Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
No evidence could ever substantiate that made up claim.
As faulty as it still is, the most accurate way to measure impact to people is the big metrics on a global scale (we are talking about global warming, and not Lake Mead warming after all) on things like life expectancy, GDP per capita, calories per capita, and other measures of health and well-being.
I don't trust this either. What is powering this carbon capture technology? Diesel powered machines? Having not researched anything, common sense tells me it would be cheaper to avoid emitting CO2 in the first place than sequestering already dilute gasses from the air.
|
The numbers are from those who looked into it, in detail.
And they didn't spin it into the myopic, non-externality, voodoo-economics netherworld, as hallucinated by the likes of the Bjorn Lombergs and Chicago School of Economics sociopaths, addicted to privatizing profits while socializing costs.
We are talking about global warming.
And tell me about this magical capability of summarily, and accurately, discounting the efforts of investigators, without investing one iota of human capital into your own investigation. Absolutely amazing!