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

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

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

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.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(LaughingMan @ Feb 11 2007, 09:12 AM) [snapback]388453[/snapback]</div>

Many call that the precautionary principle. Native Americans call is the DUH! principle. As quoted by Clayton Thomas-Müller, of the Mathais Colomb Cree Nation in Northern Manitoba, Canada.

 

You are absolutely correct. Sorry for the error on that one.

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.

I flat out disagree. Most major potentially political candidates for president has made AGW part of their campaign platform, even Republicans. Celebrities? Fewer movie contracts because the support AGW? And you believe when actors speak to the media they do it from the bottom of their heart? C'mon, give me a break. This is their business. They are experts at appealing to the masses.

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."

Who's working for free on AGW?

If the public buys into the AGW myth (and they are just like they did with the over population scares of the 60's, Y2K, etc.) then there is money to be made, even by those evil oil companies who dare to turn a profit.

We do have a lot to lose with the AGW myth. Our current status as a world leader will diminish to the likes of China, India, and other fast rising industrialized nations who simply will not join or participate in Kyoto like schemes.

Rick
#4 2006

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(viking31 @ Feb 11 2007, 12:39 PM) [snapback]388527[/snapback]</div>

Nope. So oil shocks and NG spikes are good for the us? The sooner we ditch these commodities and replace them with cleaner, homegrown alternatives the sooner we'll free ourselves from all sorts of diversions and entanglements.

Viking, every post you've reference you've made to critics of AGW have been soundly thrashed. Shell, Duke Energy and others have admitted that the general debate is over and it's time to start doing something. If the oil companies thought that green tech was as big a cash cow as fossil fuels you know that they'd switch. They have every reason to promote inaction. Even Exxon has finally stopped funding the pseudo-science quacks that propagated the AGW myth myth.

Currently the best evidence that we have strongly suggests that our energy/transportation infrastructure is raising the global avg temp. There have no scientifically valid counter arguments. If there were the debate would be over and we'd have to look elsewhere to explain what we're seeing. There's no such thing as liberal or conservative science. There's valid science and invalid science.

The struggle between Classical physics and quantum is a great example of this. The prevailing view at the end of the 19th century was that physics was pretty much maxed out. In 1900 Max Planck published a paper on black body radiation and quanta. He spent most of the rest of his career trying to disprove his own work. An American physicist at University of Chicago who was a strong supporter of classical physics was awarded a Nobel Prize (1916 I think) for his work that confirmed quantum theories. He had been trying to disprove them but his results kept confirming aspects of the theory.

That's how science works. It's not liberal or conservative.... it just is.

 

Peak oil is here get used to it.

The old industrial revolution is over, get used to it.

Our antiquated economic models are due for change.

The concerns you listed are part of a dangerous and degredational paradigm. There are many ways to pull ou of this tailspin but remaining reliant on fossil fuel energy is not one of them. A good leader comes up with new ideas that will foster security and prosperity in the future. A good leader does not run around frantically attacking other countries and hording a resource that every knows is in decline and contributes to the degredation of ecosystems and our public health.

We need to get other the very real possibility that our place as the #1 power in the world could come to an end. We should be leading the way in sustainable practices and technology so that these growing nations have a viable alternative to the models we used to build our nation which were/are very destructive. If we choose not to follow this path then we will all pay the price.


Population and affluence are still a problem. The arguement between Ulrich and Simon is not truely over.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Feb, 03:19 PM) [snapback]388540[/snapback]</div>

YES, YES, YES!!!

I too think we should even more actively explore other forms of energy rather than being an oil based economy (I do own a Prius!). Wind, hydro, ethanol, use of super capacitors at home for energy storage so power plants can operate a peak efficiency, extensive use of CFL's in home and business, expanded use of nuclear power (or "nuclar" ;-)), etc. We CAN do it without the UN or any other EU style bureaucracy dictating the future of our nation. I would rather keep our money and jobs here rather than spending it on silly carbon credits overseas (of which, because of our advanced style of living, we would always be on the losing end).

But if we try to shift our oil dependencies with scares and myths of AGW and threats of Kyoto schemes which only serve only to unjustifiably shift our money and power to poorer socialist type nations, well, then you will have a political fight. While many on this group (which consists of mostly left leaning liberals) would not mind such shifts, people, like myself, who run businesses, employ people, and actually do manufacture items here in the US do care about the pecking order of the world's nations.

Want to join Kyoto? Fine, I'm sure China and India will gladly take up the slack. Want to really see an unstable world climate? Have the US play second or third fiddle to China and/or India. The Cuban missile crisis would look like child's play to possible future military encounters.

Rick

#4 2006

 

The current economic model is a failure. The 'bottom line' is nowhere near the bottom, and the balance sheet doesn't balance. Until we have a system that takes into account natural capital and environmental degradation, we have no idea what we are doing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Feb 11 2007, 02:31 PM) [snapback]388580[/snapback]</div>

Economics: Yes, what we need is a precautionary, rational economic model that accounts for natural capital and environmental degradation. See Paul Hawken's Natural Capital and Amory Lovin's Factor Four.

Coal: Air flowing across the Pacific Ocean used to be relatively clean. The Chinese have and use and abundance of coal - arsenic laden coal. Air flowing across the Pacific Ocean to North America is increasingly dirty.

Kyoto: Whether you accept the IPCC consensus on global climate change or not, if you double your efficiency, you either double your profit or cut your cost by one-half. So why not double efficiency?!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(skruse @ Feb 11 2007, 03:02 PM) [snapback]388591[/snapback]</div>

Exactly!

Here are some other sources:

Winning the Oil End Game - Amory Lovins

Or watch the video with Charlie Rose
Amory Lovins

 

I think in some ways we are on the same page Viking. We are just reading it from different angles.

Well other than the AGW part.

As many people have stated. The vast majority of people want the same thing when it comes to core human values. That's why some have called us a nation of purple states, not red or blue.

Whether anyone agrees with the Amory Lovin's stuff is not the point. It is simply a different viewpoint and could spur thinking in other areas that would enhance our independence and security.