ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Human Caused Global Warming

Cynic321

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8588

Report this Oct. 31 2009, 4:50 am

Quote
"These days if you're skeptical about the litany around climate change, you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier." ~~ Patrick Moore: Co-founder of Greenpeace


Here is what individual members of the IPCC, ex-directors of the National Weather Service, leading climatologists & meteorologists, artic researchers scientists, politcians, science journal editors, geologists, oceanographers, economists, medical entimologists, an ex-director of the Natl. Academy of Sciences, a climate study NASA scientist, environmental scientists, and the co-founder of GreenPeace REALLY have to say about the theory of human-driven global warming.

It's simply dam.ning.

One hour, thirteen minutes long.

http://stagevu.com/video/lmdzpbkjfyra

blankenship

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1632

Report this Nov. 01 2009, 6:22 pm

People still talk about this???

blankenship

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1632

Report this Nov. 01 2009, 7:35 pm

I guess some folks can't get enough.

They've yet to become blase' about the whole thing.

Blase'- Having the sensibilities deadened by excess

or frequency of enjoyment; sated or surfeited with pleasure.

They just keep going on and on with it.

Just like they can't get enough of baby murder or child

molestation.

Hollywood types and polititions.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Nov. 02 2009, 11:23 pm

Quote
Well, sorry to shatter your fragile little bubble there, bud, but you don't decide what others are or are not interested in.

You keep going on and on with condescending rude lil' comments all the time... does THAT ever get blase?


I agree. If the topic of global warming is not constantly talked about then the subject will go away, big corporation's will cast EPA warnings to the curb and begin to bury their trash like they did in the old days, right in the back yard without seperating the hazardous from the recyclable which may not directly add to the pollution in the atmosphere but would cause other harmful affects to the environment itself, like tainted water that is fed to the livestock that is then slaughtered for human consumption which then leads to cancers and other fun ailment's Meat eaters are not the only group of people affected by wanton and careless abandonment of rules and regulation's pertaining to the disposal of trash, herbavores are also affect as the water that comes from under the ground to water their plants would also become tainted causing fun little cancers cells to grow inside of the body.

The atmosphere is the same way, the vehicle emission's from travel up into the atmosphere becasue they are warm particles left over after the combustion process . The particles then mix with other particles like rain that is then returned to the Earth and soaks into the ground, eventually this water will have contaiminated the soil used for crop raising as well as livestock grazing which humans then ingest, so global warming is a serious issue and needs to be addressed at least twice a month on every channel so that people will take notice. A person cannot sit back and think that everything will be okay and that mother nature will clean up our mess, life doesn't work like that.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 2:21 pm

Quote (Cynic321 @ Oct. 30 2009, 5:50 am)
Quote
"These days if you're skeptical about the litany around climate change, you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier." ~~ Patrick Moore: Co-founder of Greenpeace


Here is what individual members of the IPCC, ex-directors of the National Weather Service, leading climatologists & meteorologists, artic researchers scientists, politcians, science journal editors, geologists, oceanographers, economists, medical entimologists, an ex-director of the Natl. Academy of Sciences, a climate study NASA scientist, environmental scientists, and the co-founder of GreenPeace REALLY have to say about the theory of human-driven global warming.

It's simply dam.ning.

One hour, thirteen minutes long.

http://stagevu.com/video/lmdzpbkjfyra

Interesting, but the whole debate of Global warming cannot be decided in a couple of hours.

Scientists study the changes in Climate has review almost a hundred years of data, temperature reading and air sample from ice core in the Antarctic for over a million years. Dozen of models have been purpose and only after debating the matter for over 20 years did they finally release their finding.

The air is warming up. There are many factors, Cosmic ray activity, solar activity, volcanic releases, but the number one factor and the one that cannot be ignore is that fact that Human kind is releasing millions of tons of green house gases into the atmosphere every day.

In the USA Alone, the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) release in a year is equal to the weight of 6 million elephants. Now it kind of naive to believe that you can just dump 6 million elephant into the atmosphere and not expect side effects.

The film basically uses the same tactics that Creationist and ID folk use, take the works of some scientists and highlight what support their stand without studying in detail the data or results.
We cannot control solar activity or Cosmic rays, but we can control the amount of waste we dump into the environment. There will be cost, but the consequences of not doing so is catastrophic. Annual fluctuations does not point to tend, but average temperature world wide over 50 years do.

