The CO2 fantasy

Judged:

2

2

1

Earthling wrote:

IF the Warmist brigade of scientists had had any sense, they would have chosen a gas that actually causes harm, instead of CO2.
Methane would have been a much better choice, because there's about as much chance of reducing that as man has of flying without wings, unless we consider banning all animal farming.

Judged:

4

3

3

another-peace-nic wrote:

<quoted text>
Man can fly without wings. Burning methane gas in a hot air balloon for instance. Been living under a rock, have you?
Your methane vs CO2 comment makes about as much sense.

Judged:

5

5

4

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
'Earthling' really doesn't care to make sense. He only cares to make his ignorant and cynical POV heard. He doesn't even care if what he thinks is really true.
These kind of blowhards used to hang around in bars. Now they become Internet trolls.

Judged:

5

4

3

Earthling wrote:

...One of them believes that cutting CO2 by 50% would be advantageous. It would initially cost around $45 trillion to start that process, with no guaranteed advantage.
http://www.environmentalleader.com/2008/06/07...

Judged:

6

3

3

Brian_G wrote:

Admit it, Earthling has a good point. If you guys had selected methane as your villainous agent of climate change, the joke would be on us.
We dodged the bullet on that one.

Judged:

5

3

1

another-peace-nic wrote:

... Besides, the cost of not doing it would be much higher.

Judged:

4

3

2

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
To paraphrase Congressman Everett Dirksen
“A trillion here, a trillion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.”
What are the costs of doing nothing? Is climate change harmful? How much will we save with this massive expense?
I understand we are talking 2% of GDP, that's 2% less food for the hungry, 2% less medicine for the sick, 2% fewer schools and teachers. It's an enormous expense.
Is it too much to ask for some quantitative tests of how much manmade CO2 causes how much warming? It would be a shame if, when we are done, the mitigation turns out to be negligible.

Judged:

2

2

1

Earthling wrote:

.. have sunk to new low levels with insults ..

Judged:

3

2

1

Earthling wrote:

One of them believes that cutting CO2 by 50% would be advantageous. It would initially cost around $45 trillion......

Judged:

3

2

2

Cousin Jethro wrote:

<quoted text>
Don't forget your ongoing $280 million per day for the Exxon inspired Iraq occupation...

Judged:

4

2

2

Brian_G wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the Obama occupation, now. Obama's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish him luck. And our friends and neighbors, over there, defending us.

Judged:

5

4

2

another-peace-nic wrote:

Around $45 trillion in 41 years? If we didn’t have to pay for Bush’s stupid wars and pail out the banking system that tanked while he was looking the other way, the U.S. could manage that on it’s own. As it is, the other benefits (like alternative energy reducing dependence on Middle East oil) give us reason to tighten the belt and do it anyway. Besides, the cost of not doing it would be much higher.

Judged:

2

2

2

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>I don't really care what governments spend on anything, but it would make a pleasant change if they spent money on worthwhile projects.
As I said, there is no guarantee that this project will be worthwhile, only people like you believe it will be, except for the fact that your don't know what the money should be spent on.
NB: It's estimated that there are 90,000 homeless people in Los Angeles (alone) who don't give a shit about global warming.
10 million people around the world are starving to death right now.
Millions of children round the world will not live to see their 5th birthday.
And we sit facing computer monitors, arguing about what 'may' or may not happen in 90 years from now?