But what is that scenario? And how much money is it worth to put in it to prevent it?

Becuase rite now millions of people are already dying in the world because of bad water and tons of other stuff, but we still think in terms of 'foreign aid' - giving sum cash to poor nations when acute starvations and civil war occur and stuff (and yes, then there are thousands of projects of drilling wells, giving them tractors, training medical personel, aiding skools and tons of more or less effective stuff), but the basic attitude is still that each country develops by it's own means*, even if the people are very poor compared to the rich West.
And apparently - we think it's  perfectly okay. Or else there would be huge campaigns and a movement to stop people from dying from dirty water conditions, right? But there ain't. Because the effect of Dollars invested should be able to be quantified, and in these other cases we have taken the stance that this current level of ambitions is what we value is worth it.

*Like for example India, Indonesia and Pakistan, those countries dont receive any foreign aid.
(and I dont think there is anything wrong with that principle, because Im not a commie)


So please, be concrete - what is the worst case scenario, when would it happen, and what is the risk of it to happen and how much money is it worth to spend to prevent it??
(the truth is, u dont have the slightest idea, and neither does anyone else of these zealots. This climate change topic is all based on emotions and trusting authority and taking their word for it that they're doing the right decisions)

@akuma587

Here is the problem. There is as much evidence (in most peoples eyes, even more) that global warming is not man made. No one is saying it can't be man made, we are just saying if you look at the evidence, it doesn't remotely tell anyone that it is man made.

Most people, me included, will tell you we don't have the answer yet. The obvious conclusion is the fluctuation in the source of all our energy would tie closely to all our energy (that's all temperature is, energy). But that does not make it correct.

The problem I have with what the world is doing, is they are putting into place policy that will negatively impact people. No matter how you look at it, artificially raising the cost of energy will hurt so many people who rely on it. You either hurt the poor, or require the middle class to pay for the poor, and hurt them. You also impact every business that consumes energy. All manufacturing plants will have there costs go up. They will either move off shore (loss of jobs), or increase there prices to compensate.

Now if we knew humans were the cause of the worlds "climate change", then I could see how causing all these negative consequences could be worth the positive. The problem I have is it is far more likely that doing this will do nothing with respect to climate change, and all we will get out of it is the negative impacts.

I think it's always wise to figure out a problem before you try and solve it. It's been a long time since wise and washington went together.

Mafoo has a few very valid points.

I, nor he, nor anyone argue that the climate isn't changing. We know it's getting warmer, and stranger in many areas of various countries.

The issue is (from my point of view) that the debate is so intricate, complex, and interwoven into many possible contributors, to peg it to exclusively to man-made contributions shows (to me) that they really don't know what they are talking about, and are trying to reduce pollutants for very selfish goals, rather than for scientific ones.

Our environment is affected by dozens, if not hundreds of factors which do include man-made pollutants. The question is, and should always be, which ones have the largest effect on the environment.

Take Co2 emissions. If Co2 emissions are the leading cause of global warming, why are we working so hard on removing humanities carbon footprint when nature is responsible for 20 times the carbon footprint on earth?

What if it is sunspot activity, and it takes a few years for the effects of the sunspots to build up change, and we begin to get plunged into colder temperatures for decades? It wasn't long ago that scientists were espousing the fact that our pollutants were cooling the earth down, not warming it up.

Ect, ect, ect.

Like Mafoo, I feel that we DON'T know what's going on, if it's sunspots, Co2, methane, the spaghetti monster, or something else. Science, I thought, was based on hard data, and took years to develop proper modeling, but it seems that countries have jumped the gun, and are doing things to damage economies, and transfer wealth, rather than help the environment just to be good stewards of the earth. To me, this is no different than atheists ragging on fundie Christians proclaiming the apocalypse and rapture are near, and to radically change their ways - they are preaching fire & brimstone to force change, rather than promote change.

And until that change is ready - more efficient solar arrays, better renewables, ect - forcing the change won't help. Most renewables aren't to the point that they are cost efficient or effective in what they do, despite the fact they are being rapidly adopted. What if windmills change global jetstream patterns if we use them as our primary source of energy? Is that any better than adding Co2? What if solar arrays absorb too much energy from the sun, and cool the planet down because that energy was meant to heat the earth? Just a few thoughts for you to think about.


