Doug3370 Wrote (10:48 AM): "(1) It isn't a matter of adjusting to a little bit of climate change. It's a matter of avoiding a ruinous amount of it. There is no getting around it: we simply must rein in, then reduce our CO2 emissions. China, the US, Europe, everybody.
(2) How much it will cost depends on how efficiently we do it..."
You can do your part, Doug, by ceasing to breath. With every breath you take you expel CO2. YOU are polluting the air.
We've heard another State of the Union speech, and my president said grand things like:
"Think about ... a future where we're in control of our own energy ... I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China ... I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury poisoning ..."
Actually, he said that in 2012. I write before this year's speech, but he says basically the same thing every year: With more spending, government can fix everything.
But I have this dream -- one where my president walks to the podium, and he instead...
1) The evidence (for or against) global warming won't be available for 150 years, because statistical analysis needs a valid sample. If you are going to raise the NAME of science, I'm afraid you will eventually be called upon to apply the correct PROCESS of science. Sorry.
2) Based on the geologic record, high CO2 = high biodiversity...which is good, right? Therefore calling CO2 'pollution' is the _opposite_ of the truth.
Bye now!
The cause is currency debasement, because favoring debtors tends to create a 'live for today' attitude throughout society.
If I enjoy a 32 oz drink, and someone else thinks it's virtuous to drink at most 16 oz drinks, they won't convice me a 32 oz drink isn't virtuous. If someone thinks my drinking some wine isn't virtuous, I'll point to Jesus making wine from water.
Is there ever virtue in forcing others to do things they don't want to do (when their actions harm no one except arguably themselves)? I say no.