Global warming?

[Coign]

Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced

Cherry picking reports that express a minority view, particularly if those reports/studies are not peer reviewed (as is the case with many of the denier "studies") does not make the broad consensus among nearly every national science organization in the world any less valid as a consensus.

Nor does pulling $50 billion cost out the air make it valid and ignoring the savings resulting from the benefits... or suggesting that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to regulate the environment in the interest of the general welfare of the people.

They are peer reviewed. Click the link for the blog post that states that and gives you links to the original papers. Denying that puts you in the wrong.

And cherry picking? 900 papers is cherry picking?

As for amounts, here is 2.5 billion in just the climate studies.

http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/...so-much-money/

Here is an article detailing 4 billion annually.

http://www.minnesotansforglobalwarmi...-spending.html

Here is another 300+ million a year in ethanol subsidiaries.

http://www.congressionalchange.com/w...s-by-plant.pdf

The 50 billion number is taken from estimates in research, subsidiaries, and grants from 1990 to current date. This is all tax payer dollars just so they can tell us after 21 years of research, "um we don't know what causes climate change and we are not really sure how much the climate has changed. We THINK it may have warmed up by .7 degrees but we can't tell you if it will continue to get warmer or we might be going into an ice age soon."

That is not worth 50 billion dollars.