I thought the problem is climate change or the alleged conspiracy to fake climate change to control the world.

So your issue is you think it will cost too much.

How much will it cost if large sections of the population need to migrate because of sea level rise and large regions of agricultural land need to move due to changing weather patterns (look at Texas, Russia wheat production). You don't think that will be a pittance to your worst case scenario for carbon trading assessments? 

But let's consider how much it will cost to mitigate.

The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned.

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".

International response

The review coincides with the release of new data by the United Nations showing an upward trend in emission of greenhouse gases - a development for which Sir Nicholas said that rich countries must shoulder most of the responsibility.

It is faulty logic to consider how much it costs to mitigate climate change without considering how much it will cost to ignore it. The logical hedge against considering how much it will cost to ignore it is to believe that the scientific community is fomenting a hoax about a problem that doesn't exist.



Maybe you should spend some of your very valuable time vetting the sources of your information, sparing me my valuable time have to look through it and conclude that it is a bunch of regurgitated misinformation echo chambered by motivated partisans fueled by energy industry propagandists. So spare me the outrage about your precious time. In the time it took you to type this frenetic missive you could have reviewed the sources of one or two quotes and chosen to discuss them thoroughly instead of a mass of copy/pasted disinformation that I had the termerity to review.

You clearly don't understand what 'cherry pick' means here. That would mean I studied all the quotes and only chose the few that would, ignoring the rest, make my case. Funny you bring that up, it's a common method applied by scientists hired by think tanks funded by Exxon.

But I did not cherry pick: I looked through the first climate scientists or similar quotes I could, discarded the ones I could not verify (because all links pointed back to the same list of quotes), and stuck with the ones I could.

I wish you would do the same.


Says the man who copy/pastes supposed quotes from a denier website to build a case that there is some globalist conspiracy to control the world economy using the hoax of global warming. Your triumphal assertions are supported by your hollow evidence, therefore they have no merit. However, they sound powerful. This is why the denialist snake oil salesmen and women make up for the resounding lack of fact and support for their positions with style over substance, brash claims, and appeals to ignorance.

But there is no substance.

So if you want to have a real conversation stick to real methods of discourse where quality of information and source matter, quality over quantity matter, and where science is confirmed with other science, not blogs with spurious errate like quotes from alleged leftists in on some conspiracy.