Funny how a theory of global destruction is such a big deal when radiation from Fukushima is blanketing the globe and is a very real threat proven to exist. Why do you consider this less of a threat?
Lets assume what you say is true, what can we do to stop it ?
Do you understand what I'm getting at ?
What is the level of radiation I will receive from this from the other side of the world ? How does it compare to existing background radiation ?
Maybe the point is you have a lot to learn. Unless you want me to start sending invoices for tutoring maybe you should learn for yourself.
P.S. Answering a question with more questions is not an answer.
I wonder if perhaps, for governments, taxing and penalizing for global warming is really just "easy money". If the government taxed or penalized for something demonstrably real....say any of a number kinds of pollution...the pollution levels locally or regionally are measured, the program for taxation is put in place, and after some years, the results are reported. The program is then modified or continued or dropped.
But with AGW they cannot measure results of their programs. In fact, if we back calculate the results of any of the current programs to reduce carbon emissions they don't stand on their own in cost effectiveness, even if you agree with all the presumptions and take the radical fringe alarmist view of warming.
So is it just easy money? We take your money to save the planet, and you can never tell if we did anything or not. You know that we hurt your livelihood directly with our taxes and penalties, so you could presume that for the negatives you experienced, there was an offsetting positive somewhere in the environment.
But what if that was not true, and the only offset was the spending by the government?
is a new development and it will only grow and get more established.
