If we reduce our emissions, perhaps China and India will follow our example, but even if they don't, since when did two wrongs make a right?
Why do we have to choose between a good economy and fighting global warming? Some people say that fighting global warming will cost trillions of dollars. Suppose that is true. The money will go to people who get jobs because of the fight against global warming. If $44,000 will put 1 person to work for one year, $1 trillion will put 22.7 million people to work for one year. And how helpful do you expect people who are too selfish to stop global warming to be for people who must relocate because of rising sea levels?
OM
< What's odd is that those on the other side of the fence see "big oil" as some industrial, money-grubbing evil yet never give a second thought to the above statement.>
Oil companies make hundreds of billions of dollars per year. On the other hand, this tax money that global warming is supposed to raise is 118 years over due and nowhere in sight.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
Cyclops
If I wanted to bring about the collapse of Western civilization, the last thing I would do would be to develop new energy sources.
Lessee.
1. Why should India and China act, if we refuse to? They may be emitting more than us now, but most of the historical increase is from the US and Europe, and I think especially the US.
2. If we act, we will, in the process, improve the technologies needed to run a modern economy and society without fossil fuels. We can then export those technologies to China and India.
3. Sooner or later, we need to do this. Fossil fuels are, by their nature, finite (or, at the very least, very very very very slow to renew). We will *run out*, if we keep using them at anything like the present rate. Better to make the transition to renewable energy now, while we still have a nice cushion of not-too-expensive fossil fuels to ease the shift, than wait until gas is $30/gallon. Less damage to the economy, less damage to the planet, and we don't have to figure out how to put giant sea walls around New York City.
Also, you seem to think there's an either/or here that there isn't. Either we take action against AGW, or we have a good economy. That is what is called a false dichotomy.
Actually global warming is very real, it has happened in the fossil record and indeed a warm climate where land ice does not exist even at the poles is the norm for the Earth. The current interglacial period of an ice age is a rarity and the least stable state. Global Warming would occur even without any contributions from man. The concern is the effects to us if it is during our lifespan and if we have contributed enough to accelerate the process to our lifespan.
As to stopping it, that's entirely a naive concept. Our contributions may be cumulative as it is the release of sequestered carbon in the fossil reserves but it is indeed small compared to natural sources but just as it only takes a small shove to start a boulder rolling down a hill, a small contribution may suffice however just stopping our contribution once the boulder has started to roll will not stop it from rolling down the hill. Even if we stopped all our fossil use, the best that we can hope for is to perhaps slow global warming down to buy us more time to migrate and shift our demographics.
I have no doubt that the concept of stopping global warming is now an industry feeding on futile hopes but that is not to say it isn't worthwhile. Even a slight delay may mean saving thousands of lives and species plus helping to increase the chances of restoring a diverse ecosystem in the new environment. But it will be a very costly effort to our economy so the decisions needed are very difficult ones to make.
People are misled on both sides of the fence but global warming is destined to happen with or without man. The best we can do is to address how we will survive it and preserve our institutions, the latter being more doubtful.
Both sides are in denial, one side believes that simply stopping the pollution will solve the problem, that if we all held hands and sing a happy song that the world would be wonderful, the other side simply does not want to believe it's happening because of the costs if it is.
As to actually stopping it. That isn't entirely impossible but the geo-engineering required could be more destructive than the global warming itself and it would require far more than just slowing or even stopping our pollution.
First, global warming is real. That is not debatable -- it is a proven fact. End of discussion.
IF we do not stop global warming, seal level rise will wipe out every coastal city. ALL of them. In the US that is over 100 million people homeless, sooner or later. We will also see major ecological disruption. That means we don't get food becasue the plants will die.
Loss of glaciers means no fresh water in critical areas --Especially India and China. That is 2.5 billion people with no way to grow food -- and that will result in a major war for survival. We will not escape the consequences of that -- and they are all bad.
BTW: your "denial game" is over. It was created, funded and supported by oil and coal companies trying to protect their markets. They failed. Alternative energy technology is now as cheap or son will be cheaper than fossil fuels. The market will take care fo the rest as people and companies shift to technologgy that saves them money. YOUR GAME IS OVER.
"It’s (AGW) an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”
That statement really resonates with me. What's odd is that those on the other side of the fence see "big oil" as some industrial, money-grubbing evil yet never give a second thought to the above statement.
(AGW) is an "industry" which creates vast amounts of money for some people but it is an "industry" to limit industry so it is OK for certain leftists. The last thing they are worried about is a good economy. They are focused on shackling or destroying industry, redistribution (take from the rich and give to themselves or their interests), and killing free markets which is the heart of freedom and prosperity or they are useful idiots for those who are.
There is a lot of money to be gained by a few.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
There is a lot of political power to be gained by evil people.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Justice and equality are code words for Communism.
