I'll be taking bets to see how long before someone links this article to either: Exxon, George Bush, Dick Cheney, the Republicans, the neocons, (did I miss anybody??). Oh, and let's not forget the omnipresent "Peer Review Committee". It has been disturbingly quiet on this board regarding spirited discussions regarding AGW (after all, much of the world is experiencing record cold temps, oops, forgot, I know, it's all part of AGW...). The article is here. A few cut and pastes from the article as featured in IBD below: And most importantly: Yes, it's great the one side effect from implementing AGW measures are increased awareness of the consumption of oil and coal. BUT it's the increase in added costs to sequester carbon, trade carbon credits (which only benefit the traders who get the commissions which are in turn paid by all, rich and poor alike), and overall that stifle economies which in turn leads to a decrease in the human quality of life, all of which are clearly have virtually no impact whatsoever on the environment, atmosphere, or global temperatures. Rick #4 2006
A peer-reviewed article would be best. It might be better than just someone's opinion. These are hard to refute:
Stifled economies aren't the only event that lead to a decrease in the human quality of life, a degraded environment contributes to this as well. And the two are so interrelated, isn't it time we stop departmentalizing them?
