What do you think of the words "we can not afford combat climate change" ?

I think it's a completely ignorant statement.

First off, not combatting global warming will cost a ton of money in the long run. A UK study concluded it would cost 5-20% of global GDP annually. In comparison, mitigation would cost a fraction of a percent of global GDP per year. In fact, Florida and California studies showed that the states would save money by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.

Myth #11: http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-m...

Obama has developed a plan to invest in green energy and technology in the USA while creating jobs to improve our economy in the process.

Anyone who thinks that addressing global warming is "too costly" just plain doesn't get it. So it wouldn't surprise me if that became the main denier talking point once they get over this "global warming has magically stopped" nonsense. Neither argument has an ounce of credibility though.

In my humble opinion Sun Spot activity has more effect on the earths climate than any other measurable actions. You could take mankind off the face of the earth so that humans have no effect on the environment and you would see climate changes that correlate with sunspots. Always have and always will. That being said sunspot activity has not been well documented for very long. But, then again accurate temperature readings only go back a few hundred years. So unless you figure out a way to control sunspots all the money you can throw at "Global Warming" will not change the environment one diddly squat! But hey, if spending a few trillion dollars of other peoples money, makes you feel better, give yourself a warm fuzzy hug. Because that makes you a Tree Hugging Lib.

Even the most ardent supporter of AGW will admit that the 'cure' for the 'problem' of AGW happens to fit their own political agenda-that is no surprise. They are as a group, socialists, greenies, liberals, econazis and those who wish to force their particular 'religion', that is the worship of the earth, on the rest of us. Even their leading 'priest' Al Gore, who by the way, lives a very 'active' carbon producing lifestyle, with private jets, and 100 foot houseboats, and a house the size of Rhode Island, suggest that even though some of the information generated by his 'theory' is based upon erroneous information, that is acceptable in that it creates 'meaningful discourse' with other groups...in effect, it is ok to lie because it just generates good conversation with other opposing groups. This after proclaiming 'the debate is over'. Politicians are such endearing people, don't they just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over!

A popular denier quote is we (humans) don't have the power to have caused this. If GW is the result of increased co2 released by humans then we have the power to reduce these outputs.

If we do nothing we certainly don't have the power to stop sea rise.

Global warming is a silly lie, and any time spend trying to change the workings of the sun is retarded.

There is no possibility of a man mad global climate crisis.

Cheap energy is what has made this last century the most prosperous ever. Maybe you yearn for simpler days,and feel that you can afford to travel in a sedan chair carried by formerly middle class people. But the poorest will find the goods they NEED priced beyond their reach, and they will not go into the dark quietly. Do you live in a city?

This is probably true.

Man can easily adapt to whatever global warming brings.

The problem is during good economic times, people are willing to spend money and get nothing in return. in tough times, people expect results from money spent.

The AGW crowd has plans to spend billions on schemes to reduce CO2. The problem is, there own people realize that the money spent will result in little to no effect. Most people do not want to waste money on plans which even the organizers say will have little effect (not to mention the fact that the entire AGW theory has ZERO scientific evidence).

Imagine a factory spending billions on new equipment which does nothing more than increase their cost of manufacturing. No sane person would do this....except, the AGW crazies. They propose spending billions (maybe trillions) in order to increase the cost of energy (as we all know this increases much more than just energy). There is no beneficial aspect of their ideas. so in my book, they are either insane or bent on spreading the religion of AGW.

You can bet your bottom dollar that if there were actuary tables equating the cost of pollution to medical insurrance costs and/or the ability to perpetuate an ongoing cycle of full motrgage payers and/or the ability to complete the terms of credit card debt - The relative costs of global warming would all of a sudden change in the popular press.

That said, I think that the collective "we" are going to undergo some consumer culture change. For example, back when Amleda Marcos left her country, the tabloids were abuzz about her 200 pairs of shoes and her oppulant life style. Granted, I doubt is she had any $10-$25, Payless or Wal-Mart shoes in her collection. We do not have cable but in the past couple of years or so, we have gotten the show "Sex in the City" with its steady stream of consumerism. If one were to watch this show for very long, the concept of having 200 pairs of shoes to shod a single pair of feet would no longer be at all odd let alone abberant. Of course, to be able to pay for our volume of "things" that we drape on our bodies, on our walls, on our furniture, in our yards, and so on... We've had to rely on credit and go to increasingly, lesser costing items. In turn, we've created a culture of decreasing costs and replaceable fixtures in our business worlds as well; of course "labor" is but one of many reasources.

I suspect that the collective "we" consumers are entering a period of more considered purchasing as opposed to impulse purchasing. As we begin to make more conscious purchasing decisions we will begin to think more about the environmental and economic systems that produced and delivered our purchases to our door steps too. I suspect that we will be looking at products more in terms of cost per use, longetivity, and more as well.

Likewise, I think that as "we" the consumer start to think more about our purchases, "we" the business world will be taking additional looks at our processes, supplies, materials, resource allocations, and products. A number of things that assist in reducing global warming and promote healthy environments also save money in the daily operations of the business world. Many small and medium businesses are already discovering this and beginning to change. These changes are often not enough to make numerically visable changes in an area. But, like cutting costs or making individual "green" contributions at the household level, the benefits are not readily recognizable until you consider or calculate the alternative(s). While hard to "count", they do add up.

Big changes are and will cost more. In part, how the regulation we already have is assessed and interpreted helps to define the "cost of combatting climate change". Additional regulation and/or deregulation may also help to change the perspecitive on the cost of combatting global climate change. For example, the whole process of running liquid hazardous waste down a sink drain is the cheapest disposal method when considering direct cash flow; unless the sink blows up and you "get stuck" with some sort of L&I claim and plumbing repairs. Properly gathering, storing, and then disposing of the same chemical sits in the middle. Addressing regulators and paying for attorney fees, going through additional inspections and follow-up, paying daily fines, and then developing a proper handling and disposal system, is the most expensive route. I think that we may finially be concluding that maybe business in today's business climate is not capable of ethical self-regulation; it can't even manage sustainability for itself as a business entity in the ledgers.

In terms of immediate cost, it depends upon what immediate savings can be found at the same time. This may mean that the collective we, both households and business, may need to address the Reduce, Reuse, and Repurpose aspects of our processes and purchases then return those savings as investments to our processes rather than consume and spend those savings on additional extras. Speaking as a low income worker-bee, it would seem as if some of those bonuses and compensation packages given to the biggies would go a long way to putting scrubbers on smoke stacks, buying a few paper recycle bins on wheels for the offices, and more. Just as we "small fry" have little or no need for 20 to 200 pairs of shoes when our credit card debt is about to make us homeless, I'm not so sure that there are not some bigger dollars available within the business budgets for spending on global warming and/or environmental issues; and no, club memberships and green's fees to keep the golf courses "fertilizer and water" green is not what I'm thinking.

Many of us as individuals are being forced to address our reasource allocations; others of us are beginning to do so wit more choice. A number of businesses are being forced to do the same. According to some news report I just heard, even luxury shoe buyers have been more conservative with their sh

The whole global warming myth will die after the facts are published about our earth actually cooling.