Benefit to Global Warming? China's the First to Go

"Who's on our side?"

-- "About six hundred million screamin' Chinamen."

"I thought there were a billion?"

-- "There were." (dumps coffee into fire with a steaming hiss)

And those six hundred million, one, um, "doctor" says, will then move to Africa, where they're already location-scouting for The Big Move.

Because this is all going down by... 2040.

But, ya know, we here? We "Global Warming Deniers?"

We're the crazy ones.

DaveP breaks out my current favorite put-down:

I find your views intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I'll break out my old favorite one:

You, Sir, are a goof.

"A Rent-Seekers' Ball: KS points out this article on coming Ecocalypse.

[W]hy are we bent on heading into the global warming bubble?

Just this week the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that if the bill is enacted the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050.

That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we otherwise might have if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis.

During the fourth quarter of 2007, GDP actually increased by 0.6 percent, yet trepidation still spread among businesses, consumers and the financial markets. Though the EPA says that Lieberman-Warner would send our economy in the opposite direction by more than a factor of 10, few in Congress seem concerned.

For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge.

The EPA says that by the year 2095 — 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent — atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Plus, let that CO2 level rise from 380 ppm to, say, 430 by 2040 and we get to whack China.

I'm really not seeing the downside here, boys.

Related: Internet Boards fill With Anti-Tibetan Hatred by Chinese in Wake of Crackdown: Enjoy the next thirty-two years, dickheads.

Carbon Dioxide

"I do, and I do, and I do for you ingrates. And then I just keep doing. Like James Brown used to do before they put him in that purple cape and led him off the stage.

"Howzabout a "You're Welcome" every now and again? Would it kill you to be civil?"