How about a "balanced approach" to energy and climate policy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hC3VTgIPoGU&t=03m40s
Please watch until the end, at least starting at this point.

 

But Westnob, other glaciers broke off 50,000 years ago, forcing a worldwide change in the economy from hunter-gatherer to land-owning agriculture. Since that is a blink of time on the geological scale, it doesn't matter if it's repeating now.

That makes sense to PapaG. How come he's for guns, but against a hunting economy?

 

I said "I don't know". Neither do you; you just pretend as if you do.

 

Correct; I don't know. So I said, a rational decision would start with competing budget numbers. Denny says no numbers allowed, because it's impossible to have climate warming since government spends too much. PapaG says no numbers allowed, because the ruination of humanity happened 50,000 years ago, too, though there wasn't as much to ruin, so it's okay now.

I disagree with them and agree with you. We don't know. So you agree that to decide cost-effectiveness, cost estimates are required? Don't go out on a limb and say yes or anything.

 

I need no evidence since I have no position on the science issue and leave that for others to address. The unaddressed issue is the cost numbers. I am simply adhering to standard business practice and asking for them.

If they are extremely high, it may not matter whether science is right; they are so much, it's cheaper to move everyone 1000 miles north.

If they are extremely low it may not matter whether science is wrong; they are so cheap, change the technology as we would normal minor environmental progress.