We are stuck on this planet, we are learning more everyday what occurs when man interact with nature in an uncontrolled manner. There have already been suspect incidenst where entire civilization and culture have literally destroy themselves when they over use their resources. Culture like he Easter islanders and the Nasca. We could be next. Destruction of the Rain forest combine with emission of record high CO2 levels will result in changes in our environment that result in not just the destruction of civilization but in the extinction of mankind.

Unless the Global warming skeptics can show me a reason why that billion of tons of additional CO2 and methane isn't going to change environment, we going to have deal with the fact that we are living not with the Sword of Damocles hanging over us, but a rain of 6 million elephants that can fall on us any minute.

WilliamArtimarFlint

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 50

Report this Nov. 03 2009, 7:27 pm

I find global warming to be something that could be very profitable and good for the world. Now that sounds very strange but I find it hard to believe that no one can find a money making way of cleaning up the environment. What's stopping Governments from creating tax incentives, or working with banks to get low interest loans on improving factories to produce less and/or research a way to produce no green house gases or other waste. Just taking steps and advertising it would generate priceless PR for compaines. Also, it could be a military funded project because of the abundance of money, research into new technologies and possibly energy resources. It seems like a great line of work and if successful in one country could generate profitable contracts in others through out the world. I think this could stem from environmental engineering. Think of the jobs that could be created. Also, it may be possible that the research developed from this could be used towards terraforming.

I'm just riffing on my own ideas. But isn't it rather strange that hearing about compains taking these steps or any real discussion about this being a promising source for jobs feels almost non-existant?

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 04 2009, 1:27 pm

Quote (WilliamArtimarFlint @ Nov. 02 2009, 8:27 pm)
I find global warming to be something that could be very profitable and good for the world. Now that sounds very strange but I find it hard to believe that no one can find a money making way of cleaning up the environment. What's stopping Governments from creating tax incentives, or working with banks to get low interest loans on improving factories to produce less and/or research a way to produce no green house gases or other waste. Just taking steps and advertising it would generate priceless PR for compaines. Also, it could be a military funded project because of the abundance of money, research into new technologies and possibly energy resources. It seems like a great line of work and if successful in one country could generate profitable contracts in others through out the world. I think this could stem from environmental engineering. Think of the jobs that could be created. Also, it may be possible that the research developed from this could be used towards terraforming.

I'm just riffing on my own ideas. But isn't it rather strange that hearing about compains taking these steps or any real discussion about this being a promising source for jobs feels almost non-existant?

nothing, in Europe there is a big push toward Green Power.Whether it solar to wind, countries like Spain, Germany and England are pushing goal of at least 20% solar and wind power in next 5 years and actually pay above market cost for power supply from these sources.

Canada, has actually for years favor nuclear power over gas and coal plants, and are one of the largest users of nuclear energy in the world. Far exceeding the US.

India is another heavy developer of Nuclear power, even after years of embargo of Uranium , India has used Breeder reactors using Thorium to meet a large amount of their energy needs.

The Problem is come down to the USA and China. Both countries heavily dependent on Coal plants to supply electricity. Another issue are gasoline power automobiles.

Alot of the resistance is due to the Oil Companies, Coal supplier and automobiles company that have a lot to lose, they have a lot of access to our law makers .

Cynic321

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 8588

Report this Nov. 04 2009, 3:41 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 03 2009, 1:21 pm)
Quote (Cynic321 @ Oct. 30 2009, 5:50 am)
Quote
"These days if you're skeptical about the litany around climate change, you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier." ~~ Patrick Moore: Co-founder of Greenpeace


Here is what individual members of the IPCC, ex-directors of the National Weather Service, leading climatologists & meteorologists, artic researchers scientists, politcians, science journal editors, geologists, oceanographers, economists, medical entimologists, an ex-director of the Natl. Academy of Sciences, a climate study NASA scientist, environmental scientists, and the co-founder of GreenPeace REALLY have to say about the theory of human-driven global warming.

It's simply dam.ning.

One hour, thirteen minutes long.

http://stagevu.com/video/lmdzpbkjfyra

Interesting, but the whole debate of Global warming cannot be decided in a couple of hours.

