One: You did not address the fact that i addressed you stupid questions with fact you were too lazy to look up for yourself....

Two: You use the same BS argument that your radio talk show hosts that you ape use to slander those that have looked into the facts... "Having a billion people in mud hut, burning dung, may result in less CO2 production, but in terms contributing to the rest of the world, any CO2 or methane they produce isn't "worth it". "

Yeah, right, I want us all living in mud huts so that we can worship the 'earth mother' Gaia - you have apparently missed the past 6 years of my posts... nice try at trying to smear me ...

You present, in response to the facts I presented, a stupid rant....

Higher CO2 increases plant growth and increase land use for growing crops if global temperature increases.

Explain how quickly we can adapt to the turning of farmlands into deserts, when the temperatures are changing faster and faster at a rate civilization has not seen... and how you want your kids to live in a world scrambling to adapt... and having to adapt again and again. Our resources will be squandered on trying to keep people alive and fed...

Explain how you know more than the NAS when it is obvious you havent even TRIED to study the issue....

Lower heating costs: Greenhouse gases add most temperature to night time temperatures. CO2 reflects infrared therefore in small degree would reduce as much increase day time temperature- therefore not significantly affect cooling costs.

This has got to be the STUPIDIST argument I have ever read....

May increase in rainfall in areas which need rainfall- should in general increase rain.

Kinda depends on how it affects the weather patterns... it could cause drought in Nebraska, or cause horrible flooding, you dont really know, so why use this as an argument in favor of your ignorance?

The US is biggest producer of CO2. It's people are also most productive. Because there is a correlation between increase wealth and more energy use, the more CO2 produced in countries such as China and India will in general sense correspond to more productive population.

It is like I am debating a severely brain damaged person.... The point is that as china and india become more productive, if they use fossil fuels, they will ratchet the exponential curve and make the problem far worse... until global warming starts to severely deplete food supplies around the world.

Such a productive population will result in more scientific break discovers and improved products. And will generate such thing as Space exploration and development. And in generally interact with rest of the world enhancing culture and awareness in broad range of human experience.

LOL how cute... trash the world and there will be an increase in population that will create more people that will "generally interact with rest of the world enhancing culture and awareness in broad range of human experience. ".... hmmm, or is it more likely there will be more wars over dwindling resources?

Having a billion people in mud hut, burning dung, may result in less CO2 production, but in terms contributing to the rest of the world, any CO2 or methane they produce isn't "worth it".

I answered your questions with facts and data, you answered with more bullshit... Thanks for the 'debate'...

Do some research before you try taking me on on this issue again, it is clear all you have done is absorbed Rush Limbaugh and blogs- try reading a few scientific papers if you can...

AGAIN you really think you are a better judge of the facts than the NAS?