We already know that China and India are never going to go along with reducing their carbon dioxide emissions. But no plan to stop global warming will work without their participation. So what can we do about that? We're may to go to war with them, that's what we could do. The Arab nations will ally themselves with China and India, because that will be the only customers they have for their oil. The two sides will be fairly evenly matched, which will make for a very long, very bloody world war. There will be tens of millions of deaths over years, perhaps decades, in this World War III, caused by global warming alarmism. Not to mention that the war will defeat its own purpose anyway, because of the massive burning of fossil fuels that will be required to wage that war.
Avoiding Worldwide Nuclear Armageddon. It is very, very likely that the WW3 mentioned in the previous point will, eventually, go nuclear. Then everything is for naught. Oh sure, global warming will be stopped, because of the planet-covering cloud of radioactive dust, smoke, and soot, blocking 90% of the sunlight from reaching the surface. But between the immediate effect of the missiles themselves and the delayed effects of radiation poisoning, the vast majority of the earth's human population will be gone (and for those of you more worried about the precious polar bears, they'll be gone too).
My point is that, even if global warming is happening, even if we are causing it, and even if we can stop it, there is no proof that doing so will benefit us at all. In fact, one can easily make the case (as I have) that the benefits of global warming will outweigh the disadvantages. Moreover, the case can also easily be made that the sacrifices we will have to make to stop global warming are far, far worse than global warming itself. Are you willing to give up your freedom and comfort to stop global warming? Are you willing to sacrifice the world's economic prosperity, and even its food supply? Are you willing to precipitate a massive world war, probably ending in nuclear Armageddon? If so, then let's just launch the nukes now and get it over with. Because I, for one, don't want to live through the loss of freedom, comfort, prosperity, and food that will otherwise precede the Armageddon.
Avoiding Worldwide Nuclear Armageddon. It is very, very likely that the WW3 mentioned in the previous point will, eventually, go nuclear. Then everything is for naught. Oh sure, global warming will be stopped, because of the planet-covering cloud of radioactive dust, smoke, and soot, blocking 90% of the sunlight from reaching the surface. But between the immediate effect of the missiles themselves and the delayed effects of radiation poisoning, the vast majority of the earth's human population will be gone (and for those of you more worried about the precious polar bears, they'll be gone too).
My point is that, even if global warming is happening, even if we are causing it, and even if we can stop it, there is no proof that doing so will benefit us at all. In fact, one can easily make the case (as I have) that the benefits of global warming will outweigh the disadvantages. Moreover, the case can also easily be made that the sacrifices we will have to make to stop global warming are far, far worse than global warming itself. Are you willing to give up your freedom and comfort to stop global warming? Are you willing to sacrifice the world's economic prosperity, and even its food supply? Are you willing to precipitate a massive world war, probably ending in nuclear Armageddon? If so, then let's just launch the nukes now and get it over with. Because I, for one, don't want to live through the loss of freedom, comfort, prosperity, and food that will otherwise precede the Armageddon.