Question by Dr Jello – AGW RIP 1980-2010: Is “Global Warming” a Luxury during the economically difficult times?
Is spending money on “Global Warming” during these economically difficult times a luxury?
Isn’t it more important to spend the money on feeding starving children?
Best answer:
Answer by davem
I think so. Spending billions of dollars every year on “global warming” is a luxury we can’t afford. The money would be better spent in other humanitarian ways.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Want to Live Extra Years?
Related posts:
Ya I Think So
Fix the energy problem with plug in nuclear plants to replace coal and the rest will solve itself.
AGW as the concept is expressed results from feel good, save the world inspiration where somebody that does not really understand what is happening in the worlds climate and making an unfounded decision that a natural fluctuation is something bad. If this person was better educated with a wider range of study these errors would not happen. These kinds of judgement errors result from the current practice of compartmented narrow specialization that can easily be corrected by a broadly educated generalist who understands the spectrum of natural variation. The problem we face today is panic actions being taken because those responsible for decisions just not having the education or experience to see the math and judgement errors that the warmers have made.
So it is not dangerous and never will be, several points have to be made here in that the disasters being promoted just cannot happen as they claim. Up front the Arctic Ocean was more free of ice and easier to navigate during WWII than it is currently because it was hotter for a longer time in the 30s and 40s than it was in the 90s. Were the oceans higher then than they are now? As to ocean acidity, it is the reduction in Co2 in the water from the oceans warming up that is making the oceans less alkaline than they were when they were colder and this release from warm waters of Co2 is why atmospheric levels are increasing. There is no cause for being alarmed as every type of animal that is supposed to be endangered survived an even warmer period only 70 years ago and several even hotter periods in the last 8,000 years some lasting up to 1,000 years.
Try these well recognized science professionals who are not to shy to stick their heads out and speak truth.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#
http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/index.htm
http://www.sepp.org/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/The_Saturated_Greenhouse_Effect.htm
Just found this very intriguing university study report on solar effects and it appears the sun is the major driver of climate changes because of newly discovered and documented solar cycles beyond the better known 11 year one.
http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/sunclimate.html
Putting money into fighting global warming prevents children from starving in the first place.
The current economic situation would pale in comparison if we allowed climate change to go unchecked.
HM. Treasury
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change,
Part II, Chapter 3
Impacts of Climate Change on Growth and Development,
How climate change will affect people around the world
Food
1°C increase in global temp-
Modest increases in
cereal yields in
temperate regions
2°C increase in global temp-
Sharp declines in
crop yield in tropical
regions (5 – 10% in
Africa)
3°C increase in global temp-
150 – 550 additional
millions at risk of
hunger (if carbon
fertilisation weak)
Agricultural yields in
higher latitudes
likely to peak
4°C increase in global temp-
Agricultural yields
decline by 15 – 35%
in Africa, and entire
regions out of
production (e.g.
parts of Australia)
5°C increase in global temp-
Continued increase
in ocean acidity
seriously disrupting
marine ecosystems
and possibly fish
stocks
>5°C increase in global temp-
The latest science suggests that the Earth’s average temperature will rise by even more than 5 or 6°C if emissions continue to grow and
positive feedbacks amplify the warming effect of greenhouse gases (e.g. release of carbon dioxide from soils or methane from permafrost).
This level of global temperature rise would be equivalent to the amount of warming that occurred between the last age and today – and is likely to lead to major disruption and large-scale movement of population. Such “socially contingent” effects could be catastrophic, but are
currently very hard to capture with current models as temperatures would be so far outside human experience.
Yes, absolutely. Mankind has a much better potential to solve world hunger and provide all of his brethern with clean drinking water through technology, than he ever does of being able to control the climate.
We need to teach people to feed themselves, and those who believe in AGW cannot be taught they have educated themselves into stupidity.