There you go - one of the most influential and powerful AGW proponents using his influence to keep journals from printing papers that contradicted some of the basis for his work. Even if he has to "redefine what peer-reviewed literature is!" There is even more supression in the mainstream media.
Were these papers actually repressed or was "peer review" redefined by the IPCC? I remember reading that they they were indeed published despite Phil Jones' dramatic email, but I can't find the citation right now.
The fact of the matter is that we pay more for just about everything. There's a reason for this - the whole system is based on profit.
This is one of those arguments that proves too much. Just about everything in the economy is based on profit, yet we don't see costs exploding for TVs or plane tickets or bicycles.
Just about everything else in the economy has an alternative, including just plain doing without. Life does not. Most people will pay anything to save their lives or the lives of their loved ones, so the life-saving business has no price ceiling. The bike business does; at some price point it makes more sense to buy a car or take a cab.
As everyone says, good health is priceless. I guess what they mean by that is that the free market will take every cent you have in exchange for your health.
But how many would contain all 1s? Answer that, and provide a proof for your answer, and you'll make math history.
An infinite number. How much was the prize again?
Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.