Quote:Well if we're wrong it won't affect any of us now will it.
Who gives a flying crap what we leave behind for generations three time removed and beyond right?
Quote:It's the baby boomer motto: Spend what the previous generation gave you, then borrow against the future of the next generation and spend that as well. Who cares about the bill, when that comes due you'll be long dead anyway!
It is incumbent on the AGCC interventionists to prove three things.
1.) That Human activity is significantly contributing to a disruption of the climate cycle.
2.) That this disruption is a net negative approaching catastrophe
3.) That the solutions they propose will have a net positive effect when weighed against the economic costs in the short run.
The data points against point 1. the only thing that most people actually quote to support it is a bogus 97% number to try and support the idea of consensus when in reality a.) that number was basically fabricated, b.) Science has nothing to do with consensus. The scientific method is about studying natural law through observable, verifiable, reproducible means. The data for the past 20 years specifically, the raw data from the ice cores, the nature of CO2 in relation to other greenhouse gasses (specifically water vapor) and the present of a variable fusion engine in the center of the Solar system all diverge from point 1, not coincide with it.
As for point 2, the AGCC interventionists refuse to acknowledge that a.) plants thrive on c02, and b.) there have been times in our planets history where the overall climate has been much more tropical and that there haven't been any ice caps at the polls in the way that we think of them now and those times have coincided with flourishing surface habitation, not extinction!
Point 3.) Demonstrates that frankly there is a lack of seriousness. The party of SCIENCE seems purposefully ignorant to basic economic truths. At its core, price is a reflection of the labor and resources needed to produce a good or service. if everything they think about the first two points is absolutely true then that doesn't matter if their solutions don't work. Something costs more because it takes more resources to bring it to market. That is the current state of most alternative fuels, and in some cases there aren't any real alternatives to power certain aspects of mass transit other than fossil fuels. If it takes more resources to bring a good or service to the market then while it sounds HEALTHY on the surface it can actually increase the output of CO2. Case and point with certain batteries for Hybrid Cars, Wind power that requires generators, electric cars that have to be charged on fossil fuel grids. etc. etc.
If they were serious about reducing the carbon footprint we would be talking about expanding nuclear power and natural gas. Those are power sources that can seamlessly integrate into our economy and not cause a reduction in our way of life. They would reduce CO2 emissions and not cause any pain. The fact that these two ideas aren't at the forefront of the AGCC interventionists agenda is the key to understanding that their real agenda is steeped in an intellectual masochism that it takes Ray Stantz to fully explain (check the deleted scenes from the original movie to see that this predates Global Warming alarmism.)
