Secondly,Great Britain’s highest point is two- hundred – thirteen feet. A tidal rise of thirty feet would constitute a grave crisis. I believe the Thames is a tidal river, also.

But why should I go all over the Internet looking for data, when you can dismiss it by calling it “biased”? Of course it’s biased. It disputes your data. Do you want me to go find data that supports your argument for you?

Yes, the Republicans “completely vanquished and out of work for generations”: From a close tie with Dewey in 1948, two victories in 52 and 56, a close tie in 1960; to a handy defeat of Humphrey in 1968, and a landslide defeat of McGovern in 1972.

Or did you mean generations of fruit flies?

Here, by the way, is the most authoritative report undertaken by a government body, Britain’s Treasury. I will not include the whole report, because I know for a solid fact that most of the conservatives here are too lazy to think beyond sound bites, so here’s from the ES:

[T]he evidence gathered… leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting. Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.

In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.

Percentages don’t fully capture the impact. The lost GDP stems from arid land turning to desert, inland water bodies disappearing, increasing unclarity about weather conditions – in other words, chaos. The 1% GDP reduction from acting comes in the form of more efficient cars, buildings and homes, cleaner feedstock for power plants, factories and automobiles – in other words, things that allow us to maintain our lifestyle for the long haul.

So, I repeat my warning to all of the so-called conservatives here. If you continue down the path of denying global warming, you will end up exactly where Republicans were at the end of WWII – completely vanquished and out of work for generations.

Sure. If the environment changes and the sea levels rise / ocean based storms increase in strength, that will cause a whole lot more damage to the economy that shutting off fosil fuels consumption completely.

And that’s not even what the environmentalists want.

Here’s an interesting if slightly off topic fact. Small family farms can produce pork at a lower cost to consumer and in a more environmentally friendly fashion than factory farms. The only reason factor farms are economically viable is because the government subsidizes them.

If the government stopped subsidizing environmentally unfriendly businesses, there would be no economic lose for anyone.

Since I have an unnecessary restriction, and you have none; and since I’m already accused of having a “man – crush” on someone who I just said yesterday I wasn’t crazy about, I’ll pass this time.

I don’t see a conversation thus arranged as having any value.

Go for it.

I’m perfectly willing to admit that:
1) Humans play a role in global warming; AND
2) It is significant, but perhaps not catastrophic.

Now, let’s talk economics.

We know why these things happened in the past, and we know that the situation today is different.

We know this because we have a tool called science.

On a side note, what would happen if we proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human were responsible for 30% of global warming? Would that change your position on what we should be doing?

If someone comes up with a reasonable, peer reviewed, scientific argument against man being a significant cause of global warming, I will look at it.

If someone says Al Gore is like Hitler, I will ignore them.

So far I’ve seen a lot of the latter, but none of the former.

Apparently, it’s gonna stay slipped in.

In that event, I would say that the “scientists” had stopped discussing climate and had taken up economics.

Why are not asking the same thing about the industry funded researchers?

Or are you denying that such funding channels
exist?

The flat earthers all made the same arguments, so did the “sun revolves around the earth” guys. People with truly strong arguments and hypotheses don’t spend their time denigrate the people that disagree with them as “shills”, they should have plenty of factual basis.

How much money has gore gotten from pro-global warming groups? How much money have all these pro warming scientist received?

Its funny, when we are talking about liberal bias in media, all you lefties screech “journalistic ethics”, but when it comes to scientists, a group that actually has a long history of ethics discussions, all that goes out the window…

You idiots just don’t even realize that you are arguing two sides of the same point do you?

Conservatives who oppose global warming on the basis of this science are going to find themselves in the same position as the Old Right Republicans did in World War II. They will be supporting Axis powers while America has moved on. Luckily for Frank and his chorus of folly, there is always tons of other science to be wrong on as well.

As big a “consensus” as gravity? Atomic Structure? Genetics?

If it were proveable “beyond a doubt”, then there would be no doubt. But there is. Ergo, your statement is factually incorrect.