Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Well all this circles back to my point that research is done myopically, focusing only on potential problems with global warming because there are no research funds available for people who research how things will get better. Nobody pays for good news. That means we'll only hear negative stuff.
Perhaps there is a long term net negative for global warming, but we'll never know because the research is so lopsided and probably lacks input from economists and medical doctors.
Then there's always my unanswered question of when did/will global warming switch from being a net benefit to a net harm? The 1 source I found gave an estimate of 70 more years for us to have a net benefit, and after that a slight net negative.
It's Wednesday, so I'll stop here and let aerohead catch up.
|
I can testify from reading the science journals,that it's a fact that, economists have been involved in climate research since day-one,because of the economic implications it possesses.It's also why the IPCC handles the reports with kid gloves.It takes very little to meltdown Wall Street and they know it.