[quote=air_ogi]
And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?
[/quote]

Uh, isn’t most of eastern California ALREADY a desert? That’s the part of California I drive through to get to Vegas, right? Because I’m pretty sure its a desert, has always been a desert, and I don’t think global warming had anything to do with THAT.

I also don’t understand the “98% of scientists” being wrong quote. So, if only 2% are right, things are still f**ked up? Is there some significance attached to those 2%? As to the 30% of them being right: Where is this statistic derived from? I only ask because we’ve been treated to quite a few statistics regarding climate change and its effects, but, unfortunately, many of those statistics are either factually/substantively incorrect, or have been mis-used.

Case in point: The Himalayan ice caps were supposed to melt by 2035, according to the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). As it turns out, that was a completely bogus claim and it brought to light some significant issues with the IPCC’s review and attribution process, in that that claim was culled from a non peer-reviewed report and it was not backed by any significant research.

My point is that there is much sound and fury surrounding climate change, but little in the form of meaningful statistics. Much like you throwing numbers about above. What do those numbers mean? Without supporting data (“In God We Trust. Everyone Else Bring Data”), this isn’t a discussion at all. Its a shouting match, and that accomplishes nothing other than scoring cheap, partisan points.

Rather than arguing the economic benefits, we need to argue the economic cost(s) and whether or not we can afford them.

I’d suggest buttressing your argument with actual statistics and data.