Just look at Hobbit's answer. "It is a proven fact" Then when you ask a greenie like Hobbit to prove it, his ilk say. "Nothing can be proven or dis proven." Ha! Ha! Where was all this PROOF? All the greenies have given us is lies, just like Al Gore. That is not proof.
As to Hobbit's claim, "BTW: your "denial game" is over. It was created, funded and supported by oil and coal companies" Oil companies like Climate Change and AGW are enhanced by the Oil Companies. Before Global Warming became a fad we were paying under $1.00 a gallon for gasoline in the US. Oil companys' profits have skyrocketed since Al Gore and his crowd started to scare people.
Also it is not in the best interests of the greenies for cheap efficient fuel.
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Hobbit should learn a few facts before he comes spouting on this site. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I have more if you want to learn Hobbit!
Your quetion is a little vague, but here is an answer for you. First of all people are trying to slow global warming, which is really a poorly defined term. Humans do a lot to alter the self regulated earth. Here are a few tests you can do for yourself:
1. Wait until noon and go stand barefoot in your yard. Then go stand on the black top of the street, (make sure you avoid traffic). NOtice the temperature difference. That is man made climate change.
2. Go stand behind your car and put your hand behind the tail pipe. Make sure to note the temperature of the air arounnd the pipe. Now turn the engine of your car on. Let the engine run for 60 seconds. Now repeat the hand near the tailpipe test. Did you notice any change in the temperature?
Great you have made two experiments, and can now make an observation.
Do these tests prove global warming is real? No, remember we started this discussion debating the correctness of the term Global Warming itself.
What we are concerned about, is the impact of our existence and the way we change the earth to suit our needs. One car cannot overheat the earth, but millions of cars can. One road will not superheat the earth, but Billions of miles of them can. Don't forget that each car needs to be parked as well.
Environmentalists are asking that we try to be as careful as possible. We can only guess what our impact will be, but it could actually be much worse, or not so bad.
As to your concern for the economy, green jobs are jobs, and jobs lead to a better economy.
China and India do pollute like crazy and if you are concerned, then buy american from a company who does not pollute. This cna only cause the Chinese and Indians to change their ways.
Coz global warming makes everything worse it kills animals and plants and humans water resources decrease and air gets hot
They think it can be stopped by taxes . But they cannot command the waves of the sea to stop .
They are deluded
Why do people try to stop global warming. Lets just say for exsample that global warming is real ( I know it's not) but lets just say it is, we can't stop India and china from puting out CO2 and they put out more in one year than we do in two ( not actual numbers) but in any case if we stopped puting out CO2 all together and if CO2 made the world warmer it would not mater. The best thing to do is to establish a good economy so that when the sea levels rise that we have enough money to help the people that need to move to new areas.
Do you want your children to live in a filthy polluted shithole?
did mother nature harmed you
You know nothing
Left wing Prof. Caleb Rossiter recently terminated from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies :
"The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false."
Geoscientst & former UN Consultant Dr. David Kear:
“A huge international bureaucratic industry was born – with Cabinet Ministers, government departments, company sections, travel, conferences, treaties, carbon credits, and carbon trading, and very much more. The challenge was often heard that we must curb our carbon emissions or sacrifice our grandchildren’s well-being. In truth, those children were being saddled with a gigantic debt to pay for everything encompassed by the Warmers’ “carbon footprints”, including the salaries and expenses of the loudest proponents.”
“The widespread obsession with Global-Warming-Climate-Change, in opposition to all?factual evidence, is quite incredible. It leads to unfair treatment of some citizens, and?a massive bill for all, for nothing useful. When will citizens revolt effectively against?such callous disregard for their observations and wishes, by those who are essentially?their elected employees?”
Left wing Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa:
“Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,”
“When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines”
“They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks,” he said. “They are weekend activists…looking for lies to hitch onto.”
“Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes. I have great distrust for it. It is not motivated by true concern for social justice and the environment. It can only be about powerful financiers. I see it as an horrendous scam,” Rancourt said, adding he “I completely agree” with UK environmental guru James Lovelock who called carbon trading “verging on a gigantic scam.”
Greenpeace co-founder Peter Moore:
"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years…The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment…In a warmer world we can produce more food.”
'People need to study the long history of the Earth. These true believers in climate change are only looking at the last 100 years. That is a blink in nature's eye. We've had billions of years of climate history in this world, and if you look at just the half billion of them, the most recent half billion, you will see that CO2 is lower now than it has been through most of the history of life on Earth, and so is the temperature.'
Peter Moore when asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, said:
“A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”
Emeritus Professor?Chemical?Thermodynamics Dr.?Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s?School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science?and a former NASA researcher:
'The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis'
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.”
“The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
‘Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.”
“‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money.”
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.”
“Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.”
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.”
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
“Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.”
IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer:
“…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.? Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Maurice Strong:
We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
"Climate Realist
Cyclops
If I wanted to bring about the collapse of Western civilization, the last thing I would do would be to develop new energy sources."
- I didnt know you are Maurice.
