OURScott
Favorite Answer
It's such a no-brainer.
Quit burning oil or...
Develop and implement clean energy or...
Develop weather modification technology...
It's probably going to take a combination of all three but to do nothing is dangerous, stupid and costly.
The first option might destroy a few jobs in the oil sector but the other two would create jobs.....
One more thing - Whether climate change is man-made or natural, create more jobs by moving populations out of known flood, drought and earthquake areas, they're only going to become more and more vulnerable to disasters........
Rich
Wrong about what? About the increase in global temperature that didn't happen? About the catastrophe that accompanies 7 billion people, most of which is caused by greed and hatred, much like that propagated by Global Warming believers? That's what Global Warming is about: population control, not climate. Spending money on wind farms or solar power projects that spawn greed, that are inefficient, that end in failure...that is destructive to society. It has increased energy costs, in a very short time. Too short a time for proper adaptation and adjustment. If I'm right, we will have time to adapt and adjust with proper resources allocated not to scam power schemes, but to wise development and management of resources.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
"Anti-Climate Changers" That would be me, as I don't think it is smart to change the climate if we can prevent it.
If I am wrong the harm we will have done is by spending more money locally and on small projects (solar on the roof) rather then internationally (oil/coal) imports.
Anonymous
The cosmic what-if question. This is the beauty of my stance. I am completely for making smart changes that allows us to reduce our CO2 output in an economically feasible manner. My methods would not only be MORE effective than the current warming solution of taxing every to death, but it would be far easier to pass through Congress.
Personally, even if the climate change was larger than I expected, my paln works better, and I personally would rather have a strong economy when we have to deal with problems, than to have a weak economy.
But I am not even going to ask you all to look at teh what-ifs. Look at the here and now. Do you want to stop third world countries from having power, when this woudl dramatically save lives? Do you want to pay a proposed tax, without even knowing the effect of the tax on the CO2 production, let alone the effect on the climate?
?
Who are the anti-climate changers you are referring? People who are against climate change, or skeptics of the science?
Assuming you mean skeptics, if we are wrong then it means carbon emissions will increase a little bit more than they otherwise would, and the climate will warm an additional few tenths of a degree.
China is the world's leading emitter, and with India accounts for one-third of climate emissions, more than USA and Europe combined.