The Great Global Warming Swindle

[GaryC 7]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.

Please re-read what you just wrote there. I do not accept that GW is man made. There is no agreement by scientists if it's man made. There is just hype and fear-mongering. How can we deal with something that is out of our control? The planet may be changing but we are not doing it. That is the whole point! It's like taking medicine for a condition you don't have. It only causes more harm than good. It's eco-hypochondria.

[Alex+R 0]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.

Please re-read what you just wrote there. I do not accept that GW is man made. There is no agreement by scientists if it's man made. There is just hype and fear-mongering. How can we deal with something that is out of our control? The planet may be changing but we are not doing it. That is the whole point! It's like taking medicine for a condition you don't have. It only causes more harm than good. It's eco-hypochondria.

Ok I know that's what you and some other people and a handful of scientists think. But what's the harm in trying to stop the climate change? That way, if it works, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. All in all, the solutions for global warming are also good for us in other ways.

Fear-mongering is usually for a purpose. Explain to me what the purpose of fear-mongering over climate change would be.

[GaryC 7]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.

Please re-read what you just wrote there. I do not accept that GW is man made. There is no agreement by scientists if it's man made. There is just hype and fear-mongering. How can we deal with something that is out of our control? The planet may be changing but we are not doing it. That is the whole point! It's like taking medicine for a condition you don't have. It only causes more harm than good. It's eco-hypochondria.

Ok I know that's what you and some other people and a handful of scientists think. But what's the harm in trying to stop the climate change? That way, if it works, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. All in all, the solutions for global warming are also good for us in other ways.

Fear-mongering is usually for a purpose. Explain to me what the purpose of fear-mongering over climate change would be.

It's an attempt to control the free market economy of the US and other developed nations to allow the third world to catch up with us. This is just they way they have chosen to do it. Look at the Kyoto treaty. It restricts the US but lets China, India and the rest of the developing world slide. If it's purpose really was to "cure" the damage humans are doing to the planet then it would apply to all equally. Since it does not then that tells me it's motivation in political and not scientific.

[Alex+R 0]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.

Please re-read what you just wrote there. I do not accept that GW is man made. There is no agreement by scientists if it's man made. There is just hype and fear-mongering. How can we deal with something that is out of our control? The planet may be changing but we are not doing it. That is the whole point! It's like taking medicine for a condition you don't have. It only causes more harm than good. It's eco-hypochondria.

Ok I know that's what you and some other people and a handful of scientists think. But what's the harm in trying to stop the climate change? That way, if it works, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. All in all, the solutions for global warming are also good for us in other ways.

Fear-mongering is usually for a purpose. Explain to me what the purpose of fear-mongering over climate change would be.

It's an attempt to control the free market economy of the US and other developed nations to allow the third world to catch up with us. This is just they way they have chosen to do it. Look at the Kyoto treaty. It restricts the US but lets China, India and the rest of the developing world slide. If it's purpose really was to "cure" the damage humans are doing to the planet then it would apply to all equally. Since it does not then that tells me it's motivation in political and not scientific.

You don't think it could be ecologically motivated with realistic political considerations factored in?

Sigh

[GaryC 7]

I consider it a joke that anyone would consider anything more important than the environment. If the environment goes away, we go away. Point final.

I hope we can all stop wasting time arguing over whether or not it's true and start dealing with it before it's too late.

Please re-read what you just wrote there. I do not accept that GW is man made. There is no agreement by scientists if it's man made. There is just hype and fear-mongering. How can we deal with something that is out of our control? The planet may be changing but we are not doing it. That is the whole point! It's like taking medicine for a condition you don't have. It only causes more harm than good. It's eco-hypochondria.

Ok I know that's what you and some other people and a handful of scientists think. But what's the harm in trying to stop the climate change? That way, if it works, we can all breathe a sigh of relief. All in all, the solutions for global warming are also good for us in other ways.

Fear-mongering is usually for a purpose. Explain to me what the purpose of fear-mongering over climate change would be.

It's an attempt to control the free market economy of the US and other developed nations to allow the third world to catch up with us. This is just they way they have chosen to do it. Look at the Kyoto treaty. It restricts the US but lets China, India and the rest of the developing world slide. If it's purpose really was to "cure" the damage humans are doing to the planet then it would apply to all equally. Since it does not then that tells me it's motivation in political and not scientific.

You don't think it could be ecologically motivated with realistic political considerations factored in?

Sigh

Not in this case. GW is a farce. It's a political issue and not a scientific one. It's a matter of control over our lives and our country. It has nothing to do with our climate.

Please read what this blog has to say. Yes, it's a right leaning blog but it still makes some good points. If it is such a dire circumstance we find ourself in why would the "academy award winner" Al Gore be doing things like this instead of really reducing the carbon he emits? It's all show and no substance.

In its original story, The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville reported that Gore buys “carbon offsets” to compensate for his home’s use of energy from carbon-based fuels. What is a “carbon offset,” exactly? Essentially, it’s a payment someone makes to an environmentally friendly entity to compensate for personally using non-green energy.

