Who stands to make money off climate change?

chuckie darwin wrote:

Ha, suddenly the Wall F***ing Street Journal casts making a profit as sinister?? I love it!

Who stands to make money off clothing people?

Who stands to make money off providing entertainment and art?

Who stands to make money off protecting our citizens?

Surely those economic activities are just as evil and selfishly motivated as attempting to clean the environment, save a few resources, and reduce the potentially catastrophic affects of global warming / climate change / whatever the name du jour?

You see, the difference between making money selling carbon credits is different from all of what you listed. Everything you listed is either a product or a service.

Al Gore stands to make a buttload of money by brokering sales of NOTHING. Al Gore has managed to find a way to make money by getting people to do less, and having people who do more pay for the privilege. It really is a fascinating scheme, almost too clever.

1) Spend a little seed money to make a movie to "raise awareness" of something that the average person doesn't understand.

2)People (and their representatives) get concerned, pay scientists to research it. The more scientists raise the alarm, the more we pay them to tell us what needs to happen.

3)Set yourself up as the premier broker of the economic penance that scientists and politicians say we have to pay to make nature happy again.

The crazies who already were believers in global warming get paid by major corporations, scientists get paid to "prove" it is occurring and forecast just how bad it will be, and Al Gore gets richer running his Carbon Brothel.

While I can agree with a lot of what you said, please don't denigrate scientists. I am a scientist, though not in climate change, and we are NEVER paid to "prove" what the funding agencies want. That is the difference between science in the USA and science in South Korea or China. We are independent and motivated by the science itself. People like you spread these lies about science and give us a bad name.

DA wrote:

major major major major wrote:

The term "climate change" is funny. Isn't the climate always changing?

Wow, the ignorance! My 8 year-old knows the difference between climate and and weather, sorry to see that you do not.

What is really amazing is that you don't know the difference between the meanings of the words "climate" and "weather", but you question the validity of a problem - man's effect on climate change - that is almost universally accepted by climatologists.

Please stay out of this one, it is clearly way over your head.

Wow, the ignorance! Have you ever heard of the term "Ice Age"? Or "Interglacial Warm Period"? The climate of the Earth has been much, much warmer (10+ degrees) and much, much cooler(15+ degrees) at various points of the Earth's recent history. And by recent history, I mean withing the last couple of million years, which is also about the length of time that close relatives of modern humans took to turn into us.

Humans "civilization" didn't occur until after the last ice age ended. Human presence in Europe and the Americas didn't take place until 12-20k years ago, after the ices caps began to retreat and life returned to the areas formerly covered in miles of ice. Yes, the planet warms and cools, and it has had MUCH BIGGER swings in global temperatures thousands of times without any human interference at all. How sure are we that what we're observing is us? Sure enough to make radical changes in everyday life to satisfy forces we don't understand and can't control?

Please stay out of this one, it is clearly way over your head.

Rereading my post, I do have to correct one thing- It has been longer than a couple of million years since it was that warm. You'd have to go back more along the lines of 10 million years to get that much warmer than it is now.

I am reservedly proud of many of the American people on this one. They have not fallen for the alarmists who shout "consensus" everywhere they go. Before you can have an agreement of all the scientists in the world, you have to have someone who can conduct a scientific poll first. So far, I don't think I've seen any of those. Many notable scientists have spoken out against climate change. If they're not flaunting their false consensus effect (an actual psychological condition that these global warming alarmists undoubtedly are under the influence of), then they're telling people that all the evidence supports global warming without actually encouraging them to look at their evidence.

Oh, yeah, and then there are these people who will hold global warming on the same pedestal as evolution as the only two established theories of science that are questioned. That is just too funny.

Thanks for the link.

Yes, but only the ones who are motivated to prove what the funding agencies want get funded.

Good God, we have some dumbass motherfvckers on this board. Dumb. Ass. Motherfvckers.

That's not true. Other scientist review the merits on a grant application not politicians or bureaucrats

NNW wrote:

Yes, but only the ones who are motivated to prove what the funding agencies want get funded.

