US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

And it's "cite" not "site" you illiterate poser!

 

[Oldstyle]

And testimony does not require that someone be under oath. It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something. People give testimony in church and they are not under oath. Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie! That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!

 

[Rshermr]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

![/QUOTE]

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.

 

[Rshermr]

And testimony does not require that someone be under oath. It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something. People give testimony in church and they are not under oath. Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie! That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!

No problem to fight that battle. Here:
tes·ti·mo·ny
ˈtestəˌmōnē/
noun
a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.

synonyms: evidence, sworn statement, attestation, affidavit;

OR:
Testimony

• something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
  
  
• : proof or evidence that something exists or is true
  Definition of TESTIMONY

What evidence is not is a written article with no sworn statements or evidence of truth. What you were talking about was the opinion of various authors, all with no way of proving what they were saying. Also known as expert opinion. But not testimony.

Your welcome you illiterate poser.

 

[Oldstyle]

And testimony does not require that someone be under oath. It can simply mean an open acknowledgment of something. People give testimony in church and they are not under oath. Don't even try and correct my word usage, Georgie! That's a battle that you're ill prepared to fight...especially if you don't have your "secretary" here to help you!

No problem to fight that battle. Here:
tes·ti·mo·ny
ˈtestəˌmōnē/
noun
a formal written or spoken statement, especially one given in a court of law.

synonyms: evidence, sworn statement, attestation, affidavit;

OR:
Testimony

• 
  
  
  • something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
  • : proof or evidence that something exists or is true
    Definition of TESTIMONY

What evidence is not is a written article with no sworn statements or evidence of truth. What you were talking about was the opinion of various authors, all with no way of proving what they were saying. Also known as expert opinion. But not testimony.

Your welcome you illiterate poser.

I thought you just declared that you don't use "partial sources", Georgie? Then you turn around in practically your next post and use one definition of testimony while excluding the others? It's stuff like this that makes you the joke that you are on this site! One more example of how you're practically allergic to the truth!

 

[Oldstyle]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

!

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print. [/QUOTE]

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others. You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it. Why did I call you on the others? Because I know what a sleaze you are. I know that you love to cherry pick your information. So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims. So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy!

 

[Rshermr]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

!

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others. You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it. Why did I call you on the others? Because I know what a sleaze you are. I know that you love to cherry pick your information. So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims. So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy![/QUOTE]

Damn. You are really ignorant. You still do not know what a link is. Or so you say.. Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar? Of course it could be.
I did not provide anything, dipshit. I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements. You followed the link I provided, and that you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article. And said I tried to hide them from you. Which I did not. Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks. Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source. dipshit.

 

[Oldstyle]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

!

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others. You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it. Why did I call you on the others? Because I know what a sleaze you are. I know that you love to cherry pick your information. So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims. So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy!

Damn. You are really ignorant. You still do not know what a link is. Or so you say.. Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar? Of course it could be.
I did not provide anything, dipshit. I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements. You followed the link I provided, and that you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article. And said I tried to hide them from you. Which I did not. Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks. Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source. dipshit.[/QUOTE]

You posted the two articles that supported your claims while you failed to provide a link to the others that did not until I called you on it. Only then was I able to see what it was that you were attempting to hide. That's not posting impartial sources, you buffoon...that's the very definition of "cherry picking"!

 

[Oldstyle]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

 

[Rshermr]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

!

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others. You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it. Why did I call you on the others? Because I know what a sleaze you are. I know that you love to cherry pick your information. So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims. So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy!

Damn. You are really ignorant. You still do not know what a link is. Or so you say.. Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar? Of course it could be.
I did not provide anything, dipshit. I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements. You followed the link I provided, and that you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article. And said I tried to hide them from you. Which I did not. Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks. Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source. dipshit.

You posted the two articles that supported your claims while you failed to provide a link to the others that did not until I called you on it. Only then was I able to see what it was that you were attempting to hide. That's not posting impartial sources, you buffoon...that's the very definition of "cherry picking"![/QUOTE]
the link was provided for all five pieces, which were in a single article. Quit lying, if you are capable.

 

[Oldstyle]

So let me get this straight...you cite a source that has the views of 5 "experts" on the effects of Cap & Trade on the US economy and then you provide the articles of only the ones that support your position...but when I finally get you to provide the others...and present what THEY say...you accuse ME of using "bat shit crazy con" sources?

