How many lives could have been saved?
How many lives could have been saved if we would have used even a portion of the $75 billion that has been used trying to prove AGW, to provide clean drinking water to poor nations?
Over $75 billion has been spent in an attempt to prove global warming is man's fault. To date, no scientific research has been able to pin the change in temp (whether up or down) to human activity (and this includes trying to intentionally fabricate reports). Imagine if even a portion of this money went instead to provide clean drinking water for the poorer nations? Millions could be saved next year alone, and every year after that. But instead, rich nations continue to pour money into "science" in an effort to prove man is evil and bad for the planet.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_as/as_world_s_children_forgotten_killers
Lord Percy,
get your facts straight. The number is $75 BILLION spent not million.
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=104031&cat=12
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/79-billion-spent-and-counting-still-no-proof-of-agw/
Please do your research before saying something so I do not have to waste my time trying to educate you.
As for AGW, again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Consensus is not science. never use this as an argument for or against a scientific theory. Second, there is no consensus.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=50
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
And I could provide hundreds more but running out of space.
My point, before answering, do the research. here are some topics for you.
Hockey Stick Debate
Sea Level rise
Ice melting
And do not use any main stream media sources, as they are worthless.
Lothringer,
A military has a use. It protects the citizens of the country from annialation. But that is not the issue, so forget the argument.
yes, science is very important. Otherwise, we would still be in caves. But chasing a theory because you want it to be true is idiocy. The theory may not be disproved, but it has enough doubt that we should stop wasting money on it.
Not a single life can be attributed to AGW. The world has always had droughts and floods. Even the hurricane levels are low now compared to historical. We can save MILLIONS next year and absolutely know we saved these children and people, or, we can keep pretending the world is going to end and waste more money trying desperately to prove it.
BTW, the world has been warmer than now, and the population expanded and humans prospered during it.
Andy,
You have a point, but this is not the time or place to debate it.
James,
Sorry, but again, that is another topic.
Many of you have pointed out the $75 BILLION is just from US spending. You are correct. You are also correct that this is only the direct cost. I have not looked at the indirect cost.
nor have I looked at the cost in lives from such idiotic policies as using our food for fuel. These topics are for another post as we could go on forever.
Pegminer,
No one would say studying the environment is worthless. But come on, look at some actual data once in a while. Compare how much was spent on climate research 30 years ago to now. The amount being thrown at AGW is staggering. If you had studied economics, then you would know that when resources are used for something, something else gets less resources. I am not saying the money would have been used to actually save people, but one can imagine how many people could have been helped if a portion of this money had been used to actually help people.