The science behind what he's saying isn't really adding up. While there's naturally studies on both sides, this study indicates greater CO2 levels can inhibit growth http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02...
Moreover, methane is significantly more responsible for global climate change because it traps 100 times more heat than CO2. http://www.onegreenplanet.org/...
You really don't understand the difference between global and local climate, do you? A 4 degree C change in local climate doesn't mean that much. A 4 degree C change in the global average is a catastrophe.
Mod parent up
Pratchett said it best:
“I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are good people and bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.”
...break down complicated tasks into simple steps and then explaining those steps to an idiot.
Hmm, that sounds suspiciously like the IT support I do every day.
You mean everything the 'evil' companies already do but don't give us decent speeds, try to cap our bandwidth, and charge us too much for the hassle?
Shut up AC and dammit Google, take my money!
'This uncertainty is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America.'
'Overpriced unreliable internet is not good for investment, and it's not good for jobs here in America'
I consider it good policy that I don't rate countries or companies based on profitability
From my perspective, there's only one question worth asking. "On average, are they better to work for?"
That's bullshit. Obese people have pretty much the same metabolism as skinny people. It's not your "metabolism" that makes you obese, it's how much and what you eat.
No, it really is quite dependent on biology. There are numerous studies on twins that clearly show that it's governed by far more than just calories in == calories out. http://www.gatsby.ucl.ac.uk/~p... , http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05...
I'm baffled. I don't understand the impetus to deny human-driven climate change other than straight up greed. The one argument I've heard recited is the lack of an accurate model. I can barely get an accurate weather forecast for a week from now and you want accuracy with something on the time scale of decades.
And at the end of the day, even if the models are inaccurate, it's not a question of whether it's happening but simply time frame. What difference does it make if they're off by a decade or two? Does that give us time to squander? Let me answer that. No. I think Vonnegut probably got it right. "We could have saved it [earth], but we were too goddamned cheap."