Personally, I am as pro-renewable as the next person, and greatly for reducing our pollutants. However, I'm not for doing it when it hurts people severely to force the change, and also when there are better ways of doing it....If the governments of the world really wanted to help the environment, then we'd increase our space funding tenfold, built a Dyson device at the Lagrange point, and/or the moon, and be done with it. Until then, we're only going to hurt our own people for these possibly selfish goals.

And for the record: Cap & Trade WILL raise the average person's energy costs in the USA. The estimated impact in regions that rely on coal and other energy sources will jump by $350/yr per household. That's going to cause a lot of issues, which may offset any gain we get from reduced Co2 emissions.

I have a child now so I don't want to take that chance...

All I see is that people questionning the Global Warming effect are people only interested in protecting their money.... (USA Republicans, Australia and co...).

I don't care if it is true or not... I would be glad to have the petrol out of the equation...

IMO, it is fucking crazy to call it a scam or a myth...

I dunno, perhaps you are very young, and for some people it may sound greedy when money is brought into this, but I can assure you that it's a necessity that money is involved in this climate change discussions and what we should do about it if it's in fact man made (which it isn't, but theoretically speaking). Cost is always a fundamental factor in risk-evaluations on this level.

cost versus risk and gain is fundamental in almost all political decisions
("how much should we invest in traffic accident reducing measures", 'how much should we spend on screening for cancer in people', 'how much should we put in foreign aid' and so on)

If you can't handle that, there's no point to be involved in these dicussions (this is not just directed at u Sardauk).

Sarduk - The problem is that there's also a lot of money to be gained by other companies and people groups if governments force climate change. Don't say the issue is just one sided because of some Americans, because it's not.

For example, if Cap & Trade passes in the US, entire states will lose thousands of jobs while their citizens are charged hundreds of dollars more per year - poor and ruch alike - for the same energy.

And if you want to have petrol out of the equation, don't tax it to death. Don't belittle it. Invent something better. It's as simple as that.

I understand your point but I don't believe that things will solve by itself like the far-righ US believes it will.

For once, US will feel the heat.. just like the rest of the planet...

Here it is very simple : We pay a lot (way too much) taxes... but you get that money back for abandonning oil..it is as simple as that...

How do you get that money back by abandoning oil? I'd really like you to explain that to me.

My thoughts exactly. It's ironic, the analogy to fundamental Christians, isnt it?

Because the difference is that the Christians are (mostly) aware of the fact that their claims are based on faith, and shouldn't cause political decisions and force all kinds of restrictions and costs upon other people that don't share the same beliefs.

You are correct. This would be akin to Christians taking over government, and taxing unbelievers or forcing conversions. You know that you'd be opposed to such a thing, yet the exact same thing is being done by forcing emission conversions.

Do you REALLY want to change the climate and make the earth a better place?

- Start a garden to produce your own veggies. You'll eat more veggies and less meat, helping reduce methane emissions. Also, it'll reduce your trips the the grocery (save gas), money, and other benefits. If you live in an apartment or in the city where you cannot have a large garden, convert your basement, or part of a room into a greenhouse. You'd be surprised how much food 16sq ft of area can produce if tended well. +1 if you run such a greenhouse off of solar energy.
- Carpool and really pay attention to where, when, and why, you drive. Don't take useless trips that cost gas and money. Tune your car with proper energy-saving mods.
- If you own or rent your home, look into your energy-consuming devices like your hot water tank, heater, and other devices. If they are old and inefficient, replace them. We replaced our natural gas heater in the apartment complex I own a few years back and literally cut our gas usage in half. We're now remodeling and adding more efficient weatherstripping, insulation, and individual heaters to ensure that tenants are concerned with their electric usage.
- Don't live beyond your means, and invest wisely. Use extra money to fund efforts built on better efficiency, such as a more efficient car, appliances, and lifestyles.
- If you have a yard, plant fruit-bearing trees. This is a one-two punch: More food for you, while the tree converts Co2 emissions into food. If there is leftover veggies from step #1 or fruit from this step, give it away to the poor and needy so they don't have to spend their gas to go to the store.

Those are a few examples. The problem is I see a lot of people in here that are talking about solving global warming by instituting new controls and restrictions on people. I don't get this when some of the same people decry gay marriage bans, abortion restrictions, and other restrictive things, yet promote taxing and attacking oil companies because of their 'evil' (it's the same rhetoric from pro-family groups, just repackaged). If you really cared about the control exerted over people, you'd care about taking personal responsibility for the environment, rather than whine about some foreign government needing to change. Fix the thing yourself. It can be contagious.