Alter Ego

A poster said: “Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.”

So this would mean that at this point in time 150,000 people per year are dying as a direct result of global warming? I find that extremely hard to believe.

Famines, floods, droughts, storms, wildfires, or other natural events do not count because these have plagued humankind since long before industrialization. In fact, the predicted increased intensity and duration of these dangers (allegedly due to AGW) has failed to materialize.

How many deaths can be unequivocally attributed directly and solely to global warming? I say none. Prove me wrong.

Seen in a pet grooming shop nearby:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v28/SoCal/epitom...

I'm afraid to call - they might want to put old Rover down to return his carbon to the earth!

The warmers say that if CO2 continues to rise that it will result in catastrophic climate change that will cause a large percentage of the population to die off. But they are also the ones who believe the world is overpopulated, and that an ideal population for a sustainable future is less than half of the current population. So shouldn’t they be for INCREASING CO2 emissions to kill off all the unwanted population?

"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."

- United Nations

"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome

"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."

- Professor Maurice King

"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.''

- Professor Paul Ehrlich

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

- Ted Turner,

The idea for this question came from an exchange with another answerer on the topic of climate scientist's salaries. Which "side" has deeper pockets? For example, since Exxon made a ton of money, does that mean a ton of money was made available for contrarian scientists? Or since carbon credit corporations are handling hundreds of billions of dollars per year, does that mean AGW scientists have access to that money? Please provide supporting evidence for your answer.