Sure, there is peer review but it is the scientific establishment at these agencies that biases funding.

I'd like a list of the "many notable scientists who have spoken out," and their current peer-reviewed publications regarding climate science. Please show me.

All the actions being discussed to combat climate change are futile without China's support. Chinese CO2 emissions are increasing about 500MT/year. That's more than the rest of the world combined. (US increases are about 24MT/year.).

Here is what that means. (Source is IEA and EIA data)

If the United States converted every household lightbulb to CFLs, that decrease in CO2 emissions would be offset by China in 18 weeks.

If the United States signed and met it's Kyoto goal (20% reduction of 1990 levels) immediately, that decrease would be offset by China in 18 months. If the EU and the US met its Kyoto goals, it would take only 24 months for China to offset those decreases.

If the US parked every car, truck, bus, and other vehicles immediately, eliminating 100% of CO2 emissions from transportation, that would be a huge decline in CO2 emissions, but it would be offset by Chinese increases in less than 6 years.

All these cap and trade proposals and so on will have no significant effect on global CO2 emissions without China's support and China has shown no desire to reduce CO2 emissions. In fact, they are doing just the opposite. China is building one new coal-fired electric power plant per week.

There's hope...

[/quote]

Wow, the ignorance! Have you ever heard of the term "Ice Age"? Or "Interglacial Warm Period"? The climate of the Earth has been much, much warmer (10+ degrees) and much, much cooler(15+ degrees) at various points of the Earth's recent history. And by recent history, I mean withing the last couple of million years, which is also about the length of time that close relatives of modern humans took to turn into us.

Humans "civilization" didn't occur until after the last ice age ended. Human presence in Europe and the Americas didn't take place until 12-20k years ago, after the ices caps began to retreat and life returned to the areas formerly covered in miles of ice. Yes, the planet warms and cools, and it has had MUCH BIGGER swings in global temperatures thousands of times without any human interference at all. How sure are we that what we're observing is us? Sure enough to make radical changes in everyday life to satisfy forces we don't understand and can't control?

Please stay out of this one, it is clearly way over your head.[/quote]

Yup, the last time the earth warmed substantially (>15 F) there was a giant sea running through the middle of much of the midwest. You can go to areas of SW Minnesota and see solidified beaches of this ancient body of water in the form of exposed rock. It's pretty nifty. If you have young kids I hope they enjoy extraordinarily expensive food because much of the south US will become a permanent dust bowl by 2100 taking away much of our current farm land. Half of all species gone by 2100 as well and the ocean will be a hot acidic dead zone. It'll be a beautiful destruction. We shouldn't concern ourselves with saving the earth. It doesn't need saving. This is about saving a semblance of humanity for the not too distant future.

huh... wrote:

If you have young kids I hope they enjoy extraordinarily expensive food because much of the south US will become a permanent dust bowl by 2100 taking away much of our current farm land. Half of all species gone by 2100 as well and the ocean will be a hot acidic dead zone. It'll be a beautiful destruction. We shouldn't concern ourselves with saving the earth. It doesn't need saving. This is about saving a semblance of humanity for the not too distant future.

According to who? Al Gore? There hasn't been a single scientific report predicting a change that drastic. But there have been plenty of alarmist fantasy scenarios like this.

Look on another thread. I'm not going to. Other threads have lists.

All you have to say is that some of the same scientist that are screaming about "global warming" or "climate change" now are the same ones who cried about "globabl cooling" back in the 70s.

Ok so now some scientist come out now and say oh yeah no we made a mistake back then...blah blah blah. If thats the case how do we know they just aren't making another mistake now?

huh... wrote:

Yup, the last time the earth warmed substantially (>15 F) there was a giant sea running through the middle of much of the midwest.

And the temperature rose .4 F in the last hundred years. Let's talk again when we get to at least one full degree F.

Congratualations! You're one of the most foolish people on the internet today.

That's no small accomplishment...