skiskyrock 0 #26 February 13, 2012 I've judged a lot of science fairs, this is the first time I've seen someone's experiment not work, so they accuse Al Gore and Bill Nye of fraud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #27 February 13, 2012 Quote I think the biggest argument is over the predictions. I think there's wide sentiment that predictions coming from "alarmists" simply aren't adding up. In my mind, the biggest argument is over the "solutions" being imposed on us by government. I think it's widely agreed that those solutions will have little impact other than to give governments more money, and power over our lives.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #28 February 13, 2012 Just last year, the IPCC put out there that it'll cost in excess of $10 trillion just by 2030. I believe that the estimate is pretty damned conservative (my usual rue with governmental spending/costs is to take estimates and multiply them by three for a better idea). But I ran with it. Assuming $5 trillion per decade, mulitplying by eight decades (I'me even giving some credit) and we've got $40 trillion. I personally think that in excess of $40 trillion will be hit by 2050 if IPCC had its way. The $2 billion is what is being spent by the US, not including other costs. There's been a real call for more transfer of wealth to climate research and mitigation. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #29 February 13, 2012 >Just last year, the IPCC put out there that it'll cost in excess of $10 trillion just by 2030. That's not research cost. That's the cost of switching to over 75% renewable energy by 2030. If you want to use numbers like that, then climate change alarmists can add up the future cost of every air conditioner in the world and claim "that's the cost of global warming." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #30 February 13, 2012 Quote>Just last year, the IPCC put out there that it'll cost in excess of $10 trillion just by 2030. That's not research cost. That's the cost of switching to over 75% renewable energy by 2030. If you want to use numbers like that, then climate change alarmists can add up the future cost of every air conditioner in the world and claim "that's the cost of global warming." But they're AIR CONDITIONERS! Wouldn't they contribute to global COOLING? I'm so confused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #31 February 13, 2012 >But they're AIR CONDITIONERS! Wouldn't they contribute to global COOLING? Only if you leave the front door open. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #32 February 13, 2012 Quote>But they're AIR CONDITIONERS! Wouldn't they contribute to global COOLING? Only if you leave the front door open. so I see you've met my kids-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #33 February 13, 2012 Quote>Just last year, the IPCC put out there that it'll cost in excess of $10 trillion just by 2030. That's not research cost. That's the cost of switching to over 75% renewable energy by 2030. If you want to use numbers like that, then climate change alarmists can add up the future cost of every air conditioner in the world and claim "that's the cost of global warming." I believe I wrote "Why do we need $40 trillion dollars spent in climate research and warming mitigation." QuoteIf you want to use numbers like that, then climate change alarmists can add up the future cost of every air conditioner in the world and claim "that's the cost of global warming." And if the solution was for the government to pay for air conditioners, then you'd be right. Imagine the air conditioner lobbyists stating, "We've got to act now and order 300 million AC units so we have them by 2040. The time is now and people will die if we don't!" My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #34 February 13, 2012 >And if the solution was for the government to pay for air conditioners, then you'd be right. And if the IPCC was proposing that the government pay for that $40 trillion in renewables - you'd be right. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #35 February 14, 2012 Quote I've judged a lot of science fairs, this is the first time I've seen someone's experiment not work, so they accuse Al Gore and Bill Nye of fraud. The funny part is that the experiment showed that higher levels of CO2 gas slowed down global warming......."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
