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

[Mirza]

They certainly have a point - but alas the title reveals all.

China, which relies on coal for 70 percent of its energy needs, is the second-largest emitter of climate-changing gases behind the United States and is on track to become the world's biggest polluter in coming years.[/b]

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]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070206/sc_af...na_070206144048

[viking31]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Feb, 02:01 PM) [snapback]388097[/snapback]</div>

They certainly have a point - but alas the title reveals all.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070206/sc_af...na_070206144048
[/b]

Probably a mute point anyhow as more and more evidence is mounting that Global Warming has little if anything to do with CO2 emissions by man. Evidence is now pointing to cosmic rays emitted by the sun as a major factor for the natural cycles of GW.

But, as many politicians and celebrities have found, there is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making the general public feel "guilty" with regards to GW.

Rick
#4 2006

[Godiva]

Does it really matter if the U.S. is #1 and China #2 or vice versa?

When #1 and #2 are in denial and refuse to mitigate, they basically screw everyone else. No matter what the rest of the world does, #1 and #2's refusal to change will doom everyone.

[Mirza]

OK, it's about time you stop getting high off of oil fumes... lay the petroleum jelly down and step away! I'm curious - what on earth is your profession? You've consistenly proven your statements to be of shallow "importance." Are you a geologist by any chance?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 10 2007, 08:22 PM) [snapback]388230[/snapback]</div>

Probably a mute point anyhow as more and more evidence is mounting that Global Warming has little if anything to do with CO2 emissions by man. Evidence is now pointing to cosmic rays emitted by the sun as a major factor for the natural cycles of GW.

But, as many politicians and celebrities have found, there is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making the general public feel "guilty" with regards to GW.

Rick
#4 2006
[/b]

You're dead blind if you don't see where the greater money is at - with oil... of course you've been that way all along.

[Mirza]

Global Warming and the liberal media!



This is interesting... and a good reality check for viking:

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkEIx0vwHZ8

[Mirza]

Here is the article that viking disingenuously used out of context... though I bet he found the information from some misinformed author:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/...20731080631.htm

This is nothing new... and it's also outdated information because if I remember correctly (from an article from a former denier) the satellite data perhaps used in this research has since been corrected. It's amazing that the UK Telegraph dug this out - talk about bad journalism! (It's controversy like that which gets more viewership and thus more $$$, for conspiracy theorists like viking)

And for christ sake no scientist says humans are the only factor... quit using that as an "argument!"

Here is some updated, more recent, and thus more accurate information:

WASHINGTON - Eleven Earth and space scientists say that a recent paper attributing most climate change on Earth to cosmic rays is incorrect and based on questionable methodology. Writing in the January 27 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union, Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and colleagues in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, and the United States challenge the cosmic ray hypothesis.[/b]

Cosmic Rays Are Not the Cause of Climate Change, Scientists Say
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0405.html

Yet another refutation of viking's so-called claim from a highly credible source:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42

/me is done for tonight

[viking31]

Listed here are numerous points which categorically refute GW, especially AGW. Few, if any, of these points are addressed by pro AGW websites.

And sure there is lots of money in oil. But there is also lots of money to be had with "fighting" the evils of GW.

And who got my picture with the aluminum foil hat shown in the earlier post?

P'sst. I'll let you in a little secret... They are very effective in warding off those pesky stray cosmic rays.

Rick
#4 2006

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 11 2007, 06:20 AM) [snapback]388412[/snapback]</div>

Listed here are numerous points which categorically refute GW, especially AGW. Few, if any, of these points are addressed by pro AGW websites.

And sure there is lots of money in oil. But there is also lots of money to be had with "fighting" the evils of GW.

And who got my picture with the aluminum foil hat shown in the earlier post?

P'sst. I'll let you in a little secret... They are very effective in warding off those pesky stray cosmic rays.

Rick
#4 2006
[/b]

There are too many false statements on that webpage to list. Vested interests will lead people to denounce anything that they see as harmful to their fragile economic system.

What really ticks me off is that these people rarely look at the total picture of AGW and the role humans play. The burning of fossil fuels has far reaching and catestrophic effects on a large number of people and environments even if you take climate change completely out of the picture. So in reality, the whole global warming issue is pushing us in a better direction than the path we were following which put an emphasis on consumption and degredation. Now people are starting to think about reduction and regeneration.

[LaughingMan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 10 2007, 09:22 PM) [snapback]388230[/snapback]</div>

Probably a mute point anyhow as more and more evidence is mounting that Global Warming has little if anything to do with CO2 emissions by man. Evidence is now pointing to cosmic rays emitted by the sun as a major factor for the natural cycles of GW.

But, as many politicians and celebrities have found, there is a tremendous amount of money to be made by making the general public feel "guilty" with regards to GW.

Rick
#4 2006
[/b]

First of all, you don't mean "mute" point. You mean "moot." I hate it when people get that wrong.

You say this in the wake of the UN report that says with 90% certainty that humans ARE causing global warming. How contrarian of you.

Furthermore, you make the claim that politicians and celebrities are making a tremendous amount of money by making the public feel guilty. I highly doubt it. Celebrities, in particular, probably stand to gain nothing other than stroking their own ego. If anything, certain celebrities may lose some clout by being portrayed as egotistical and "tree hugger" and end up losing money in the form of fewer movie contracts.

The industries that stand to gain the most from perpetuating the "myth" of global warming are what? The massive cartel to promote cleaner cars? Clean energy companies? People who grow ethanol and work on biofuels?

If you're going to argue that Global Warming is a myth intended to make money, then why then are so many of the institutions that have potential solutions so small, so poorly funded by the government and corporations?

Lets take a look at the other side of the argument, shall we? Who stands to gain by promoting the myth that Global warming is a myth? Oil companies... record profits of $35 billion just last year.

I think in this case, your argument about money falls flat on its face. The status quo has a lot more to lose in money if GW were true than the other way around.

[LaughingMan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 11 2007, 10:20 AM) [snapback]388412[/snapback]</div>

And sure there is lots of money in oil. But there is also lots of money to be had with "fighting" the evils of GW.

[/b]

Exactly where? And show me how they compare to the $35 Billion in profits for Exxon Mobile alone in 2006.

The fact is, the money spent by the government and corporations to combat global warming as been pretty miniscule. A lot of localized research into alternatives like fuel cell vehicles and other things, but a drop in the bucket compared to the subsidies given to the oil companies.

It's a far stretch to say that people who are working to solve the global warming problem are doing it for the money.

Lets put it this way... lets say there are two possibilities for reality, and two courses of action to take...

Suppose global warming is a myth, but everyone comes together to make more efficient, less polluting cars, improve the efficiency of our power plants and industry, and improve our home energy consumption. From an environmental point of view, we were no worse off if we had done nothing, but we also have added benefits of transitioning away from oil, helping our geopolitical situation, and probably reducing the cost of energy for everyone, even if global warming isn't happening, or we have no control over it.

Suppose global warming is real, but we follow your line of reasoning, and think it is a myth. We end up doing nothing, and sticking with the status quo because we think it's not real. All the while, we continue to pollute, and we end up making this planet inhabitable within a few hundred years.

I'd better be safe than sorry.