Scientists study the changes in Climate has review almost a hundred years of data, temperature reading and air sample from ice core in the Antarctic for over a million years. Dozen of models have been purpose and only after debating the matter for over 20 years did they finally release their finding.

The air is warming up. There are many factors, Cosmic ray activity, solar activity, volcanic releases, but the number one factor and the one that cannot be ignore is that fact that Human kind is releasing millions of tons of green house gases into the atmosphere every day.

In the USA Alone, the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) release in a year is equal to the weight of 6 million elephants. Now it kind of naive to believe that you can just dump 6 million elephant into the atmosphere and not expect side effects.

The film basically uses the same tactics that Creationist and ID folk use, take the works of some scientists and highlight what support their stand without studying in detail the data or results.
We cannot control solar activity or Cosmic rays, but we can control the amount of waste we dump into the environment. There will be cost, but the consequences of not doing so is catastrophic. Annual fluctuations does not point to tend, but average temperature world wide over 50 years do.

We are stuck on this planet, we are learning more everyday what occurs when man interact with nature in an uncontrolled manner. There have already been suspect incidenst where entire civilization and culture have literally destroy themselves when they over use their resources. Culture like he Easter islanders and the Nasca. We could be next. Destruction of the Rain forest combine with emission of record high CO2 levels will result in changes in our environment that result in not just the destruction of civilization but in the extinction of mankind.

Unless the Global warming skeptics can show me a reason why that billion of tons of additional CO2 and methane isn't going to change environment, we going to have deal with the fact that we are living not with the Sword of Damocles hanging over us, but a rain of 6 million elephants that can fall on us any minute.

That's a valid line of reasoning, in the main. And only a dam.n fool would argue that we can pollute to our hearts content and not end up paying the piper or that curbing our pollution output is a bad thing in general.

But saying that refuting one scientific theory by pointing out that the empirical data undercuts it's footings; while simultaneously proposing a counter theory that said data supports is not akin to using the same rhetorical tactics that creationists/I.D refuters do. And frankly, the comparison is insulting.

I.D./Creationists argue one theory that is untestable against another that has been tested rigorously for 150 years. The scientific finding support evolution. The scientific findings do not support anthropogenic climate change. After all of 20 years of research and money spent; they have a theory that only computer modeling can support. Hard nosed observation of the facts does not.

If we're responsible for dropping '6 million elephants' annually into a pool that spontaneously produces 1.2 Billion elephants annually (one half of one percent of the problem) ; how can any sane person argue that anthropogenic climate change is a valid theory?

The argument isn't 'should we clean up our act?' . The argument is: Should we waste time, resources, talent, money, and potential battling an insignificant problem when the opportunity costs at hand are as high as they are?

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 04 2009, 4:58 pm

Quote (Cynic321 @ Nov. 03 2009, 4:41 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 03 2009, 1:21 pm)
Quote (Cynic321 @ Oct. 30 2009, 5:50 am)
Quote
"These days if you're skeptical about the litany around climate change, you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier." ~~ Patrick Moore: Co-founder of Greenpeace


Here is what individual members of the IPCC, ex-directors of the National Weather Service, leading climatologists & meteorologists, artic researchers scientists, politcians, science journal editors, geologists, oceanographers, economists, medical entimologists, an ex-director of the Natl. Academy of Sciences, a climate study NASA scientist, environmental scientists, and the co-founder of GreenPeace REALLY have to say about the theory of human-driven global warming.

It's simply dam.ning.

One hour, thirteen minutes long.

http://stagevu.com/video/lmdzpbkjfyra

Interesting, but the whole debate of Global warming cannot be decided in a couple of hours.

Scientists study the changes in Climate has review almost a hundred years of data, temperature reading and air sample from ice core in the Antarctic for over a million years. Dozen of models have been purpose and only after debating the matter for over 20 years did they finally release their finding.

The air is warming up. There are many factors, Cosmic ray activity, solar activity, volcanic releases, but the number one factor and the one that cannot be ignore is that fact that Human kind is releasing millions of tons of green house gases into the atmosphere every day.

In the USA Alone, the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) release in a year is equal to the weight of 6 million elephants. Now it kind of naive to believe that you can just dump 6 million elephant into the atmosphere and not expect side effects.

