Comments on: Warmer and Richer http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/warmer-and-rich.html Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:41:51 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: the constant skeptic http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/warmer-and-rich.html/comment-page-1#comment-552 the constant skeptic Sun, 10 Feb 2008 04:01:23 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/warmer-and-rich.html #comment-552 <p>Interesting points... so making the world richer will actually help the world have less of an impact on the geo-climate in the long term, just in the shorter term we will have to deal with warmer temperatures and more volatile seasonal weather patterns.</p> Interesting points… so making the world richer will actually help the world have less of an impact on the geo-climate in the long term, just in the shorter term we will have to deal with warmer temperatures and more volatile seasonal weather patterns.

]]> By: Doug http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/warmer-and-rich.html/comment-page-1#comment-551 Doug Thu, 07 Feb 2008 17:23:57 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/02/warmer-and-rich.html #comment-551 <p>Reading the comments below the original post, the AGW crowd categorically reject the report because: ta da! it's from a noted libertarian think tank (Cato)! They prefer to believe "their scientists." As one commenter said, "I’ll say that the probability of the quite negative effects of global warming is far higher than positive outcomes. SO, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DEAL WITH 'GLOBAL WARMING' post haste — that is, if it’s no too late already." In other words, so what if we screw up the world's economy and have to live in caves for the rest of our lives --- we owe it to our children. Presumably they think life will go on as normal even if we adopt Kyoto-times-1000.</p> <p>The entire issue seems to boil down to who you choose to believe, "your scientists or my scientists." It is so politicized that the word "science" cannot possibly apply anymore.</p> Reading the comments below the original post, the AGW crowd categorically reject the report because: ta da! it’s from a noted libertarian think tank (Cato)! They prefer to believe “their scientists.” As one commenter said, “I’ll say that the probability of the quite negative effects of global warming is far higher than positive outcomes. SO, I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DEAL WITH ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ post haste — that is, if it’s no too late already.” In other words, so what if we screw up the world’s economy and have to live in caves for the rest of our lives — we owe it to our children. Presumably they think life will go on as normal even if we adopt Kyoto-times-1000.

The entire issue seems to boil down to who you choose to believe, “your scientists or my scientists.” It is so politicized that the word “science” cannot possibly apply anymore.

]]>