As Wikipedia explains, a carbon offset “is a service that tries to reduce the net carbon emissions of individuals or organizations indirectly, through proxies who reduce their emissions and/or increase their absorption of greenhouse gases.” Wikipedia goes on to explain that “a wide variety of offset actions are available; tree planting is the most common. Renewable energy and energy conservation offsets are also popular, including emissions trading credits.”

So far, so good. So, where does Gore buy his ‘carbon offsets’? According to The Tennessean newspaper’s report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management. a company he co-founded and serves as chairman:

Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe…

As co-founder and chairman of the firm Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he “buys” his “carbon offsets” from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn’t buy “carbon offsets” through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350

Edited March 5, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Peikko 1,575]

Finally, the film argues that restricting CO2 emissions could actually be damaging for people in the developing world. James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network, says: 'The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.

'I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio.

'The thing that emerges from the whole environmental debate is the point that there is somebody keen to kill the African dream, and the African dream is to develop. We are being told don't touch your resources, don't touch your oil, don't touch your coal; that is suicide.'

From the arcticle posted by the OP and

It's an attempt to control the free market economy of the US and other developed nations to allow the third world to catch up with us. This is just they way they have chosen to do it. Look at the Kyoto treaty. It restricts the US but lets China, India and the rest of the developing world slide. If it's purpose really was to "cure" the damage humans are doing to the planet then it would apply to all equally. Since it does not then that tells me it's motivation in political and not scientific.

Which seem totally contradictory to me, or have I missed something here?

[Robor007 0]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

Actually he's not. He's just going to rubbish any research that suggests there's even

a remote possibility that global-warming is not man made.

Is that any different than those who rubbish all of the evidence that supports man is causing or speeding up global warming?

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

i recently read about 4 carbon offset businesses. 2 were for profit. hmmm.

[fozzie 41]

Far more evidence that GW is man made than not!

This is not a cyclical phenomenon that will go away and come back again. We are well outside the norm here!!!! Over the past 50 years CO2 emmissions have soared through the roof and are now well above those of the usaual warming periods.

Also as for the economy my earlier point remains. If more people buy renewable energy, it will be improved and made more efficient and will easily replace coal/oil/nukuler (GWB - legend). When i say replace I mean replace, power cars, factories and homes. It will not affect the manufacturing industry adversley in the long run. Yes they have to pay out a bit to start with but the biggest polluters could probably pay for this with the money they will end up paying in fines for polluting our beautiful planet.

I for one would rather have a clear conscience. I don't want to get to the age of 60 and realise "hey, looks like they were right about global warming after alll" while my grandchildren run around in factor 5000 sunblock, coughing on smog and giving me that look of innocence that would say-if it knew better-what have all you ignorant f***s done to my generation!

watch planet of the apes - it's a mad house!

[Nagishkaw 510]

To bad Steve is doing his "laundry". He is fun to argue global warming with.

I don't know too many people who think its not a man made problem. Whatever your opinion on the cause of global warming he fact remains that all energy sources we use that send co2 into the atmosphere are going to run out sooner rather than later and then we will be up sh#t creek without a paddle. So why not start buying green energy now? why not champion tghe cause of renewable sources of energy so that more money can be used to improve these energy sources? To make them more efficient....so that they CAN power a steel factory or a railroad? We WILL need them eventually so its better to be prepared.

You may not have seen some of Steve and I's arguments about Global Warming. I am in no way convinced that humans are causing GW. GW may in fact be happening but it's natural not man made. The sacrifices the greens are asking us to do is way overboard. They will hurt rather than help and the planet will do whatever it was going to do.

Get away from our addiction to oil? Thats another subject. Yes, we should do whatever is needed to get away from imported oil.

Mars is having global warming along with us. Could it be the sun or the Mars rover we sent?

Neither. It's Algore.

[fozzie 41]

Al Gore for President '08.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Al Gore for President '08.

Only if you want a Republican in the White House again!

[Robor007 0]

Al Gore for President '08.

Even after an (alleged) defeat in 2000?

[Robor007 0]

Al Gore for President '08.

Only if you want a Republican in the White House again!

That's my concern. The Dem's need to nominate a strong candidate and I'm not sure Gore is the right person. I think most Dems would vote for him - I know I would - but would those on the fence or those leaning right vote for Gore?

[fozzie 41]

Al Gore for President '08.

Even after an (alleged) defeat in 2000?

IF Al gore runs, which he probably wont, he has a great chance of winning. Hee WON in 2000 and is even more known now and has also a bit more (and i'm sorry - i hate this word) celebrity than he did back then.

Honestly, and i know i can't vote in '08, clinton, obama, edwards or gore would all have a great shot at the white house. I don't think the republican candidacy is as strong. Personal Opinion.

I would not vote democrat/republican I would vote for the person who would make the best president which ever party they represented

Oh no!!!! We've chaanged this thread from global warming to 2008 presi run debate!

Edited March 6, 2007 by Lauren and Dave