If you're not part of the solution, then you're a part of the problem!

[Tideland Prius]

"China said it had no plans to radically change its reliance on coal and other dirty fuels, as it insisted the responsibility for global warming rested with developed countries."[/b]

Yeah, that sounds like China... <_<

They tend to think that we're trying to screw them over by not letting them to certain things (like polluting) and simply point out the "if you (the rest of the world) can do it, why can't we?"

Which is kinda retarded cause they're in the perfect position to leapfrog everyone else and take the lead but they don't seem to want to.

[Mirza]

This guy is the kind of source viking gets his "information" from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy

Journalistic ethics
Milloy is a paid advocate for Phillip Morris and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[5][28][6][10] The content of junkscience.com, which is represented as independent, has been reviewed, revised, and edited by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.[6]

In January 2006, Paul D. Thacker reported in The New Republic that Milloy, who is presented by Fox News as an independent journalist, was under contract to Philip Morris through the end of 2005.[5] Philip Morris documents showed that Milloy was budgeted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments while writing for FoxNews.com.[10] In the May/June 2005 issue of Mother Jones, Chris Mooney reported that non-profit organizations operated out of Milloy's home have also received large payments from ExxonMobil during his tenure with Fox News.[29][5]

A spokesperson for Fox News stated, "Fox News was unaware of Milloy's connection with Philip Morris. Any affiliation he had should have been disclosed."[5] Regarding ties to ExxonMobil, a Fox News spokesperson stated that Milloy is "...affiliated with several not-for-profit groups that possibly may receive funding from Exxon, but he certainly does not receive funding directly from Exxon."[29]
Journalists who take money to write pieces favorable to corporate interests are widely considered to be breaching journalistic ethics.[30][31][32][33] Milloy's association with the Cato Institute has since ended; however, as of October 2006, he continues to write for FoxNews.com, where he is described as a "junk science expert."[34][/b]

You ought to take a look at what the numbskull wrote about the WTC tragedy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy..._Center_tragedy

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 11 2007, 06:12 PM) [snapback]388680[/snapback]</div>

This guy is the kind of source viking gets his "information" from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy
You ought to take a look at what the numbskull wrote about the WTC tragedy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy..._Center_tragedy
[/b]

What do you expect from a lobbiest who regularly takes money form tobacco and oil companies!

[viking31]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb 11 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]388647[/snapback]</div>

Guess everything that doesn't fit your worldview ends up with a "leftist" label. I'm sure all the conservative Muslims represented in the UN are leftists too. Please.

In case you didn't already notice, China is already on track to surpass us sooner or later... regardless of global warming. (BTW... no matter what anybody's thoughts are - there is absolutely no connection to 'reality'... so you can keep on yelping like the contrarian crackpot you are).
-Upton Sinclair
[/b]

Too bad you feel cornered and have to resort to name calling, the internet equivalent of raising the white flag. I do understand your evident frustrations as more and more solid evidence points to the myth of AGW.

Tsk-tsk, wonder how long before I am compared to Hitler. Not quite sure of your seemingly altruistic reference to Muslims (do they have an AGW agenda?), but I can assure you they are looking for no sympathies from anyone (yes, even you) this side of the Atlantic.

I think we can all say with confidence your arguments are "out of gas".

Rick

#4 2006

[Mirza]

You're alone in your "analysis." Hope you don't run out of business when GHG regulation hits you .

(I resort to name-calling for those who deserve... IE liars who confuscate important issues. I find you highly lacking in morals... I consider you on about the level of a rodent... in all honesty ... care to take a wild guess on where I learned name-calling from?)

[Mirza]

Eh, I'm done w/ the insulting - should have never stooped down to your level... but then again....

Anyhow, the cosmic radiation hypothesis you mentioned got blown out of the water:

Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes.[/b]

Check out the other info.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...r-in-the-times/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ays-for-a-spin/

Personally, I get the feeling that you actually don't have a strong opinion on global warming in itself... but rather on what you perceive it means to you (IE regulation)... I'm actually quite curious about your psychology.

Anyhow, I've been communicating a little bit with one of the contributors to realclimate.org - and, well, I'll be posting what has been found out about the corporate shills you get your "information" from... that will be coming later - since it's a long post and I have to get to studying.

[LaughingMan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 11 2007, 03:39 PM) [snapback]388527[/snapback]</div>

So you are stating that major oil companies or automakers who embrace the AGW myth made the decision in a board room like this..."Gee, let's see, if we support AGW we will lose X amount of dollars for our company and our shareholders. OK, that's a great idea. Let's do it."
[/b]

The oil companies or automakers have acknowledged global warming and are working on either alternatives that would transition away from oil or improve efficiency in cars because they've been called out.

Even after acknowledging that there is a problem with global warming, these industries are frantically trying to delay the inevitability of their own irrelevance... part of that is the astroturf that you've stumbled upon that claims that global warming is a myth.

They are trying to make nice with all of the critics, while at the same time, funding sciastitutes and other groups to astroturf about how global warming is a myth to give them a few more decades to make the rest of the money they can out of the little oil that's left in the ground.

Trying to spin the intentions of the people trying to solve global warming by saying they're motivated by money primarily is just disingenuous, especially compared to the two-facedness of the oil companies.

Sure, money is a motivation, but there's nothing wrong with that. This is capitalism, isn't it? I am a big believer that if the US can get out ahead in investing in alternative energy and other solutions, we'll maintain our economic lead, rather than lose it. We can fund a new Manhattan project... It's a win-win, in my book... we'll save the world, save civilization, and we'll also make money off of the new industries that an alternative energy future will stimulate.

[tripp]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Feb 14 2007, 01:49 AM) [snapback]390083[/snapback]</div>

Sure, money is a motivation, but there's nothing wrong with that. This is capitalism, isn't it? I am a big believer that if the US can get out ahead in investing in alternative energy and other solutions, we'll maintain our economic lead, rather than lose it. We can fund a new Manhattan project... It's a win-win, in my book... we'll save the world, save civilization, and we'll also make money off of the new industries that an alternative energy future will stimulate.
[/b]

This is what I don't get. Why wouldn't we want to be at the forefront of a massively disruptive technology? There are security, environmental/public health, and financial/economic benefits. Any one of them is huge but combined they really should be a massive incentive.

[JSH]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 11 2007, 02:39 PM) [snapback]388527[/snapback]</div>

I do not run with the sheep (read leftist UN). Please elaborate when the UN has ever promoted the US's or any industrialized nations interests.
[/b]

That is because the UN is the UNITED NATIONS not the United States. The UN is there to promote what is best for the ENTIRE world not just the rich nations of the world. Some seem to think that just because the UN doesn't rubber stamp every proposal the US makes that they aren't doing there job. On the contrary that is their job. The US and other wealthy nations don't need the UN to promote our interest, we self-promote quite well.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Feb 19 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]393136[/snapback]</div>

That is because the UN is the UNITED NATIONS not the United States. The UN is there to promote what is best for the ENTIRE world not just the rich nations of the world. Some seem to think that just because the UN doesn't rubber stamp every proposal the US makes that they aren't doing there job. On the contrary that is their job. The US and other wealthy nations don't need the UN to promote our interest, we self-promote quite well.
[/b]

Exactly!

Some people are so ethnocentric it is amazing.