Well I cant understand your broken English. No offense, but I cant understand anything you just said.

I will try and answer but it may seem a little off b/c of what I said above.

Science does great things for good! It saves lives, wins wars, gives us a better understanding of the world around us, etc. But what it cannot do, is change a planet, a planet now, a planet's climate.

What will spending money do exactly? We spend money to fight AIDS all the time, yet there is still AIDS. We spend money to fix road, we are still fixing roads. We spend money to fight crime, there is still crime. We already spend money to fight pollution, yet there is still pollution. Spending money is not going to solve anything.

That is all I can answer, I dont understand the rest, sorry.

Cost is something no one ever seams to take about.

Its just we must save the planet! No matter the cost it seams as some have forgotten that it is a one-degree raise in Temp

__________________
Tim-"I assume you have a long list of benevolent nations and peoples who circle the globe, bestowing gifts on the human race from the purest of motives - in contrast with those terrible Americans, whose motives and behavior are always suspect"? :rolleyes

Well I can't point onto hard facts, I just remember vaguely having read a story about a study that estimates how much the predicted climate change will cost. Its a breathtaking sum.

It would already pay off if just a part of it could be reduced. The question remains of course if this is possible at all. And if how effective it will really be.

As far as I can see it in Europe though, the effort for climate relevant technology was not a curse for our economy but rather a benefit... So just naming costs of those actions might be a bit one dimensional. You also have to keep the benefits in mind (and I am talking here about those that are not climate related, but of economic or other nature)

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

If the money is spent wisely, than change can be made. This of course won't completely abolish CO2 emissions, but it will reduce them (as well as other emissions, CH4, CHCs, so on). The major question is, when do we start? Every month, the technology gets more advanced and cheaper, but we also fall further behind.

You could start today with the tech that we have, or we could wait until next year, banking on that tech will be better and cheaper, but we'll have more damage to undo.

How do you know that does'nt change before try?[/quote]


That statement could be used to argue for or against controls, and when you factor in costs it the scale is tipped.

Study more, and try to lesson in heart()

You are right.
But it's not sufficent!

But win what wars?

Yes, we need to find the other more good methods or the other concepts for polution. Why AIDS are so many in there? Because polutions and bad circumstances for living, so to illiminations of AIDS, we need change the circumstances clean and make purified from polutions.

We don't need "the money of basic life/fix road/fight crime" etc,
without that reasons, there are so big money still rest of hiding, don't know of it how can use for good.
ex) Someone when she die, she gave the money for his dog, you know?
ex) Some peoples throw the foods in the sea for make prices, you know?
ex) Some nation made too many arms, cannot use cause too old, you know how much quantity of money?
ex) Some peoples make to many products useless,& have to throw, you know?
ex) Some kind of drugs for killing people, need to throw in poubel, you know?
ex) Some one win too much money, don't want pay tax, so hide in the house?
ex) Too much quantity of industrial products can make only big pouvel after only one year passed, you know?
ex) One airplain(or helicopter) military need some milliard dollars cost, never use well, you know?
ex) One stupid movies only violent needs spend big money, you know?
ex) Too many buildings spoiled cause not using well & vide, but again continue to make without sense, you know?
ex) Anyway, people use so unuseful the materials and then have to poluer the land /water/sea/rivers/airs...
These kind of things must be stop, those are the models of "spend money".

How is this possible? We are talking about a naturally occuring gas here. And a gas that makes up less then 1% of the Earth's atmosphere. This idea that man putting money into global climate change stuff is going to change climate is insane. We cannot change climate I dont care how much money you throw at it. Want to know why? Because the minute a volcano erupts, whatever amount of money you have been spending to offset this so-called "man-made effect", just went down the tubes. We can't stop CO2 or climate change.


No the major question is how did people come to believe that man can change and physically alter an entire planets climate? CO2 is a naturally occuring substance. Whether we are here or not, it is still present. It fluctuates constantly. It isn't even highest contributor to GW, water vapor is the greatest greenhouse gas. And that regulates temps more so then CO2.

This is all made up nonsense, created to empower governments over one another. That is all it is. We can't stop a planet from warming or cooling off. That is mindnumbingly void of any logic whatsoever.

Damage to undo? As if this is a foregone conclusion. We cannot alter the global climate. It is humanly impossible.

No it's not "humanly impossible," CO2 levels are higher than they were at the end of any ice age where natural global warming happened, and those cases of CO2 took over 1,000 years to reach that level, we've done in a 10th of that. It hasn't been caused by volcanos, it has been casued by man (unless you believe that it was faries that increased the CO2 by 20% in the last 70 years). CO2 does happen naturally, but we've been putting an unnatural amount of CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere.

You've offered no proof and very little logic behind your claims. You just keep saying, no it's not our fault it's nature, regardless of whats going on in the world.

It is not possible to pay enough to change the warming of this planet or any other ( and yes they all show signs of warming )

simply because we do not have the ability to do so

mankind has contributed in an extremely tiny way to the problem but it would still be happening even if man had never existed

You're just speaking now from denial. I have posted several times in other debates on this forum regarding the proof behind GW, if you need me to, I can post it again. There is no proof that the warming we are experiancing is natural, while there is evidence that it isn't natural and is caused by humans. There isn't a huge dollar amount that you think there will be to switch from a high oil and coal dependency to alternative fuels and/or nuclear power.