You claim that you don't use "partial sources"? You only used the articles of the "experts" that you liked and hid the articles of the one's that you didn't. What you did is the epitome of using partial sources!

You're a joke...seriously...a complete and total joke
!

!

Oldstyle. You are the joke. Here. Read this carefully and try to understand.
Ok, ok. Here I am having to educate you again. So, are you really that stupid, or are you simply playing games. I should charge you for the education that you choose not to understand.

I provided you a source with 5 articles from 5 different web locations and 5 corresponding writers. I provided you a LINK to the article. So nothing, me boy, was hidden. Providing the link to the article is exactly the opposite of hiding anything. At all. All were available to you. The reason you are confused is obvious. You do not provide sources for your statements. And therefor you never provide links. So, sorry you are so confused. And only someone who is a complete con troll would say they do not understand. Because, me boy, as usual, you are lying. As always.

And, for your education, the large bold red print is because these things have been explained to you before, in normal sized print, and you apparently decided to not understand what was said. Hope this helps. If you do not get it this time, we will know you are simply lying and playing games. And again showing that you have not respect for other people's time, and love to see yourself in print.

No, what you did was provide part of the 5 writers...the ones that agreed with your contention...while you failed to provide the others. You didn't provide the link that led to those other articles until I called you on it. Why did I call you on the others? Because I know what a sleaze you are. I know that you love to cherry pick your information. So I shamed you into providing the link for the other articles...and guess what!...the ones that you tried your best to hide totally contradict your claims. So the source that you cited didn't prove anything other than people like yourself were willing to ignore those who cautioned against imposing Cap & Trade legislation on an already weak economy!

Damn. You are really ignorant. You still do not know what a link is. Or so you say.. Coule it be, me boy, tat you are simply a liar? Of course it could be.
I did not provide anything, dipshit. I provided a link to all and posted one or two of the impartial source statements. You followed the link I provided, and that you say did not exist, and looked at the entire article. And said I tried to hide them from you. Which I did not. Because a link proves just the opposite to anyone with a brain.
So, lying and personal attacks. Did you have any rational and impartial sources that suggest that cap and trade is a large problem?]
Or do you only have a nut case partial source. dipshit.

You posted the two articles that supported your claims while you failed to provide a link to the others that did not until I called you on it. Only then was I able to see what it was that you were attempting to hide. That's not posting impartial sources, you buffoon...that's the very definition of "cherry picking"!

the link was provided for all five pieces, which were in a single article. Quit lying, if you are capable.[/QUOTE]

The link for the opposing views to the ones you cherry picked was only provided after I pointed out that you hadn't provided all of the 5 "experts". I know how you operate, Georgie! I knew you were hiding something before I saw the other articles. You're the poster child for sleaze on this board.

 

[Oldstyle]

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

 

[Rshermr]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

 

[Rshermr]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

No cherry picking, me poor ignorant con troll. I would never, ever provide a bat shit crazy liberal source. Because I have integrity. Now, I know you are feigning confusion, and I know that you are stupid, and that you are a con troll. But anyone, anywhere, knows that you do not use a source like the competitive enterprise institute, because it just proves that you care nothing about truth, and nothing about integrity. Because you prove that you are going to take the completely partial information of a source that no honest person would ever use. Which if you wanted to prove anything, simply proves that what you are saying does not pass the giggle test.

But then, you follow the link that I provided and say I provided you no link. Perhaps you would like to explain why anyone would pay any attention to you at all. You are simply a lying shit. Just a low life. Have you noticed that very few even look at this thread? Because of the drivel and lies that you post, and the games you play.

So, do you not care at all about climate change?

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?

I think you have nothing except con talking points,

 

[Rshermr]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

Funny. A con troll who is a food services employee, and who has had two classes in economics, and never, ever makes an economic argument suggests that I know nothing about economics. Wow. I am so concerned about that, me boy. A clown like you who only posts con talking points, lies, and drivel, is criticizing my knowledge of economics. Yeah, I really worry a lot about that. Do you really believe anyone takes you seriously?
Any time, in the far distant past, when you tried to make an economic argument, it was based on lies. And was a complete joke.
So, the current issue is climate change cost, which you can not argue because you can not find an impartial source to use. You have NO idea of what the costs of carbon controls are. Nor do you have any idea of what doing nothing and allowing climate change would cost. Let me educate you again, me boy. Here is an impartial source that made the effort to try to quantify the costs.

Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
Arguments that climate adaptation is cheaper are like fruit salad – lemons, bananas, and comparing apples to oranges

Preventing global warming is the cheapest option.


Dana Nuccitelli

Tuesday 22 April 2014 10.16 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 23 April 201420.15 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...global-warming-cheaper-than-adapting#comments
The IPCC has now released all three of the reports that comprise its 2014 Fifth Assessment of climate science. The first report tackled the physical changes in the global climate, while the second addressed climate impacts and adaptation, and the third looked at climate change mitigation. Ironically, after the second report was published, many media outlets argued that the IPCC was shifting its focus from global warming prevention to adaptation, seemingly unaware that its report on mitigation was scheduled to be published just a few weeks later.

Other media outlets have incorrectly argued that the IPCC reports conclude it's cheaper to adapt than avoid climate change. This error stems from the fact that the second report says about the costs of climate damages,

"the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income ... Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range ... Losses accelerate with greater warming, but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above."

The third report then said about the costs of avoiding global warming,

"mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation ... [that] correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year."

The challenge is that these two numbers aren't directly comparable. One deals with annual global economic losses, while the other is expressed as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.

Sorting Out the Numbers with Chris Hope
To sort these numbers out, I spoke with Cambridge climate economist Chris Hope, who told me that if the goal is to figure out the economically optimal amount of global warming mitigation, the IPCC reports "don't take us far down this road." To do this comparison properly, the benefits of reduced climate damages and the costs of reduced greenhouse gas emissions need to be compared in terms of "net present value." That's the sort of estimate Integrated Assessment Models like Hope's PAGE were set up to make.

According to Hope's model, the economically optimal peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 500 ppm, with a peak global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures (about 2°C warmer than present). In his book The Climate Casino, Yale economist William Nordhaus notes that he has arrived at a similar conclusion in his modeling research.

To limit global warming to that level would require major efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but as the IPCC report on mitigation noted, that would only slow the global economic growth rate from about 2.3% per year to about 2.24% per year. According to these economic models, this slowed economic growth rate would be more than offset by the savings from avoiding climate damages above 3°C global warming.

Although the IPCC didn't make this comparison, these economic modeling results are consistent with its reports. As shown in the quote above, the second report was only able to estimate the costs of climate damages for an additional 2°C of global warming, and noted that beyond that point, the costs accelerate to a point where they become very difficult to estimate. Nordhaus has similarly noted,

"In reality, estimates of damage functions are virtually non-existent for temperature increases above 3°C."

Australian and Turkish Fruit Salad
Author and analyst Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has been the most prominent voice in incorrectly claiming the IPCC concluded that climate adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation. For example, he was interviewed in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian, and authored a piece in the Turkish Today's Zaman.

Both pieces are lemons for the same reasons. Lomborg argued,

"If we don't do anything, the damages caused by climate change will cost less than 2 per cent of GDP in about 2070. Yet the cost of doing something will likely be higher than 6 per cent of GDP, according to the IPCC report"

This compares the annual global economic losses figure for 2°C additional warming in the second report with the slowed global consumption growth figures to limit the warming to another 1°C in the third report. The problem is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. The former tells us the cost of climate damages in a scenario where we also take significant steps to slow global warming. It's not the cost of adaptation if we continue with business as usual, which would result in another 4°C warming by 2100 and incalculable damage costs.

Without the modeling tools used by economists like Hope and Nordhaus, these figures can't properly be put into an apples to apples comparison. Both the costs of mitigating and the costs of adapting to climate damages must be taken into account. I discussed this point with Lomborg and he agreed,

"I agree that the right way to look at the climate issue is to run integrated models and finding where the costs and the benefits are equal (so we don't underinvest in climate but don't over-invest either) ... However, the UN Climate Panel actively decided in 1998 to *not* do cost-benefit of climate."

So Lomborg and Hope agree that the IPCC reports don't allow for a simple comparison between the costs of global warming prevention and adaptation. Lomborg used the two figures discussed above to make the only comparison possible from the reports, but this is an incorrect comparison, and inconsistent with the results from economic models.

