Disagreements over the Science Behind Global Climate Change

[Chirimoya]

Known affectionately as the Torygraph, It's the most conservative of the quality dailies, but not one of the sleazy tabloids.

Left to right: Guardian/Independent (interchangeable) - Times - Telegraph.

[Robert]

I re-opened the thread.

Moderator. Don't engage posters that you think are trolls, just delete their posts, they will soon get the message. If they attack you personally, pass them my way and I will delete their accounts.

Carry on....

[Keith R]

The Big Boss has spoken. Now behave, children. My finger knows where the delete button is. ;-)

Keith R
Environment Forum Moderator

[bob saunders]

As in any discussion there are always at least two sides of an argument. If you recycle plastic and make fences posts out of them, is this a greener industry that cutting the trees down to build a fence ourtof wood?

[NALs]

All this "global warming is real vs. no is not" debate reminds me of the Malthusian economists, sort of left leaning who predicted in the 1970s that by the year 2000 Britain was not going to exist and capitalism as we know it was suppose to collapse because.... are you ready.... we were going to run out of resources!

Do I need to say what actually happened?

All this scaremongering does little in the long run.

Its like the people that have been saying the end is near. They have been at it for the past 2,000 years with their "the end is near" argument. I'm not saying the world is not going to end, but you do have to wonder as to the validity of such arguments that almost guarantee worldwide destruction lest everyone jumps on the bandwagon and it will all be "saved". I mean, the track record of such arguments are detrimental at best.

My point?

I am leaning more towards Cobraboy and Bob Saunders in this global warming debate.

In the mean time, I'll take a look at more green stocks rather than the global warming debate because the stocks are hot hot hot while the debate is not!

No pun intended, if there was a pun somewhere.

-NALs

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by NALs

All this "global warming is real vs. no is not" debate reminds me of the Malthusian economists, sort of left leaning who predicted in the 1970s that by the year 2000 Britain was not going to exist and capitalism as we know it was suppose to collapse because.... are you ready.... we were going to run out of resources!

Do I need to say what actually happened?

All this scaremongering does little in the long run.

Its like the people that have been saying the end is near. They have been at it for the past 2,000 years with their "the end is near" argument. I'm not saying the world is not going to end, but you do have to wonder as to the validity of such arguments that almost guarantee worldwide destruction lest everyone jumps on the bandwagon and it will all be "saved". I mean, the track record of such arguments are detrimental at best.

My point?

I am leaning more towards Cobraboy and Bob Saunders in this global warming debate.

In the mean time, I'll take a look at more green stocks rather than the global warming debate because the stocks are hot hot hot while the debate is not!

No pun intended, if there was a pun somewhere.

-NALs

Translation: GW=hot stocks; at least that game plan of the Venture Capitalists that recently hired Algore, anyway (I posted the link).

Here is one for you, NALs: can you name me a UN committee or group that wasn't a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare? With that track record, why, pray tell, should we put the economic future of the world in their hands?

[NALs]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Translation: GW=hot stocks; at least that game plan of the Venture Capitalists that recently hired Algore, anyway (I posted the link).

Here is one for you, NALs: can you name me a UN committee or group that wasn't a corrupt bureaucratic nightmare? With that track record, why, pray tell, should we put the economic future of the world in their hands?

The UN (and other international organizations) has been corrupt from day one. However, I think the UN is currently at its most corrupt level.

The economic future of the world should be in the hands of the global consumer since they are the one's that decide what they want and what they don't want. Governments and/or pseudo global governments needs to keep their hands to themselves and let the markets alone. Other than the minimal interaction needed from government to maintain the economic vitality of the global economy, governments and international organizations should never hold the economic future of the world on a string laden with a cap of political rhetoric.

-NALs

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by NALs

The UN (and other international organizations) has been corrupt from day one. However, I think the UN is currently at its most corrupt level.

The economic future of the world should be in the hands of the global consumer since they are the one's that decide what they want and what they don't want. Governments and/or pseudo global governments needs to keep their hands to themselves and let the markets alone. Other than the minimal interaction needed from government to maintain the economic vitality of the global economy, governments and international organizations should never hold the economic future of the world on a string laden with a cap of political rhetoric.

-NALs

Well said, thank you...

[Keith R]

If you guys want to engage in a rant on the UN, no prob, just take it to a new thread in another forum, not here. This thread is about the possible impact of global climate change on the DR.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by Chris

The Stern Review
Hang in there ... it is big and I predict that it will be read in its entirety by very few

I have seen that before.

So the country that commissioned what became the IPCC in the first place then commissions another gubmint branch to do a "study" to lessen the economic blow of the IPCC mandates? And we're 'sposed to believe that, too?

Did YOU actually read what he stated in the Executive Summary? His postulates and basis? Girl, it's BASED on the faulty science the IPCC promotes!!!!!!!!!!!

Did YOU even read it? It says the "rich" countries must decrease their carbon emissions by 60-80% by 2050, and the Third World-this includes China and India-don't have to do squat. I'd cut and paste a TON from it, but it's in read-only .pdf and cannot be done.

Okey Dokey

Originally Posted by Chris

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/11/pdf/energy_chapter.pdf"]Capturing the Energy Opportunity[/url]
I guess very few will read this one completely as well.

I'm reading this part of your post and trying to figure out if you are serious or not.

I have read this one too, loooong before you posted it.

You DO understand, no doubt, that the CAP was founded in 2003 as "the official Hillary Clinton think tank" (per the UPI). Bill Clinton's former Chief of Staff, John Podesta, was hand-picked to run it. Even the socialist publication The Nation called it a "shadow government, kind of a Clinton White House in exile". Heck, even Hillary bragged about kicking it off. Additionally, CAP birthed the Hillary media watchdog group, Media Matters, who also gets funding from George Soros groups.

Please explain to me how I'm supposed to take an obvious political organization's study, designed to get ONE Presidential candidate elected Prez of the US, seriously. Political organizations exist for one purpose: to serve themselves and their agenda, first and foremost.