The US spends 4% of GDP on defence and nicholas stern suggests it will only cost 1% of GDP to tackle AGW?

Question

The U.S. needs to ensure that its armed forces receive sufficient funding. While funding levels should be determined by needs and requirements, they could be established at 4 percent of GDP without harming the U.S. economy.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/feature...

Bob · Accepted Answer

Yes, you're right.

Campbelp2002 - This plan will reduce global warming enough that we can fairly easily cope with the remainder.  It goes into great detail about how much it will reduce global warming, how much that will cost (there actually are a number of scenarios), and how much it will cost to deal with the remaining effects.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

It convincingly shows that doing something is way less expensive than doing nothing, even assuming wide error margins for the estimates.  .  It was developed by hundreds of scientists and economists working together.

watchout - The largest greenhouse gas is water vapor, but it CANNOT cause global warming.  Excess water vapor falls out as precipitation.  Excess CO2 stays in the atmosphere for many years and causes global warming.  More here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652

The wiki article you cite lists a few scientists.  But thousands of them support mainstream global warming science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Ingela · Answer

One more important fact is that by slowing this process down, we are not only risking the consequences from global warming to become worse, but it will also be more expensive and harder to achieve the necessary changes the longer we wait to act.

Suppose the skeptics are wrong, which is unfortunately the most reasonable scenario, then they will thus have contributed to more, and stronger regulations and costs within a few years ahead.

watchout_above · Answer

campbelp2002 is correct for the most part.

Even the most aggressive suggestions to curb global warming will have a negligible affect.
And the Global Warming fear mongers admit that!
(read the IPCC report in detail)

Because almost all greenhouse gases occur naturally, it is highly unlikely that humans are the principal cause anyway.

Go here for the data and more info,  and for a long list of scientists that believe GW is a natural process:

http://theglobalwarmingtruth.com/

campbelp2002 · Answer

If Nicholas Stern says that then he is wrong. At least if he means totally stopping and even reversing the rise of CO2 in the air he is wrong, because stopping that will take reducing use of coal and oil by 90% and that will cost WAY more than 4% of GDP to do. If "trackling" means doing some token reductions to appease the liberals while having no actual effect on the CO2 levels, then maybe we could do that. But why waste any money at all if the effect will be negligible?

highspeed · Answer

Bob, you are dead wrong about water vapor, it can most definitely cause GW.
What, you think water vapor goes away and doesnt come back?
You're spouting a political slogan than is not scientifically factual.

Read this in detail so you can get a little more educated:
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And the following sources listed below

The US spends 4% of GDP on defence and nicholas stern suggests it will only cost 1% of GDP to tackle AGW?

Trending Questions