On Sat, 19 Jan 2019 19:35:06 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 19 January 2019 09:39:03 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 19:51:31 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 18 January 2019 12:24:33 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019 09:00:46 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

We don't need to sacrifice investment in scientific
infrastructure to build carbon sequestration systems and other
systems to minimize the impact of global warming.

Only if there's enough money to do both. People smarter than you (and
who isn't, you being a Chris and all) are skeptical that's the case.

There is enough money for both, especially when you factor in the
trillions of dollars of cost incurred by global warming.

Cold killed 5 million people last year.

Clueless.

Warmth saves lives, cold kills. Warmer environments increase numbers and diversity of life. The fossil record shows it, current tropical areas prove it. There is NO benefit in keeping the planet cold. The entire northern hemisphere from 35 deg up is only survivable because of human control of energy.

In fact, nobody actually knows if more people die from warm or cold
conditions. But it is known that one consequence of global warming is
more extreme cold spells. And the deaths caused directly by heat or
cold are not really the issue, as their total will be small compared
to the millions who die in climate caused wars (a half million just in
Syria already), and from starvation, and from disease... all things
that have already begun due to climate change.