The film basically uses the same tactics that Creationist and ID folk use, take the works of some scientists and highlight what support their stand without studying in detail the data or results.
We cannot control solar activity or Cosmic rays, but we can control the amount of waste we dump into the environment. There will be cost, but the consequences of not doing so is catastrophic. Annual fluctuations does not point to tend, but average temperature world wide over 50 years do.

We are stuck on this planet, we are learning more everyday what occurs when man interact with nature in an uncontrolled manner. There have already been suspect incidenst where entire civilization and culture have literally destroy themselves when they over use their resources. Culture like he Easter islanders and the Nasca. We could be next. Destruction of the Rain forest combine with emission of record high CO2 levels will result in changes in our environment that result in not just the destruction of civilization but in the extinction of mankind.

Unless the Global warming skeptics can show me a reason why that billion of tons of additional CO2 and methane isn't going to change environment, we going to have deal with the fact that we are living not with the Sword of Damocles hanging over us, but a rain of 6 million elephants that can fall on us any minute.

That's a valid line of reasoning, in the main. And only a dam.n fool would argue that we can pollute to our hearts content and not end up paying the piper or that curbing our pollution output is a bad thing in general.

But saying that refuting one scientific theory by pointing out that the empirical data undercuts it's footings; while simultaneously proposing a counter theory that said data supports is not akin to using the same rhetorical tactics that creationists/I.D refuters do. And frankly, the comparison is insulting.

I.D./Creationists argue one theory that is untestable against another that has been tested rigorously for 150 years. The scientific finding support evolution. The scientific findings do not support anthropomorphic climate change. After all of 20 years of research and money spent; they have a theory that only computer modeling can support. Hard nosed observation of the facts does not.

If we're responsible for dropping '6 million elephants' annually into a pool that spontaneously produces 1.2 Billion elephants annually (one half of one percent of the problem) ; how can any sane person argue that anthropomorphic climate change is a valid theory?

The argument isn't 'should we clean up our act?' . The argument is: Should we waste time, resources, talent, money, and potential battling an insignificant problem when the opportunity costs at hand are as high as they are?

problem is that is addition to normal amount nature produces.

It one thing for a fill a cup to its lid, it  another to then dump an ice cube into the cup to cause it to over flow.

The computer models are already support by facts, models that were made 20 years ago are actually be exceeded. The proof is as simple as standing on island of Tuvalu



and watching what once was you home slowing being reclaimed by the rising ocean. That ice cube we just added to the cup is doing it job and as a result 11,000 inhabitants will need to move, at the rate the ocean is rising it could totally underwater in a less than a decade.

We can argue over the extended that our we are contributing to the global climate change, critics of global warming jump on the statement by Gore that CO2 emission by mankind was 40% responsible as proof Emission by humans were not to blame, yet ignore that on top of CO2 we are also producing methane ( add addition 10 to 20 %) and increase water vapor (and addition 10 to 20%) and these contribute donot includes the effect of addition chemical like sulfur ( responsible for acid rain) or even mercury release.

This is the exact methods Holocaust deniers use. First attack the amount, okay it not 2 million Jews killed it was more like 500,000. Make it sound less horrible, but heck 10 people killed by a mad man is crime it no less holocaust if it 100 or million, each life is a lost. Saying we are only 40% of the problem make it no less our fault.

The issue should not be one of money, purely financial decisions have lead to great decisions as GM releasing auto with gas tanks that explode in rear end collision, or  Dumping cancer causing chemicals and building housing developments over it. It cheaper to risk the law suites and allow the dead of thousands than to do the right things.

In the end we must decide is it better to do the right thing and prevent the death of millions ( maybe the extinction of all life on earth) or do we take the cheap approach and pray that somehow we can survive this by doing nothing..

For me it an easy choice...

blankenship

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1632

Report this Nov. 04 2009, 6:44 pm

Quote (TheChronicOne @ Nov. 01 2009, 9:41 am)
Well, sorry to shatter your fragile little bubble there, bud, but you don't decide what others are or are not interested in.

You keep going on and on with condescending rude lil' comments all the time... does THAT ever get blase?

