. How can a cost benefit analysis be done if there is no benefit ?? Are you happy about coal miners and their families being out of work for nothing ??

 

There is great consensus AGW policies will have a positive effect. And lots of data to support that. Why do you want millions to die from AGW effects?

 

Again nothing. Just US coal miners out of work. BTW, as the temperature warms mortality rates go down.

 

The scientific community disagrees with you. If you want us to act based on a single study then you do not believe in science

 

I think a better approach would be to legislate transparency of energy use. Create benchmarks. That way the driving force for conservation is competition instead of legislation. Competition also would prevent unfeasible legislation from hitting.

 

Competition is only about how much profit is made. Companies don't care if they win the battle of most energy saved

 

NO, they want PROOF, not JUST a THEORY.

 

There is no such thing as scientific proof. Only conclusions based on evidence.

 

Gravity is a theory son

 

Keep repeating that. It avoids having to explain that the Obama energy policy will result in a reduction in economic growth and zero reduction in global average temperature. Just block your ears and repeat over and over again.

 

Countries don't have babies people do and if you are one of those people that believe Florida is about to be swallowed up by rising sea levels why would you have children and add fuel to the fire?

 

Gravity is a law not a theory son as in "Newton's LAW of universal gravitation". AGW isn't even a theory, it's a hypothesis.

"A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess. It must be consistent with known experimental results and it must have predictive power. As new knowledge is gained, theories are refined to better explain the data. A law is a mathematical relationship that is consistently found to be true"

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong, their is scientific LAW.

"A scientific theory is NOT a wild guess. It must be consistent with known experimental results and it must have predictive power. As new knowledge is gained, theories are refined to better explain the data. A law is a mathematical relationship that is consistently found to be true"

 

You are so busy trying to wiggle out of this that you dont even remember what you said in post #6 on this subject.Your words, read it and weep.

"So you would solve AGW by creating a massive worldwide depression?"

 

Your claim does not meet the scientific standard of consensus. Even you admit that

- - - Updated - - -

Are you suggesting that scientific law is proof? Really....you must be kidding

 

Crickets again on the temperature effects and/or goals of the Obama Clean Power Plan. And science is not based on consensus. There is only one correct answer.

 

Do you deny that public policy is based on scientific consensus? I have given you the answer repeatedly about the effects of the Obama Clean Power Plan. You can not provide consensus on any negative effects it might cause. Crickets....crickets....LOL