How It All Ends

It's a natural thing that goverments want to use to generate new income streams and make people poorer and replace old style taxes.

On a plus note. A few billion dead will be good for the planet and sort this whole mess out.
Total collapse of the present systems is the only future mankind has. Back to basics.

No policy is going to change human's arrogant desire to grow steadily except for war.

If you kill them, you will end their desire to have children.

That being said, I'm against any legislation that tries to cap carbon emissions. They are stealing from us.

You will also find information here about CO2 levels and why they are rising in the past 30 years when the output of the sun has been more or less constant

The earth's climate has always changed.

Global temperatures vary depending on several factors, not just carbon dioxide, which include, the orbit of the Earth, position of the continents, subduction and the washing away of c02 to the sea, solar output levels......

this video came out this week, it's very good and explains it well

5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural?
/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU&feature=s ub

Dear Wandering mind- "What's the worst that could happen?" Since your other video has comments closed. The worst that could happen is that the premise of global warming is accepted as fact when it is provably wrong, and that having accepted that part of your "grid" as a deciding fact-- the entire logic grid fails before you go any further. There is a great deal of money behind perpetuating the "myth" of man-made global warming. And, it is the oil companies which are perpetuating it- wonder why?

So I'd like permission to use your argument in my teaching ...may I do so & how would you like me to cite & reference your work?
Also, examining the behaviour of oil companies, & others, is a useful indicator. Business now is not just working on climate change mitigation but also actively on adaptation & innovation.
Best wishes!

Next point is that considerable analysis goes into risk assessment & a general consensus drives the degree of perceived risk & need to act. Global scientific consensus is that climate change is happening & is primarily anthropogenic.
So your doctor isn't 100% certain you've got a life-threatening disease but the evidence indicates it; s/he urges immediate treatment & the colleagues agree. The tobacco company funded "expert" is skeptical & advises wait & see. To whom do you listen?

Hey Greg,
I love your mind man!

My initial post got messed up so I'm trying again...
I've been making the same basic argument for some years, except you do it better! I really like how use the basic four-square scenario model: its simple and powerful. I have a couple responses. 1.) The economic cost argument is used on the climate change side i.e. cost of inaction (see the Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change)....I have to re-post the second comment...