Hey, it's not like I'm killin' babies or anything.

blankenship

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1632

Report this Nov. 05 2009, 8:32 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 03 2009, 5:58 pm)
Quote (Cynic321 @ Nov. 03 2009, 4:41 pm)
Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 03 2009, 1:21 pm)
Quote (Cynic321 @ Oct. 30 2009, 5:50 am)
Quote
"These days if you're skeptical about the litany around climate change, you're suddenly like as if you're a Holocaust denier." ~~ Patrick Moore: Co-founder of Greenpeace


Here is what individual members of the IPCC, ex-directors of the National Weather Service, leading climatologists & meteorologists, artic researchers scientists, politcians, science journal editors, geologists, oceanographers, economists, medical entimologists, an ex-director of the Natl. Academy of Sciences, a climate study NASA scientist, environmental scientists, and the co-founder of GreenPeace REALLY have to say about the theory of human-driven global warming.

It's simply dam.ning.

One hour, thirteen minutes long.

http://stagevu.com/video/lmdzpbkjfyra

Interesting, but the whole debate of Global warming cannot be decided in a couple of hours.

Scientists study the changes in Climate has review almost a hundred years of data, temperature reading and air sample from ice core in the Antarctic for over a million years. Dozen of models have been purpose and only after debating the matter for over 20 years did they finally release their finding.

The air is warming up. There are many factors, Cosmic ray activity, solar activity, volcanic releases, but the number one factor and the one that cannot be ignore is that fact that Human kind is releasing millions of tons of green house gases into the atmosphere every day.

In the USA Alone, the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and methane) release in a year is equal to the weight of 6 million elephants. Now it kind of naive to believe that you can just dump 6 million elephant into the atmosphere and not expect side effects.

The film basically uses the same tactics that Creationist and ID folk use, take the works of some scientists and highlight what support their stand without studying in detail the data or results.
We cannot control solar activity or Cosmic rays, but we can control the amount of waste we dump into the environment. There will be cost, but the consequences of not doing so is catastrophic. Annual fluctuations does not point to tend, but average temperature world wide over 50 years do.

We are stuck on this planet, we are learning more everyday what occurs when man interact with nature in an uncontrolled manner. There have already been suspect incidenst where entire civilization and culture have literally destroy themselves when they over use their resources. Culture like he Easter islanders and the Nasca. We could be next. Destruction of the Rain forest combine with emission of record high CO2 levels will result in changes in our environment that result in not just the destruction of civilization but in the extinction of mankind.

Unless the Global warming skeptics can show me a reason why that billion of tons of additional CO2 and methane isn't going to change environment, we going to have deal with the fact that we are living not with the Sword of Damocles hanging over us, but a rain of 6 million elephants that can fall on us any minute.

That's a valid line of reasoning, in the main. And only a dam.n fool would argue that we can pollute to our hearts content and not end up paying the piper or that curbing our pollution output is a bad thing in general.

But saying that refuting one scientific theory by pointing out that the empirical data undercuts it's footings; while simultaneously proposing a counter theory that said data supports is not akin to using the same rhetorical tactics that creationists/I.D refuters do. And frankly, the comparison is insulting.

I.D./Creationists argue one theory that is untestable against another that has been tested rigorously for 150 years. The scientific finding support evolution. The scientific findings do not support anthropomorphic climate change. After all of 20 years of research and money spent; they have a theory that only computer modeling can support. Hard nosed observation of the facts does not.

If we're responsible for dropping '6 million elephants' annually into a pool that spontaneously produces 1.2 Billion elephants annually (one half of one percent of the problem) ; how can any sane person argue that anthropomorphic climate change is a valid theory?

The argument isn't 'should we clean up our act?' . The argument is: Should we waste time, resources, talent, money, and potential battling an insignificant problem when the opportunity costs at hand are as high as they are?

problem is that is addition to normal amount nature produces.

It one thing for a fill a cup to its lid, it ¿another to then dump an ice cube into the cup to cause it to over flow.

The computer models are already support by facts, models that were made 20 years ago are actually be exceeded. The proof is as simple as standing on island of Tuvalu



and watching what once was you home slowing being reclaimed by the rising ocean. That ice cube we just added to the cup is doing it job and as a result 11,000 inhabitants will need to move, at the rate the ocean is rising it could totally underwater in a less than a decade.

We can argue over the extended that our we are contributing to the global climate change, critics of global warming jump on the statement by Gore that CO2 emission by mankind was 40% responsible as proof Emission by humans were not to blame, yet ignore that on top of CO2 we are also producing methane ( add addition 10 to 20 %) and increase water vapor (and addition 10 to 20%) and these contribute donot includes the effect of addition chemical like sulfur ( responsible for acid rain) or even mercury release.