Lomborg also cherry picked the year 2070 to make his economic comparison between the costs of adaptation and mitigation. Why 2070? By that point, in a business-as-usual scenario the planet probably won't have warmed much more than 2°C compared to current temperatures. The problem with this cherry pick is that the world won't end in 2070; in fact, most of today's children will still be alive in 2070. If we continue on that business-as-usual path, global warming will continue to accelerate after 2070, past the point where economists can't even accurately estimate its accelerating costs. That's bananas.

IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes in a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5; red) and low emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue).
Another problem in this argument is that as shown in the second quote above, the IPCC estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are "not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation." For example, the cleaner air and water, and associated health benefits that come with transitioning away from dirty high-carbon energy sources save money that the IPCC doesn't take into account. So the costs of avoiding global warming would in reality likely be even less than the estimated 0.06% per year slowing in the rate at which the global economy continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the IPCC noted that the costs of climate damages for just another 2°C warming "are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller" than its estimates. And if we don't take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we'll blow past 2°C warming into uncharted economic damage territory.

Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting
The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios.

"Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs"

It's important to understand that our choices aren't to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it,

"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"

 

[Oldstyle]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

No cherry picking, me poor ignorant con troll. I would never, ever provide a bat shit crazy liberal source. Because I have integrity. Now, I know you are feigning confusion, and I know that you are stupid, and that you are a con troll. But anyone, anywhere, knows that you do not use a source like the competitive enterprise institute, because it just proves that you care nothing about truth, and nothing about integrity. Because you prove that you are going to take the completely partial information of a source that no honest person would ever use. Which if you wanted to prove anything, simply proves that what you are saying does not pass the giggle test.

But then, you follow the link that I provided and say I provided you no link. Perhaps you would like to explain why anyone would pay any attention to you at all. You are simply a lying shit. Just a low life. Have you noticed that very few even look at this thread? Because of the drivel and lies that you post, and the games you play.

So, do you not care at all about climate change?

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?

I think you have nothing except con talking points,

Stopping climate change? Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change? We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now! That's idiotic even for a progressive!

For some strange reason you liberals think imposing higher energy costs HERE (and only the truly clueless won't admit that energy costs have to go up with a Cap & Trade system!) will lessen climate change worldwide! Anyone who understands the global economy knows only too well that what will happen will be a tidal wave of industry leavign the US and going to countries that have no such system...like China...who will continue to spew out even more pollution because of the additional industry. Now if you could figure out some way to compartmentalize countries like China and India from the rest of the world so their pollution won't spill over to affect us you might make things better but that's not going to happen. So what will you have done? You'll have shifted industry from a country where in comparison to other places, we don't pollute...to countries that are serial polluters! So not only will you burden Americans with higher energy costs...you'll drive jobs out of the country...and as the icing on the cake...you'll not reduce worldwide pollution one bit and might even increase it!

Common sense is the enemy of the average Progressive. They pass laws because they think it will fix things but invariably at the end of the day you buffoons create more problems then you solve.

 

[Oldstyle]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

Funny. A con troll who is a food services employee, and who has had two classes in economics, and never, ever makes an economic argument suggests that I know nothing about economics. Wow. I am so concerned about that, me boy. A clown like you who only posts con talking points, lies, and drivel, is criticizing my knowledge of economics. Yeah, I really worry a lot about that. Do you really believe anyone takes you seriously?
Any time, in the far distant past, when you tried to make an economic argument, it was based on lies. And was a complete joke.
So, the current issue is climate change cost, which you can not argue because you can not find an impartial source to use. You have NO idea of what the costs of carbon controls are. Nor do you have any idea of what doing nothing and allowing climate change would cost. Let me educate you again, me boy. Here is an impartial source that made the effort to try to quantify the costs.

Climate dollars and sense – preventing global warming is the cheap option
Arguments that climate adaptation is cheaper are like fruit salad – lemons, bananas, and comparing apples to oranges

Preventing global warming is the cheapest option.


Dana Nuccitelli

Tuesday 22 April 2014 10.16 EDTLast modified on Wednesday 23 April 201420.15 EDT
The IPCC has now released all three of the reports that comprise its 2014 Fifth Assessment of climate science. The first report tackled the physical changes in the global climate, while the second addressed climate impacts and adaptation, and the third looked at climate change mitigation. Ironically, after the second report was published, many media outlets argued that the IPCC was shifting its focus from global warming prevention to adaptation, seemingly unaware that its report on mitigation was scheduled to be published just a few weeks later.

Other media outlets have incorrectly argued that the IPCC reports conclude it's cheaper to adapt than avoid climate change. This error stems from the fact that the second report says about the costs of climate damages,

"the incomplete estimates of global annual economic losses for additional temperature increases of ~2°C are between 0.2 and 2.0% of income ... Losses are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller, than this range ... Losses accelerate with greater warming, but few quantitative estimates have been completed for additional warming around 3°C or above."

The third report then said about the costs of avoiding global warming,

"mitigation scenarios that reach atmospheric concentrations of about 450ppm CO2eq by 2100 entail losses in global consumption—not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation ... [that] correspond to an annualized reduction of consumption growth by 0.04 to 0.14 (median: 0.06) percentage points over the century relative to annualized consumption growth in the baseline that is between 1.6% and 3% per year."

The challenge is that these two numbers aren't directly comparable. One deals with annual global economic losses, while the other is expressed as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.

Sorting Out the Numbers with Chris Hope
To sort these numbers out, I spoke with Cambridge climate economist Chris Hope, who told me that if the goal is to figure out the economically optimal amount of global warming mitigation, the IPCC reports "don't take us far down this road." To do this comparison properly, the benefits of reduced climate damages and the costs of reduced greenhouse gas emissions need to be compared in terms of "net present value." That's the sort of estimate Integrated Assessment Models like Hope's PAGE were set up to make.

According to Hope's model, the economically optimal peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 500 ppm, with a peak global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures (about 2°C warmer than present). In his book The Climate Casino, Yale economist William Nordhaus notes that he has arrived at a similar conclusion in his modeling research.

To limit global warming to that level would require major efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but as the IPCC report on mitigation noted, that would only slow the global economic growth rate from about 2.3% per year to about 2.24% per year. According to these economic models, this slowed economic growth rate would be more than offset by the savings from avoiding climate damages above 3°C global warming.

Although the IPCC didn't make this comparison, these economic modeling results are consistent with its reports. As shown in the quote above, the second report was only able to estimate the costs of climate damages for an additional 2°C of global warming, and noted that beyond that point, the costs accelerate to a point where they become very difficult to estimate. Nordhaus has similarly noted,

"In reality, estimates of damage functions are virtually non-existent for temperature increases above 3°C."

Australian and Turkish Fruit Salad
Author and analyst Bjorn Lomborg of the Copenhagen Consensus Center has been the most prominent voice in incorrectly claiming the IPCC concluded that climate adaptation would be cheaper than mitigation. For example, he was interviewed in Rupert Murdoch's The Australian, and authored a piece in the Turkish Today's Zaman.

Both pieces are lemons for the same reasons. Lomborg argued,

"If we don't do anything, the damages caused by climate change will cost less than 2 per cent of GDP in about 2070. Yet the cost of doing something will likely be higher than 6 per cent of GDP, according to the IPCC report"

This compares the annual global economic losses figure for 2°C additional warming in the second report with the slowed global consumption growth figures to limit the warming to another 1°C in the third report. The problem is that this is an apples and oranges comparison. The former tells us the cost of climate damages in a scenario where we also take significant steps to slow global warming. It's not the cost of adaptation if we continue with business as usual, which would result in another 4°C warming by 2100 and incalculable damage costs.

Without the modeling tools used by economists like Hope and Nordhaus, these figures can't properly be put into an apples to apples comparison. Both the costs of mitigating and the costs of adapting to climate damages must be taken into account. I discussed this point with Lomborg and he agreed,

"I agree that the right way to look at the climate issue is to run integrated models and finding where the costs and the benefits are equal (so we don't underinvest in climate but don't over-invest either) ... However, the UN Climate Panel actively decided in 1998 to *not* do cost-benefit of climate."

So Lomborg and Hope agree that the IPCC reports don't allow for a simple comparison between the costs of global warming prevention and adaptation. Lomborg used the two figures discussed above to make the only comparison possible from the reports, but this is an incorrect comparison, and inconsistent with the results from economic models.

Lomborg also cherry picked the year 2070 to make his economic comparison between the costs of adaptation and mitigation. Why 2070? By that point, in a business-as-usual scenario the planet probably won't have warmed much more than 2°C compared to current temperatures. The problem with this cherry pick is that the world won't end in 2070; in fact, most of today's children will still be alive in 2070. If we continue on that business-as-usual path, global warming will continue to accelerate after 2070, past the point where economists can't even accurately estimate its accelerating costs. That's bananas.

IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes in a business as usual scenario (RCP8.5; red) and low emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue).
Another problem in this argument is that as shown in the second quote above, the IPCC estimates of the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions are "not including benefits of reduced climate change as well as cobenefits and adverse side‐effects of mitigation." For example, the cleaner air and water, and associated health benefits that come with transitioning away from dirty high-carbon energy sources save money that the IPCC doesn't take into account. So the costs of avoiding global warming would in reality likely be even less than the estimated 0.06% per year slowing in the rate at which the global economy continues to grow.

Meanwhile, the IPCC noted that the costs of climate damages for just another 2°C warming "are more likely than not to be greater, rather than smaller" than its estimates. And if we don't take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we'll blow past 2°C warming into uncharted economic damage territory.

Avoiding Global Warming is Cheaper than Adapting
The bottom line is that economists can't even accurately estimate how much climate damages will cost if we fail to take serious steps to slow global warming. On the other hand, taking those steps can have a negligible impact on global economic growth. The IPCC report also makes the point that the longer we wait to reduce our emissions, the more expensive it will become. In determining that mitigating global warming is affordable, the IPCC used the following scenarios.

"Scenarios in which all countries of the world begin mitigation immediately, there is a single global carbon price, and all key technologies are available, have been used as a cost‐effective benchmark for estimating macroeconomic mitigation costs"

It's important to understand that our choices aren't to either reduce carbon emissions or to do nothing. Our options are to either reduce carbon emissions or to continue with business-as-usual emissions that will cause accelerating climate change and damage costs beyond what we can accurately estimate. From an economic perspective, and from a risk management perspective, this should be a no-brainer. As economist Paul Krugman put it,

"So is the climate threat solved? Well, it should be. The science is solid; the technology is there; the economics look far more favorable than anyone expected. All that stands in the way of saving the planet is a combination of ignorance, prejudice and vested interests. What could go wrong?"

Dana Nucitelli is an "impartial source"? Really, Georgie? Find me something he's written that isn't fervently anti fossil fuel and pro climate change! He's about as partial as they come! Every time you announce that you're about to provide an unbiased source...you invariably then immediately provide a source that's totally biased. It's like you can't help yourself.

 

[Rshermr]

You're STILL accusing me of using a "nut case partial source" when all I did was provide the other viewpoints of YOUR source? Wow, you are a piece of work!

thanks for admitting that you used my link to the sources. and, as I sa

Can't deny that you only gave one definition of testimony when you knew that there were several others...can you, Georgie? Just one more example of how you play fast and loose with the truth. Someone with integrity would have looked up the definition...seen that my usage wasn't incorrect at all...and simply admitted that they were wrong. You're incapable of that though...aren't you, Rshermr!

Can't deny that I gave you a link and that therefor I was hiding nothing, can you, dipshit. Just one more example of how you lie.
Your usage was simply to take the article of the five that was from the obvious bat shit crazy con source. Which you knew, and which no one who was interested in truth would use. As I am quite sure everyone would know you would do. Because you are a con troll. And a complete liar.

So you cite a source...but give only the part of that source that agrees with your contention...then accuse me of being a liar because I shame you into providing a link to the REST of the 5 "experts" your source promised...two of which turn out to have a completely different take on how Cap & Trade legislation would affect the US economy? The only site I went to was the from the source that YOU put forth as being credible. That source tried to be open minded about Cap & Trade...providing both pro and con viewpoints on it. You didn't do that...did you, Georgie! Oh no...you cherry picked the "experts" who agreed with you and ignored the ones that didn't.

It's bad enough that you know nothing about economics, Rshermr but when you cherry pick your "facts" like you've done in this string it simply proves how little integrity you have.

No cherry picking, me poor ignorant con troll. I would never, ever provide a bat shit crazy liberal source. Because I have integrity. Now, I know you are feigning confusion, and I know that you are stupid, and that you are a con troll. But anyone, anywhere, knows that you do not use a source like the competitive enterprise institute, because it just proves that you care nothing about truth, and nothing about integrity. Because you prove that you are going to take the completely partial information of a source that no honest person would ever use. Which if you wanted to prove anything, simply proves that what you are saying does not pass the giggle test.

But then, you follow the link that I provided and say I provided you no link. Perhaps you would like to explain why anyone would pay any attention to you at all. You are simply a lying shit. Just a low life. Have you noticed that very few even look at this thread? Because of the drivel and lies that you post, and the games you play.

So, do you not care at all about climate change?

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?

I think you have nothing except con talking points,

Stopping climate change? Do you have any idea how bad the deal was that Barry the Wonder President negotiated with China to address climate change? We agreed to reduce our carbon output NOW and they promise to reduce theirs TWENTY YEARS from now! That's idiotic even for a progressive!
Wrong question me boy. Do you have any idea of the cost of doing nothing as you suggest? You are such a simpleton when you morph into your con troll persona. First you call a sitting president with high approval ratings insulting names, proving that you have no class or integrity at all. Then, you suggest that Obama went out and negotiated an agreement with one nation. Which is a complete lie. There were a large number of nations involved, and a large number of people negotiating the deal. And, me boy, it was based on what a large number of climate scientists believed needed to be done.
It was not, me boy, based on what a simpleton con troll with no knowledge of the subject thought should be done. It was not what some con troll like yourself who pulled out con talking points thought should be done. That is beyond stupid, but probably a good represenstation of your simple view of the subject.

For some strange reason you liberals think imposing higher energy costs HERE (and only the truly clueless won't admit that energy costs have to go up with a Cap & Trade system!) will lessen climate change worldwide! That would be, me boy, completely untrue. What actual rational minds believe is exactly what the great majority of climate scientists believe. Which is we have a huge problem that only the con trolls, republican politicians paid by energy companies, and the energy companies themselves tell you to believe. And, we are smart enough to not believe con talking points or the energy companies or any politicians. We tend to believe the science. As does anyone who studies the subject.
Anyone who understands the global economy knows only too well that what will happen will be a tidal wave of industry leavign the US and going to countries that have no such system...like China...who will continue to spew out even more pollution because of the additional industry. Actually, me boy, those who have no idea of the economics of the issue are those who make no effort to understand the cost of doing nothing. Which, by every estimate based on the science, will be hugely more than the cost of cap and trade or other carbon decrease efforts that exist. Making what you say again a simplistic bit of nonsense. And, by the way, there is no chance that waves of anything are leaving the US. That is simplistic con dogma, trying to scare the weak minded. Now if you could figure out some way to compartmentalize countries like China and India from the rest of the world so their pollution won't spill over to affect us you might make things better but that's not going to happen. So what will you have done? You'll have shifted industry from a country where in comparison to other places, we don't pollute...to countries that are serial polluters! So not only will you burden Americans with higher energy costs...you'll drive jobs out of the country...and as the icing on the cake...you'll not reduce worldwide pollution one bit and might even increase it!
So, thanks so much for your analysis. The analysis, by the way, from a food services worker with no scientific or economic sources of any kind. And thanks for that paragraph of conservative talking points coming from your totally simple and incapable mind. I know you are told to believe what the con talking points say. And it is quite obvious that you do not have the intellectual curiosity to study the subject. Because, as a con troll, it is simpler to simply believe what you are told to believe. Which is why you offer no proof of anything. No links. Just con drivel. Just being a tool for the conservative cause, mind numbing as you are.

Common sense is the enemy of the average Progressive. They pass laws because they think it will fix things but invariably at the end of the day you buffoons create more problems then you solve.
So, you are incapable of showing common sense. Perhaps that is the best you can do. As a simpleton food services employee with no economic background and no curiosity about the science at hand, you somehow believe that your drivel makes some sort of sense. Here is the problem, Oldstyle. It is you, or thousands of climate scientists. You and the energy companies not wanting to give up a dollar of profit. You and a group of clowns who are of the belief that the cost of fighting climate change is anything like the cost that will be incurred by our children and future generations if we do what you suggest, which is NOTHING. Because you do not believe the majority of nations of the world, and do not believe our own military, or our scientists and science, because you are a con troll.
So, I asked and you ignored the following: Lets try again.

So, do you not care at all about climate change?

Do you have any idea of what the costs will be of not stopping climate change?

Do you think that allowing climate change to happen will cost us less economically than cap and trade?

Do you have ANY proof of what the relative costs would be?

I think you have nothing except con talking points. And will just continue on with your conservative drivel proving yourself to be a total waste of space.

 

[Oldstyle]

Wow, all of THAT...and you didn't address a single point I made other than to call them conservative talking points?

Typical, Rshermr...

U.S. and China reach historic climate change agreement - CNN.com