[aruanan]

Coping with the ravages of global warming will cost $50 billion a year, and the rich nations who caused most of the pollution must pay most of the bill, aid agency Oxfam said on Tuesday.

Since, based on history, any benefits from global warming will greatly outweigh any disadvantages, shouldn't the rest of the world then pay US, if we're the major contributor? And since continued anthropogenic warming could offset the coming of another ice age which would have devastating consequences for the entire world, shouldn't the world pay US to keep the CO2 chugging out?

Of course, the CO2/warming link proposed by Algore is completely bogus. The current uptick in atmospheric CO2 was caused by solar-driven global warming of the the Medieval Climate Optimum. The current warming will have its CO2 effects noticed sometime about 2600AD.

[SteamShovel]

Since, based on history, any benefits from global warming will greatly outweigh any disadvantages, shouldn't the rest of the world then pay US, if we're the major contributor?

I like turning arguments around like that too!