This is the exact methods Holocaust deniers use. First attack the amount, okay it not 2 million Jews killed it was more like 500,000. Make it sound less horrible, but heck 10 people killed by a mad man is crime it no less holocaust if it 100 or million, each life is a lost. Saying we are only 40% of the problem make it no less our fault.

The issue should not be one of money, purely financial decisions have lead to great decisions as GM releasing auto with gas tanks that explode in rear end collision, or ¿Dumping cancer causing chemicals and building housing developments over it. It cheaper to risk the law suites and allow the dead of thousands than to do the right things.

In the end we must decide is it better to do the right thing and prevent the death of millions ( maybe the extinction of all life on earth) or do we take the cheap approach and pray that somehow we can survive this by doing nothing..

For me it an easy choice...

Hey, Dryson what do you think about equating the holocaust

with global warming?

Please, please, please chime in.

caltrek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 0

Report this Nov. 06 2009, 2:22 pm

Here is a video review of less than 9 minutes duration of the documentary cited at the beginning of this thread:

You Tube

One issue that the Global Climate Swindle did bring up concerned the notion that warming in the troposphere was not in line with what climate models were predicting. Alas, this was based on dated argumetns that have subsequently been addressed:

Climate Science

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies...

Since the late 1950s, all radiosonde data sets show that the low and mid troposphere have warmed at a rate slightly faster than the rate of warming at the surface. These changes are in accord with our understanding of the effects of radiative forcing agents on the climate system and with the results from model simulations."

As pointed out in the video review cited above, this passage is found in a report that is co-authored by Dr. J.R. Christy, the scientist interviewed in The Global Warming Swindle who in that documentary discussed the earlier problems of matching the satellite data with global warming theory. Obvioulsy, Dr. Christy no longer supports the position he took in the Swindle documentary.

captbates

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12614

Report this Nov. 08 2009, 4:29 pm

Governments didn't give a toss about Global Warming until they realised there was money to be made from it.

And if it turns out to be a natural Earth cycle (which we survive) they will claim to have averted a global disaster.

lanceromega

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 3859

Report this Nov. 09 2009, 1:23 pm

Quote (captbates @ Nov. 07 2009, 5:29 pm)
Governments didn't give a toss about Global Warming until they realised there was money to be made from it.

And if it turns out to be a natural Earth cycle (which we survive) they will claim to have averted a global disaster.

Or it could been when everyone start to write their congress man and senator complaining about it.

Government are not making money from this, All over Europe Government  are dishing out big bucks to promote solar and wind power. The only money making to come out of this, is the so call carbon tax which Government would like to enact to provide a simulate for industries to change to less CO2 emitting technology.

The ones that make money is the Carbon traders that buy and sell carbon credit, like anything a market arises. As for a natural Cycle, since man is part of nature then it natural..Will we survive it depends if Governments,industries and the common people make an effort to combat it.

captbates

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 12614

Report this Nov. 13 2009, 6:41 pm

Quote (lanceromega @ Nov. 08 2009, 6:23 pm)
Quote (captbates @ Nov. 07 2009, 5:29 pm)
Governments didn't give a toss about Global Warming until they realised there was money to be made from it.

And if it turns out to be a natural Earth cycle (which we survive) they will claim to have averted a global disaster.

Or it could been when everyone start to write their congress man and senator complaining about it.

Government are not making money from this, All over Europe Government ¿are dishing out big bucks to promote solar and wind power. The only money making to come out of this, is the so call carbon tax which Government would like to enact to provide a simulate for industries to change to less CO2 emitting technology.

The ones that make money is the Carbon traders that buy and sell carbon credit, like anything a market arises. As for a natural Cycle, since man is part of nature then it natural..Will we survive it depends if Governments,industries and the common people make an effort to combat it.

Governments aren't making money  :question:

Sure they are, do you think they give away more than they take from "Green" taxes? no way!

You've just proved my point, if "WE" do survive global warming it will be put down to the "great efforts" of our "forward thinking leaders" when in fact (at the present time) little has really been done.
Until we stop destroying rainforests and start planting huge amounts of trees we are just wasting our time. Unless of course we can suddenly develop a new clean power source.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum