If it turns out that the global warming deniers are wrong, and billions of people around the world ...?

The flooding in Pakistan alone has already cost U.S. taxpayers $150 Million. Taxpayers in the EU are already paying $180 Million. U.S. aid to battle fires is Russia was $4.5 Million.

Such extreme weather events have become more common and they will continue to become even more common. That is not hypothetical.

Deniers will not have a choice as to whether to pay to help people, to rebuild and to adapt. It will be sucked out of their paycheck in taxes. It is ironic that for all their whining about taxes, delaying action will only increase taxes and as overall worldwide GNP is retarded.

Deniers want tax payers to shoulder the costs of adaptation. Ironically it was the big government Democrats who tried to push forward a free-market system that put the costs on the shoulders of companies that are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

It is just weird. It is people who call themselves conservatives who are pushing for the big-government, big-tax adaptation strategies, and Democrats who are pushing for a marketplace mitigation strategy. In the U.S. at least, people who call themselves conservatives have gone screwy.

study this e book. You sound such as you artwork at a school or some thing, its probable in there. comparable guy who wrote Emotional Intelligence. ____ observing various the solutions and remembering a remark that I heard presently that human beings have the main climate replace deniers - i will not be able to help yet ask your self whether there are some persons influencing the yank media campaigns. those persons would have the point of impression over the accepted inhabitants to effect in human beings being waiting to assert 'smart popular human beings think of that international warming is a loopy hippie left wing, concern mongering load of carp". specific, that's top... the fish. lol

When someone is in denial, they won't even entertain the notion that they *could* be wrong. I think that your question defines who are deniers in this section quite nicely... Well done!

I'd like to point out to various deniers who whine about the difference between GW and AGW that various of you at different times will argue that the planet isn't even warming, is warming naturally, or is warming due to man, but is a good thing. If you would make up your minds and stick to one excuse to avoid acting responsibly, you could probably make a more significant argument...

Edit: [>>quotes<< are from bravozulu's answer]

>>There is no need to phrase it as a hypothetical.<<

Yes, there is. Unless it is proven one way or the other...

>>We live in the real world.<<

I'm skeptical that you live in the real world.

>>We skeptics are right.<<

That's the silliest thing that I've ever heard. How can you *know* that you're right if you're skeptical?

Of course, the rest of your logic is equally compelling, so I really shouldn't be so surprised.

>>It is simply engaging in fantasy to speculate about what might happen.<<

Some in business, and of course in science, and of course in just about *any* other field, speculate/project/forecast. You can't go through life simply reacting to what's going on around you. Having an idea of what may happen so that you can be prepared is *not* "engaging in fantasy".

>>If the worst case scenarios happen, then some people are going to be screwed.<<

And you're perfectly alright with that? Or are you simply sure that *you* aren't going to be one of the screwed and therefor couldn't care less?

>>In the most likely scenario, it will greatly benefit people by increasing crop yields and making it very slightly warmer.<<

I see... So it's OK for *you* to be "engaging in fantasy" because *you* are just so much better and smarter than anyone else.

>>The rest is just baseless paranoia.<<

The base in question is thousands of research papers published by thousands of scientists. I think that what is baseless is that your opinion is based in reality.

_

The whole point of being in denial is to avoid any moral, ethical or financial obligation to help their fellow man. It's very convenient and very selfish and that's why they do it.

There is no need to phrase it as a hypothetical. We live in the real world. We skeptics are right. It is simply engaging in fantasy to speculate about what might happen. If the worst case scenarios happen, then some people are going to be screwed. In the most likely scenario, it will greatly benefit people by increasing crop yields and making it very slightly warmer. The rest is just baseless paranoia.

Religious evangelists use the same argument - what if you're wrong and you go to hell.

Global warming is a lot like a religious cult.

You knew a challenge would appear, what makes alarmist think mass migration hasn't occurred due to climate change. A long ancient history sets the precedence for mankind's territorial exploits, which have continued to the present. I've always wondered why alarmist consider GW/CC as a static process, nether sea level, or weather are thought of as uniform. Your more then welcome to prove me wrong.

Hypothetically I would suggest moving inland away from areas prone to flooding and erosion. Most intelligent people would consider that as a viable option.

What if you are wrong and the skeptics are right. The technology for alternative energy is not there and billions of people throughout the world suffer economic hardship and general hardship due to lack of energy. Are you willing to live with that?

The climate ALWAYS changes, and people constantly adapt to their surroundings.

Anyone who needs to move based on 3mm sea rise should be able to survive.

You forgot a word, anthropogenic. Was that purposeful on your part or do you think it is OK to be vague. Do you think it is scientific to use words and phrases that don't have any real scientific definition and then pretend ot have science on your side? I don't. What is global warming?

I have read a great deal about it and still I have no idea what it means. As a scientist, I require a specific definition. You cannot make any judgments about cause and effect without it IMO.

the deniers will continue denying and it will be left to a precious few to try and save the world (that sounds like movie but it's true :P)