CrazyConservative
New member
We live in a dangerous world. Every year, natural disasters take a multitude of lives. And yet, we talk of changing the climate, but we never talk about spending trillions of dollars to stop these disasters that happen all the time.
On average, there are 90 deaths from lightning related accidents. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an effort to eliminate all lightning strikes, or should we spend a fraction on educating people about lightning strikes?
A single tsunami from Dec 2004 caused an estimated 225,000 deaths in Sumatra alone. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to control tsunamis, or should we focus our energy on detection and avoidance?
In 1985, a volcano released a mud flow which killed 25,000 people in Ruiz, Colombia. Should we spend our children's life savings trying to cap all volcanoes, or should we change our behavior to minimize the danger?
In 1976, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake in China killed 255,000 people. In 2005, a 7.6 earthquake killed 80,361 people in Pakistan. Should we spend trillions trying to eliminate the earthquakes, or should we spend a miniscule amount adapting to the dangerous planet we call Earth?
Why don't we spend the $75 billion spent trying to prove global warming (as yet an utter failure) on trying to stop these other disasters (yes, I know, it would be stupid. Now do you get my point?)
Paul, I am confused. There is evidence that earthquakes DO cause deaths. Yet, we do not call for trillions of dollars to be spent trying to stop them. Compare this to AGW, which has yet to cause a single death, yet our politicians want to tax us and spend trillions of OUR dollars.
On average, there are 90 deaths from lightning related accidents. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an effort to eliminate all lightning strikes, or should we spend a fraction on educating people about lightning strikes?
A single tsunami from Dec 2004 caused an estimated 225,000 deaths in Sumatra alone. Currently, no deaths can be attributed to global warming. Should we start spending trillions of dollars in an attempt to control tsunamis, or should we focus our energy on detection and avoidance?
In 1985, a volcano released a mud flow which killed 25,000 people in Ruiz, Colombia. Should we spend our children's life savings trying to cap all volcanoes, or should we change our behavior to minimize the danger?
In 1976, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake in China killed 255,000 people. In 2005, a 7.6 earthquake killed 80,361 people in Pakistan. Should we spend trillions trying to eliminate the earthquakes, or should we spend a miniscule amount adapting to the dangerous planet we call Earth?
Why don't we spend the $75 billion spent trying to prove global warming (as yet an utter failure) on trying to stop these other disasters (yes, I know, it would be stupid. Now do you get my point?)
Paul, I am confused. There is evidence that earthquakes DO cause deaths. Yet, we do not call for trillions of dollars to be spent trying to stop them. Compare this to AGW, which has yet to cause a single death, yet our politicians want to tax us and spend trillions of OUR dollars.